Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree44Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 26th, 2017, 02:43 PM   #51
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Why do you fear women so much?
He doesn't get any. It is called compensating.
Thanks from Clara007
Camelot is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 02:45 PM   #52
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
The statement that ALL warming is due to human activity is not the way to look at it.

We are talking about an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is the direct cause of climate change.

There are two sources of greenhouse gases, natural and man made.

The natural sources have always existed but have been offset by the natural ways in which greenhouse gases have been removed thus maintaining a delicate balance.

What human activity has done is upset that balance.

Think of it as a balance scale. On one side the weights represent how much gas is generated, the other side represents how much gas is removed. As long as both sides are equal it remains balanced. Human activity (especially over the last 150 years) has upset the balance by adding weight to the generation side AND removing weight from the removal side. The addition and subtraction is small compared to the natural sources of generation and removal but it is enough to tip the scale AND we continue to add and subtract which accelerates the problem.
STUDY: Most Global Warming Is Natural | The Daily Caller
webguy4 is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 02:54 PM   #53
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
That's the same bullshit study from the Australian denier site you tried to foist on us in a thread the other day. It's just as much crap today as it was then.
RNG is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:21 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
As I said the amount of greenhouse gas produced by natural sources far outweighs that produced by man made sources. But that isn't the question, it's the INBALANCE between production and removal that causes global warming. That imbalance is caused by human activity in two ways. Human activity adds to the production of greenhouse gases AND it reduces the removal through deforestation.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 06:53 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
As I said the amount of greenhouse gas produced by natural sources far outweighs that produced by man made sources. But that isn't the question, it's the INBALANCE between production and removal that causes global warming. That imbalance is caused by human activity in two ways. Human activity adds to the production of greenhouse gases AND it reduces the removal through deforestation.
I told you that the Sun is cooling to counteract the greenhouse effect. Devine Intervention no less. Somebody or something is watching and protecting our ass, an inconvenient truth.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old August 26th, 2017, 07:34 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Where? The Science Channel used an orange filter and none were visible. What your picture shows in black and white is the Corona.
Here's a color shot.



I haven't seen one photo that captured what my eyes saw. Several other friends who saw it agree. Blues and violets were visible in the corona.

Another shot.

imaginethat is online now  
Old August 27th, 2017, 06:48 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
"Some scientists" is a very small minority.
There you have it then. If a majority of the scientists believe something then all other questioning should not be allowed! Brilliant
Thanks from webguy4
guy39 is offline  
Old August 27th, 2017, 07:06 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 4,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
The religious fundamentalist would go berserk !! We're never ever supposed to have sex for fun. Removing the risk if pregnancy is just NOT allowed !!!!
We could at least start by not paying people to have children in the US.
Libertine is offline  
Old August 27th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Quote:
Why the IPA's claim global warming is natural is 'junk science'

Graham Readfearn

Friday 25 August 2017 18.08 EDT


...

The gory details

So what did Abbot and Marohasy do? Here’s where we get into the gory detail.

First, the pair used what’s known as proxy temperature records. These are estimates of past temperatures going back as far as 50AD that have been estimated from analysis of things such as tree rings and lake sediments.

There are hundreds of these temperature records but the authors chose only six, and they don’t say why they chose the ones they did.

They then fed these temperature records into several pieces of software and finally into another piece of software that performs a “machine learning” process. Out the other end comes a series of temperature reconstructions, from which Abbot and Marohasy make two claims.

First, they claim that their resulting data shows the world would have warmed by almost as much as it already has, even if the industrial revolution had not happened and we had not added any extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Second, they claim that if you were to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then you would eventually see planet-wide warming of just 0.6C. Their estimate of this “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) is much lower than other studies (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says, for example, that studies show the likely range will be between 1.5C and 4C).

So what did the scientists think?

Schmidt told me by email the paper was worthless “on a number of measures” and in his opinion demonstrated “what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work”.

Schmidt wrote that “conceptually this methodology can’t possibly work” because the way the authors had calculated the climate’s sensitivity had assumed that all the natural variability was part of the planet’s internal systems, rather than being “forced” externally by volcanic eruptions or changes in the output of the sun.

This, Schmidt said, was “in contradiction to their claims elsewhere in the paper.”

Schmidt also says “something went wrong” when Abbot and Marohasy digitised their results, meaning that for the northern hemisphere the data had shifted by about 35 years “so what they think is 2000, is actually 1965”. This meant that a huge part of modern warming had been missed.

Dr Benjamin Henley, of the University of Melbourne, has published several studies using proxy data to understand ancient climates. He says the paper should never have been published and should be withdrawn.

“The paper is seriously flawed and should be retracted by the journal,” Henley told me by email, pointing out several serious issues with the way the data had been used.

Henley questioned why only six “paleoclimate” records had been used, when a recent paper identified some 692 proxy records that could be used to determine temperatures.

He said the authors had not tried to verify their approach by comparing their data to actual temperature measurements – an “extremely unscientific approach”.

“The results are incorrectly interpreted and are not verified or even compared to observed instrumental data. The conclusions are not supported by the results.”

Methodology flaws

Forster reviewed the paper and told me he thought “the methodology is unphysical” because it simply took data and then extrapolated it rather than accounting for what was actually known to be happening in the real world.

Forster said the paper contained “fundamental errors” and gave me a detailed rundown.

For example, Forster says Marohasy and Abbot’s methodology assumes that all previous natural swings, or oscillations, in temperature that happened before the industrial revolution would continue up to present day.

In reality there a very few periodic or quasi-periodic oscillations in the Earth system. In reality most are random and not periodic. Volcanoes are the biggest issue. Their method assumes that any periodicity caused by volcanoes prior to 1880 has simply continued though to 2000. We know this is not the case and have a good handle on what volcanic activity has been – it was nothing like it was prior to 1880. Their approach is therefore completely unphysical. They also assume that oscillations seen at a given proxy location will also cause the same oscillation on global average or hemispheric average temperatures. We know this is not the case.


He said the authors had assumed most of the 1C warming that the planet had seen was caused by random variation, “but we know this is not the case.” He said the paper’s conclusion the ECS was only 0.6C could be ruled out entirely.

He said: “Attribution studies with careful statistics put random variability (of the climate) as contributing a maximum of around 0.2C. With 1C of warming already, and only halfway to doubling CO2, we can rule out ECS below about 1.5 C already.”

Sherwood wrote: “The analysis by the authors seems to work like magic.

“What is interesting about this fancy curve-fitting exercise is that the authors are doing exactly what mainstream climate scientists have falsely been accused of doing: extrapolating into the future from short past records.

“There is much evidence that recent warming is unprecedented, for example ancient ice in various mountain regions such as Peru that is now melting for the first time in millennia. Thus the authors’ conclusion is contradicted by direct physical evidence. Also, the authors are alleging that the climate can exert large natural swings in temperature but is insensitive to heating. This is a contradiction.”

Prof David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, told me the study “appears to be junk science” and listed several major issues with the paper’s methodology.

He said the authors had not bothered to describe the detailed method they had used to calculate ECS, adding: “ECS is based on global mean temperature changes and cannot be estimated without the globally averaged temperature estimates first.”

“In my view the claimed conclusions are not supported by the methods used and the results are likely to be unreliable,” he said.

So none of this is a surprise.

The IPA, which does not have to reveal its funders, has long pushed climate science denial, while promoting fossil fuels and denigrating renewable energy. It’s what they do.

...


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...l-junk-science

Thanks from RNG
baloney_detector is offline  
Old August 27th, 2017, 07:37 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
There you have it then. If a majority of the scientists believe something then all other questioning should not be allowed! Brilliant
Allowed? Absolutely

Taken seriously? Probably not.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
eclipse



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Get out and watch the eclipse!! imaginethat Science and Technology 8 September 27th, 2015 09:42 PM
Top 1% Eclipse 50% of All Wealth Tony Economics 13 January 20th, 2015 02:13 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.