Religion diminishes intellect[W:114,1607]

Tigerace117 said:

Jefferson was most comfortably with deism---which is not the same thing as atheism. As was Thomas Paine.

Click to expand...

BillRM said:

Sorry as given that Darwin and his voyage on the Beagle was still an hundred years plus in the future it was hard to be an out and out atheist in Jefferson time but neither Jefferson or Paine was either a christian or believer in the supernatural.

Jefferson version of the new testament name the Jefferson bible Jefferson took out all the supernatural elements concerning Jesus for example and Paine ripped apart the bible in his book The age of Reason.

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

Cool story bro. Still doesn't change the fact that neither one of them was an atheist.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Oh, well, if a politician says anything, we should probably accept it as gospel.

Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman and so forth...

NASA is an interesting agency. Up until 1999 they had a set of data that was pretty extensive that they seemed to like okay. AFTER 1999, they decided they liked a different set of data even better.

They discarded the data they used to like that had 1938, a year in the midst of the Dust Bowl Days, as the warmest to date.

Following that 1938 fell back.. I guess the Dust BVowl wasn't all that bad after all.



As it happens, the man in charge of the NASA Climate research at the time had made a prediction before the senate in 1988.

The real world was not following his prediction.

Solution? Change the real world. Brilliant!

Click to expand...

Realitywins said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-record-high-saturday/?utm_term=.442b81a600c1

Click to expand...

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.​

​

code1211 said:

Yup! There's never been anything like this! It's unprecedented! we'll never recover from any of this because it's never happened before! We're all doomed, except, we're not.

It has happened before.

In the article, from a blog, the OP states the current Arctic Melt and attacks another scientist who cites anecdotal evidence of a warming of the arctic and resulting melting in the 30's.

By any scientific standards of today, pretty much just the observations of a guy on the next barstool.

One of the respondents in the comments section notes that the melt of this year could not possibly have been as extensive in any year over the last 3000 years because driftwood that is carbon dated to 3000 years has been released by the melting ice.

3000 years ago.

What was the CO2 Atmospheric concentration 3000 years ago?

What was the albedo change in the arctic ice caused by the coal ash from Chinese power plants 3000 years ago?

The point is, it was warmer in the past, during this Interglacial, and we are warming to levels we had cooled from in a geological blink of an eye.

This has happened before, it has happened quite recently, it was caused by something not connected to the Anthropogenic Emissions increase.

More data from the world of science undermines the propaganda issued by the Catastrophic Climate Change shills.

Similar melts from 1938-43? - Arctic Sea Ice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.​

​

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-to-levels-unseen-in-millennia.html

View attachment 67219023

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Skeptical science is not always wrong, but they are always biased.

Better less slanted info on the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is available from this site:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Here's an interesting chart from that site for Barrow Alaska:

<snip>

Figure 4c. The graph shows cumulative temperature departures from average for each year, in degrees Fahrenheit, for Barrow, Alaska from 1921 to May 2017.

Credit: Blake Moore, Alaska Climate Research Center
High-resolution image
<snip>

I find both the rapid temperature decline and the rapid temperature increase to be interesting. Both occurred during the period of run away CO2 concentration increase.

What do you make of this?

Barrow is right on the coast and I'm guessing the temperatures recorded in Barrow over the yearts is greatly affected by the temperature of the coastal waters.

I wonder if the temperature of the water or the temperature of the air has a greater impact of the temperature and therefore the amount of the ice in the water...

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

That is what is known misrepresenting data. ,, because it is at one local over a short period of time.

Let's look at some of the other graphs at that site.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

That is what is known misrepresenting data. ,, because it is at one local over a short period of time.

Let's look at some of the other graphs at that site.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The data is clearly labeled and I clearly characterized it.

There is no misrepresentation.

What makes you think there was any misrepresentation involved in this?

What I was trying to show was the temperature record of Barrow Alaska, which is on the Arctic Coast of Alaska, probably has a temperature record dominated by the nearby water.

I grew up in Duluth MN which has a climate dominated by Lake Superior.

San Francisco has a climate dominated by the Japan Current flowing down from Alaska.

To me, it seems reasonable that the temperature of the water is rising and this is probably due to changing ocean currents.

The Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was rising during both the rapid fall off and the rapid recovery of the water temperature.

I'll ask again: What do you make of this?

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The issue is not whether or not greenhouse gases warm the planet. That is obvious. Without the the Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would be a snowball.

The issue is whether or not the climate system is well enough understood to follow the direction of the folks who are trying to understand the climate system.

It is clearly evidenced that they do not have a firm grip on the topic because they cannot make accurate predictions of the future performance of climate.

They have proven beyond any doubt that they are not capable of making good predictions. If proof of their competence was as strong as proof of their incompetence, there would be no doubt.

The predictions are wrong. Their expertise is refuted. By this measure alone, the only proof offered by the proponents is eliminated.

A consensus of experts shown to be wrong by real world evidence is empty.

Click to expand...

Russell797 said:

Ok smart guy, what "predictions" of climate science have been shown to be wrong? The Earth is warming, global ice mass is declining, the seas are rising. There exists a positive energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere. The spectral lines of CO2 are deepening and broadening. Those are facts of observation. We can measure them. Since those things are the predictions and they are happening then what is it you find wrong?

Unlike a belief in god, we can test scientific expectations.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Didn't I already post the erroneous plethora of climate predictions that were in the vast majority on the warm side of the error?

YOU are representing the side of the argument that says IF all of these things are happening THEN this other thing will happen and it will happen in this specified amount over this specified period of time.

That specified amount over a specified time is not being satisfied.

Either the causal connection is weaker than you believe or the entire proposal is wrong.

Please note that I did not refer to this tripe as a theory because it has never been proposed to be a theory.

There is not even a testable scientific hypothesis published on this notion. The probable reason that this is not stated as a hypothesis is that the predictions, when tested, are almost always wrong.

Blind guessing would probably produce a more reliable result.

So, if the proposal is not provable, then the belief in the proposal is based solely on faith.

This is a religion.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The data is clearly labeled and I clearly characterized it.

There is no misrepresentation.

What makes you think there was any misrepresentation involved in this?

What I was trying to show was the temperature record of Barrow Alaska, which is on the Arctic Coast of Alaska, probably has a temperature record dominated by the nearby water.

I grew up in Duluth MN which has a climate dominated by Lake Superior.

San Francisco has a climate dominated by the Japan Current flowing down from Alaska.

To me, it seems reasonable that the temperature of the water is rising and this is probably due to changing ocean currents.

The Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was rising during both the rapid fall off and the rapid recovery of the water temperature.

I'll ask again: What do you make of this?

Click to expand...

Russell797 said:

The prediction is that it will warm and continue to warm. It is. ................

Click to expand...

Russell797 said:

Ocean currents can not and do not cause the entire near surface of the Earth to warm. Local and regional climate change is impacted by the meandering of ocean currents. Coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations such as ENSO merely move the available energy around, into and out of the oceans to the atmosphere.

To the informed and particularly to an atmospheric scientist your arguments show nothing but ignorance of the relevant sciences.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

And then it didn't.

Superimposed plot of Quality Class 1 and Quality Class 2 and Quality Class 3 global monthly temperature estimates. As the base period differs for the different temperature estimates, they have all been normalised by comparing to the average value of 30 years from January 1979 to December 2008. The heavy black line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the average of all five temperature records. The numbers shown in the lower right corner represent the temperature anomaly relative to the above average. Values are rounded off to the nearest two decimals, even though some of the original data series come with more than two decimals. Last month shown: April 2017. Last diagram update: 19 June 2017.



The argument is, since you have omitted the basis of the argument, that CO2 is an abundant Anthropogenically emitted Green House Gas.

The unnatural level of CO2 emission has thrown the balance of Green House Gases out of whack AND with the advent of this historic high of CO2, runaway global warming will result.

The argument implies that the level of 280 ppm is perfect and any departure from that level spells certain doom for the planet.

The problem is that the level of CO2, while being the highest in more than a half million years is not producing temperatures that the highest in more than a half million years.

What happened to the lock step causation that is supposed to exist, HAS BEEN PREDICTED TO EXIST BY THE EXPERTS, that should be causing the highest temperatures in a half million years?

The idea sounds pretty elegant. More CO2 = more warming. The climate data seems to depart from this idea in the real world.

If anyone checks the real world data and asks, "Why?", they are viciously attacked. Why is the discussion of this obvious fact stopped before it starts?

Sounds like a religion to me.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The meandering of ocean currents is an obvious and proven idea. These can be, and have, been measured and the predictions have been very useful in the prediction of the best routes to use in commerce.

This exploitation of real world evidence has gone on for years, centuries and, anecdotally, for millennia.

The ice in the Arctic is melting more quickly and the AGW Faithful are saying that this is the proof of the impact of CO2 increase manifesting in rising temperatures at the North Pole.

I put forward an alternative idea, SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA, and you immediately start the personal attacks. I am not a scientist and therefore need to just shut up and listen. I am told to believe your enlightened words and not my lying eyes.

I'll try again. Do you think it might be possible that the melting ice, floating around in the Arctic Ocean water which is warmer than the freezing point, might be affected more directly by the water in which it floats than by the air which is generally below freezing?

Just wondering how an actual scientist squares this circle.

We can save the Albedo change due to the ash on the ice and snow from the Chinese Coal fired Power Plants for a different post.

Click to expand...

Russell797 said:

The temperature record does not depart from the expectation of warming. It has warmed and continues to warm. Your efforts to show otherwise fail.

The science does not indicate "runaway" global warming. The system transitions toward a different equilibrium point.

Human civilization developed within a relatively stable climate, that of the Holocene interglacial. Global temperature has not varies by more than 1C or so over that period. The Eemian interglacial of 125,000 year ago was on average 1C warmer than today and sea levels were 18-30 feet above those of today.

The coming and going of northern hemisphere glaciation is caused by the Earth's orbital parameters, such as it's obliquity, eccentricity and a precession of the equinoxes.
They are not caused by the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere, although once the temperature starts to rise, CO2 out gassed from the oceans enhance the warming.

CO2 acts as both a feedback to warming and also a lead contributor to warming when dumped into the atmosphere either by natural process or by mankind's activities.

There is no "lock step" causation as you call it. Over the short term of say 10 to 20 years natural forcing agents such as solar variability, atmospheric aerosols, coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations (PDO) and more engage in a tug of war with the ever increasing radiative forcing given by CO2 as it builds up in the atmosphere.

The net forcing from all factors is what determines the temperature, but the temperature impact is not immediate. It takes time measured in decades to centuries for the global temperature to come to full equilibrium with a persistent forcing.

No one is "viciously" attacked unless they are blatant liars spewing disinformation.

Click to expand...

	<snip>

Russell797 said:

Just to be clear. It's mainstream science which is under attack, not the other way around. Every major scientific and academic institution in the world acknowledges or endorses the scientific consensus. We are forced to defend sciences such as biological evolution and AGW from ideologues who for reasons other than the annals of actual scientific research seek to damage those sciences by calling into question the integrity of both the scientists and the sciences. This has been going on for centuries, the AGW thing is just the latest chapter.

Now to you question. Yes ocean currents are a first order cause of melting sea ice. The ice melts away from the edges inward. It melts from below as well as from above. The lowest extent of the Arctic sea ice occurs during late summer in September. There exist old ice (more than 3 years old) and new ice which forms every cold season. It's the old ice which is disappearing over time. That old ice is also the thickest ice. The less of it there is, the faster the total ice volume decays.

Warmer waters encroaching into the Arctic are melting ice. That warmth comes from the tropics. Due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), if warm water is melting ice, then heat must be taken away from the tropics to do so. That should decrease the temperature of the waters south of the Arctic, but those waters are warming also. The oceans have been warming overall, rather than staying the same temperature with the heat merely distributed differently. So, the question is still what is warming the global ocean?

Click to expand...