• 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!

Is it too late to avoid catastrophe?

Tim the plumber said:
You keep being utterly unable to answer the question.

And yes, so far the worst is a possible slight increase in forrest fires in SW USA. ALthough those who seem to know what they are talking about on the subject say that the changes in forrest management account for all of the trouble.

Certainly if people who live in houses in forrests that are subject to the threat of fire don't have a pond or pool and a pump which will work when the mains electricity has gone and drench the immediate surroundings of the house and the outside of the house as well for an hour they should not complain when the inevitable happens.
Click to expand...

Unable to answer??? I just have you a published, peer reviewed scientific article and, since your scientific acumen leaves much to be desired, an article with a SIMPLE GRAPHIC that clearly and succinctly answered the very question you posed, with multiple datapoints.

Yet you don’t seem to comprehend.

Again... what’s wrong with you?

Surely even YOU can see the problem?
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but there's no evidence in the paper for that.
Click to expand...

Except for the passage I just posted, and the entire point of the paper as well as the thrust of the editorial that was posted and the opinions of both the authors....you are absolutely correct.
 
Jack Hays said:
Leaving aside your deflection to the silliness of announcing results derived from models, the point was that droughts experienced in our era are neither exceptional nor unprecedented.
Click to expand...

You remind of an older generation whining about statistics.

Models are a standard tool now.

Point is, you were perfectly happy with that work until it embarassed you.
 
threegoofs said:
except for the passage i just posted, and the entire point of the paper as well as the thrust of the editorial that was posted and the opinions of both the authors....you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

ssdd...
 
Threegoofs said:
Elsewhere on the net I can see proof that the earth is flat, too.
Click to expand...

That's NOAA's chart not the Flat Earth Society or any other nutbag site.

I did a state by state Climate at a Glance precipitation trend several years ago.
California, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado showed a decreasing trend since
1898 back then. And geographically that IS a significant area.

A repeat of those states today shows a slight upward trend for Wyoming and
Colorado, but all four states, CA, MT, CO & WY trends are essentially flat.

Besides all that you claimed "Megadrought" in your earlier post.

And then there's this:

california-historical-droughts.png
 
Threegoofs said:
Except for the passage I just posted, and the entire point of the paper as well as the thrust of the editorial that was posted and the opinions of both the authors....you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

Editorials, opinions and models . . . Oh my! All to try to explain away the data.
 
late said:
You remind of an older generation whining about statistics.

Models are a standard tool now.

Point is, you were perfectly happy with that work until it embarassed you.
Click to expand...

I'm still quite happy with it. It makes an important skeptic point. The rest is just hand-waving.
As Steve McIntyre has demonstrated, there's nothing wrong with statistics, but there's a lot wrong with people claiming to use statistics but not knowing how.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm still quite happy with it. It makes an important skeptic point. The rest is just hand-waving.
As Steve McIntyre has demonstrated, there's nothing wrong with statistics, but there's a lot wrong with people claiming to use statistics but not knowing how.
Click to expand...

Just as there's a lot of people claiming to use climate science, but not knowing how.

Which you demonstrate here regularly.
 
Masterhawk said:
I sure hope it isn't too late because wind and solar are on the rise. From 2000 to 2017, wind went from supplying just 0.15% of America's electrical consumption to 6.33% and solar went from a measly 0.013% to 1.32%. Granted, both have a long way to go before totally replacing fossil fuels but they're clearly making progress.
Click to expand...


Solar sucks unless you live in a sunny place or have no other options.
 
Tim the plumber said:
+2c will have to get going soon or the whole thing will look like it is never going to happen.

At rates of warming since 1998 it will be about 200 years before we get there.
Click to expand...

And if you cherry pick a different timeframe you can get there in 50
 
late said:
Your incessant propaganda pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Left-wing liberal "Progressive" Democrats haven't been
this pissed off since Abraham Lincoln freed their slaves.
 
Deuce said:
And if you cherry pick a different timeframe you can get there in 50
Click to expand...
Actually in the GISS record there are only 3 or 4 years that meet the decade average rate necessary to warm by
1.1 C in the next 5 decades, mind you it would have to meet that average for 50 years in a row.
If any cherry picking is going on, it would be on the side that projects the future based on less than 4% of the record.
 
Steve Case said:
Left-wing liberal "Progressive" Democrats haven't been
this pissed off since Abraham Lincoln freed their slaves.
Click to expand...

I see you understand political history as well as you understand climate science.

It must be hard going through life in such a state.
 
Steve Case said:
So they are refining data that's over 135 years old. Well, they're
changing all the data every month. Here's what it looks like:


Code: 
LOTI June 2018
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
1880   -30  -18  -11  -20  -12  -23  -21   -9  -16  -24  -20  -23 
1881   -16  -18    3    3    1  -21   -8   -4  -15  -22  -23  -12 
1882    13   13    3  -20  -17  -27  -22   -6  -11  -26  -17  -25
2018    78   81   91   87   83   77

LOTI May 2018
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
1880   -29  -18  -11  -20  -12  -23  -21   -9  -16  -23  -20  -23 
1881   -15  -17    4    4    2  -20   -7   -2  -14  -21  -22  -11 
1882    14   15    4  -19  -16  -26  -21   -5  -10  -25  -16  -24
2018    77   80   90   85   82

Changes:  
Year   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
1880	-1    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0   -1    0    0
1881	-1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -2   -1   -1   -1   -1
1882	-1   -2   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1   -1
2018    +1   +1   +1   +2   +1

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).

I'm sure you noticed that all the changes for 1880-1882 are negative
and the "refinements" to the entries for the first five months of 2018
have been bumped up.

These change per the note from GISS are in hundredths of a degree
but over time they add up.

A re-read of your link
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
Doesn't turn up the answer about the pattern and doesn't explain why
100 year old data is updated every single month.

If you query GISS directly you get this answer:



Dr. Rito expects us to believe that it's difficult to program their computer to remember
to make the correction to future readings. His answer doesn't say anything about
why 100 year old data is adjusted month after month or why a clear pattern emerges.
Your link doesn't address those two points either.
Click to expand...

This looks like the same pattern that those two stats guys found with mann's hockey stick graph.
No matter what data sets were used the program always resulted in a hockey stick.

Which is not possible. The only way it is possible is if you are purposely distorting data.
It very much looks like they are slowly taking heat from the past and pushing it forward.

These are the types of things that make it look very dishonest.
 
ludin said:
This looks like the same pattern that those two stats guys found with mann's hockey stick graph.
No matter what data sets were used the program always resulted in a hockey stick.

Which is not possible. The only way it is possible is if you are purposely distorting data.
It very much looks like they are slowly taking heat from the past and pushing it forward.

These are the types of things that make it look very dishonest.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it looks like.
 
ludin said:
This looks like the same pattern that those two stats guys found with mann's hockey stick graph.
No matter what data sets were used the program always resulted in a hockey stick.

Which is not possible. The only way it is possible is if you are purposely distorting data.
It very much looks like they are slowly taking heat from the past and pushing it forward.

These are the types of things that make it look very dishonest.
Click to expand...

Just say it.

It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy.
 
Threegoofs said:
Just say it.

It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It's political group think, a club of "right thinking" people who share the same opinion.
These people have gravitated toward politics, academia, & journalism. Many of them
have a vested interest keeping the notion alive. Confirmation bias rules, information
contrary to the narrative is attacked or ignored, and propaganda techniques are liberally
applied.
 
Steve Case said:
It's political group think, a club of "right thinking" people who share the same opinion.
These people have gravitated toward politics, academia, & journalism. Many of them
have a vested interest keeping the notion alive. Confirmation bias rules, information
contrary to the narrative is attacked or ignored, and propaganda techniques are liberally
applied.
Click to expand...

You can say it. Conspiracy.

Tens of thousands of scientists in many different nations are all conspiring to fake data, or accept fake data, to further their careers as part of some unstated political group.

Say it.

Because you might realize how nutty it sounds if it actually comes out of your mouth.
 
Steve Case said:
It's political group think, a club of "right thinking" people who share the same opinion.
These people have gravitated toward politics, academia, & journalism. Many of them
have a vested interest keeping the notion alive. Confirmation bias rules, information
contrary to the narrative is attacked or ignored, and propaganda techniques are liberally
applied.
Click to expand...
https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

I don't have time to find them but independent reviews have shown their peer review process to be highly bias and nothing more than confirmation bias. They found that peer review is supposed to be a hidden confidential process but with these guys they all know each other and do nothing but check off their work.

They found that paper that do not agree with their opinion are highly rejected not on grounds that the data was bad but thy simply don't agree.

They basically confirm all the emails that were found in climate gate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa/

Clearly there is something that is unethical going on here.
 
Threegoofs said:
Unable to answer??? I just have you a published, peer reviewed scientific article and, since your scientific acumen leaves much to be desired, an article with a SIMPLE GRAPHIC that clearly and succinctly answered the very question you posed, with multiple datapoints.

Yet you don’t seem to comprehend.

Again... what’s wrong with you?

Surely even YOU can see the problem?
Click to expand...

Scientific papers you have not read will not do.

I require you to explain your thinking. Your take on it.

Then use such papers to justify your position. With quotes from such papers not just a link to them.

You have posted links to too long to read irrelevance too often for me to waste my life following your distrations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom