• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Weather facts vs. fantasy

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
17,941
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Harvard researchers published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (A large increase in U.S. methane emissions over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations - Turner - 2016 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library) last month indicating that U.S. levels of atmospheric methane, a greenhouse gas, increased more than 30 percent between 2002 and 2014. The scientists compiled satellite and surface readings of methane to arrive at their finding, one that directly contradicts the EPA’s estimate that methane during that period had not risen at all, owing to the agency’s efforts to hold it down with air-quality regulations.
Click to expand...

In defiance of computer-model forecasts, there has been an 18-year “pause” in the warming trend even as heat-trapping gas was supposed to have billowed across the landscape. The contradiction between prediction and measurement has the look of a well-cooked hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Asked at a House committee hearing to explain the point of air quality rules that won’t have measurable impact on temperatures, Ms. McCarthy answered, “We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
Click to expand...

Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
 
I'm unsure exactly how you came to this conclusion given this information.
 
Deuce said:
I'm unsure exactly how you came to this conclusion given this information.
Click to expand...

There are other sources. Apparently, you didn't read the paper.

Par for the course...
 
bubbabgone said:
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
Click to expand...

So ... methane emissions are up, and the denialati say that proves that we need less methane regulation?

Only in Denierstan does such an argument pass for logical.
 
Poor Debater said:
So ... methane emissions are up, and the denialati say that proves that we need less methane regulation?

Only in Denierstan does such an argument pass for logical.
Click to expand...

Let me explain ... the "A" in AGW doesn't stand for "All termites" and it occurs far more in nature. You've heard of nature.

The links suggest 3 things ... (1) humans aren't responsible for the methane increase which (2) hasn't had the effect on warming that the models predicted anyway and 3) when they build the predictive models they use hindsight and start with the conclusion they want to reach and gather whatever data they can that will support that conclusion.

That 3rd one wasn't actually directly stated in those links but given that AGW is being used for other purposes, as we see, you must know those IPPC honchos know where they want their career paths to take them so they're all to willing to feed the elites what they need.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. " S. Fred Singer, B.E.E electrical engineering, A.M. physics, Ph.D. physics
 
bubbabgone said:
Let me explain ... the "A" in AGW doesn't stand for "All termites" and it occurs far more in nature. You've heard of nature.

The links suggest 3 things ... (1) humans aren't responsible for the methane increase
Click to expand...

You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.

bubbabgone said:
which (2) hasn't had the effect on warming that the models predicted anyway
Click to expand...

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.

bubbabgone said:
and 3) when they build the predictive models they use hindsight and start with the conclusion they want to reach and gather whatever data they can that will support that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!

bubbabgone said:
That 3rd one wasn't actually directly stated in those links but given that AGW is being used for other purposes, as we see, you must know those IPPC honchos know where they want their career paths to take them so they're all to willing to feed the elites what they need.
Click to expand...

Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.
 
Poor Debater said:
You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!

Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.
Click to expand...

I'm lost; is Denierstan a person or a place? It sounds like a country to me. If you want it to be a person (and thus capable of "striking out") it should be Denier Stan. It just seems like you are mixing your metaphors.
 
Poor Debater said:
You have provided NO evidence that suggests that, including in your link. Denier FAIL.
Click to expand...


It was in the link - "The trend is largest in the central part of the country, but we cannot readily attribute it to any specific source type."

You have provided NO evidence of that either. Denier FAIL.
Click to expand...


It was in the post - "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. " S. Fred Singer, B.E.E electrical engineering, A.M. physics, Ph.D. physics


Surprise, surprise, surprise. No evidence of that either. Strike THREE, Denierstan is Outtathere!



Oh right. Every day I see those rich climatologists lounging on the beach at St. Tropez.
Click to expand...

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Click to expand...

Paying attention is your friend.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I'm lost; is Denierstan a person or a place? It sounds like a country to me. If you want it to be a person (and thus capable of "striking out") it should be Denier Stan. It just seems like you are mixing your metaphors.
Click to expand...

Denierstan is a state of mind.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Which describes your mind when it comes to real science.
Click to expand...

This from a guy who denies real science.

Projection (n.) A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, whereby that which is emotionally unacceptable in the self is rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
 
[h=2]Drought links[/h] May 11, 2016 Climate: WG2
902844-27019690-thumbnail.jpg
In the aftermath of my GWPF paper on drought the other day, ECIU has published a piece on the same subject. Entitled "Syria and climate change - did the media get it right?" it looks at the execrable Kelley et al paper that I have been so critical of over the last year or so. The author, Alex Randall, describes the paper as "measured and robust", which is a surprising thing to say about research that blamed a long-term, but slight decline in rainfall in Iran for social unrest in Syria, but as someone once said "Hey, it's climate science".
His case is that the media have been misleading the public, hyping Kelley's paper and creating illusory links to the unrest. No doubt he is thinking of people like the ECIU.
In a companion piece, Randall claims that
the media reporting and the Kelley paper were also broadly consistent with research exploring the impacts of drought on migration and displacement across the world. Specifically, there is strong evidence linking climate change impacts such as drought with patterns of rural to urban migration.
​
But if you read his links you find only support for the hypothesis that drought causes migration. With no evidence that climate change causes droughts to become more intense or more prevalent, our green friends are left to insert the word "climate change" whereever they can, and to hope that nobody notices what they are up to.


 
Poor Debater said:
This from a guy who denies real science.

Projection (n.) A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, whereby that which is emotionally unacceptable in the self is rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
Click to expand...

That certainly explains your obsessive use of the "denier" label.
 
jmotivator said:
That certainly explains your obsessive use of the "denier" label.
Click to expand...

No, actually my use of the "denier" label is explained by the obsessive denial of science. By deniers.
 
bubbabgone said:
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
Click to expand...

I have never seen such a misleading and unscientific article. There is a source for all that methane and it ain't TERMITES.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.
Click to expand...

Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian
 
bubbabgone said:
Huh?

Meaning, global redistribution is the goal, facts be damned.

EDITORIAL: Climate change facts vs. fantasy - Washington Times

yes yes yes ... before anyone says anything, this was an editorial but I included the link to the paper it referenced.

The funny thing is that one of the biggest, maybe even THE biggest, contributor of methane & CO2 is ... wait for it ... termites.
But don't repeat that or the Obama Administration will associate the lower termite population in big cities with the benefits of Democrat Party policies.
Click to expand...
So it is termites in China that resulted in air quality going down on the west coast after years of improvement. Oh wait, pollution and C02 and not the same. Now back to the three monkeys:

View attachment 67201264
 
Poor Debater said:
No, actually my use of the "denier" label is explained by the obsessive denial of science. By deniers.
Click to expand...

See how you are projecting? Such irony.
 
Casper said:
So it is termites in China that resulted in air quality going down on the west coast after years of improvement. Oh wait, pollution and C02 and not the same.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...
 
jmotivator said:
I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...
Click to expand...

Maybe you can point it out.............................Oh you mean talking to those that only see what they want, yes, pointless in the extreme.
 
iguanaman said:
I have never seen such a misleading and unscientific article. There is a source for all that methane and it ain't TERMITES.


...
Click to expand...

Which one? There were 2 articles referenced.
 
Casper said:
Maybe you can point it out.............................Oh you mean talking to those that only see what they want, yes, pointless in the extreme.
Click to expand...

You admit that California's pollution has declined even while their fuel burn rate hasn't actually declined significantly... so by the Cali example pollution and CO2 production are not as tightly coupled as you want to believe. China is so poluted because they don't care to implement technology to control pollution in the process of burning fossil fuels.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm wondering if you actually can't see how self defeating your argument is...
Click to expand...

You mean you think you understood what he thought he was trying to say? Seemed a little unhinged and contradictory and thus best left alone.
 
bubbabgone said:
You mean you think you understood what he thought he was trying to say? Seemed a little unhinged and contradictory and thus best left alone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I deciphered it... at least I think I did. I think they think that California cleared up it's pollution by reducing fossil fuel use.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, I deciphered it... at least I think I did. I think they think that California cleared up it's pollution by reducing fossil fuel use.
Click to expand...

Oooooh only in Cailifornia.
Guess it's one of those local not global phenomenon unique to CO2 that I keep hearing about.
That goes a real long way to help explain data that doesn't conform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom