Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-01-2020, 16:29   #1426
Retr0gamer
Category Moderator
 
Retr0gamer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
No no, I said the maths in detail.What you've given is just a cursory glance, looking for something quick to bat away the question. Waffle, in other words.
I just told you why the maths is wrong. It's not a schoolboy 2+2 = 5 error. Their use of comparisons with incompatible data is the biggest issue I have amongst many. It's like comparing metres with degrees Celsius, except in this case the used the wrong formulas to calculate both.

The exclusion of error bars is the biggest red flag because I know of no scientific publication that would accept any data without them.

Anyway I gave some of my observations. I can't be responsible if you can't understand them but also you can't rubbish them either if they are beyond your level of comprehension.
Retr0gamer is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 16:42   #1427
oriel36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 330
I have seen all this before historically and it is remarkable how disruptive notions survive regardless of what is brought before these academics hence a disruptive subculture as the root cause of this dour period in human history.

Large scale empirical disasters are infrequent but devastating whereas the smaller ones come and go. When mathematicians try to play astronomers it becomes an assault on the eyes and especially as the motions of the planet govern many Earth sciences by their dynamical traits so while many here process graph warfare of mathematical modelers on both sides, planetary motions are altogether ignored as there has been no real astronomical presence in Earth sciences for centuries.

Only one person in the entire history of humanity asserted the moon also spins as it makes a monthly circuit of the Earth yet because it was Newton, people tied themselves in knots arguing over the silly assertion yet when the dust settled, people still believe the moon spins or the spinning mooners -

https://books.google.ie/books?id=Hgc...page&q&f=false

The same happened in this era and this thread, the proponents and opponents are looking for advantage without the slightest sense that the conclusion is the impossible notion of human control over planetary temperatures.

It doesn't matter that humans landed on the moon and an astronaut, if he so chooses, can hop into his vehicle and drive around to the far side of the moon which we cannot see. This is what theorists do, the hapless observer is so mesmerized by counter-productive notions that they are unable to find their way back to a reasonable foundation for discussion whether it is 'climate change' or the weird notion of a spinning moon.

Last edited by oriel36; 24-01-2020 at 16:50.
oriel36 is offline  
24-01-2020, 16:44   #1428
posidonia
Registered User
 
posidonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post

All molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse molecules, so yes, that includes CO2. The contribution of its atmospheric concentration to the overall warming of the atmosphere is the question that is in no way sure, as freely admitted by the IPCC themselves. Observational evidence (such as it is) would suggest that the sensitivity is on the lower end of the scale, closer to the 1.5-degree figure or even lower.

But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.


So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?
posidonia is offline  
24-01-2020, 16:53   #1429
aidanodr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 539
Coronavirus could turn to global pandemic as freak solar minimum means outbreak ‘imminent'
aidanodr is offline  
24-01-2020, 17:30   #1430
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,689
Could be a boon for 'scientists'.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-climate-alarm

"The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write."


The revolution can't come soon enough.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 17:35   #1431
Retr0gamer
Category Moderator
 
Retr0gamer's Avatar
It's just the usual babbling drivel from the express and bloomberg, two right wing publications with dubious claims to journalism. Last I heard from actual scientists is that over population is no where near a problem if waste can be controlled.
Retr0gamer is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 17:37   #1432
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retr0gamer View Post
It's just the usual babbling drivel from the express and bloomberg, two right wing publications with dubious claims to journalism. Last I heard from actual scientists is that over population is no where near a problem if waste can be controlled.
Are you saying that they did not say this? And what has 'right-wing' got to do with it, unless you letting your own political bias muddle your thought process a little?

https://www.populationconnection.org...cy-bioscience/

I'm surprised they didn't go as far as to call for 'extermination'.

Last edited by Oneiric 3; 24-01-2020 at 17:41.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 18:32   #1433
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,954
First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with climate change
Secondly, this is an Express article
Thirdly, the guy they're talking about is Chandra Wickramasinghe who is undoubtedly a smart guy but he is way out on the fringe when he claims without any evidence at all that pandemics are viruses from space

But then, I suppose one lone scientist shouting from the wilderness with a theory that has practically zero supporting evidence and is contradicted by the vast preponderance of evidence would mean that this guy is actually more likely to be correct according to the logic of climate change deniers
Akrasia is offline  
24-01-2020, 20:04   #1434
Kingswood Rover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 648
Its similar to a strain of flu ffs big deal, we love catastrophizing everything.
Kingswood Rover is offline  
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 20:52   #1435
posidonia
Registered User
 
posidonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
Are you saying that they did not say this? And what has 'right-wing' got to do with it, unless you letting your own political bias muddle your thought process a little?

https://www.populationconnection.org...cy-bioscience/

I'm surprised they didn't go as far as to call for 'extermination'.

I'm not surprised you're prepared to go as far as to say such a horrible and scurrilous thing. A particularly nasty, loaded language, sentence.


Shameful.
posidonia is offline  
(2) thanks from:
24-01-2020, 22:08   #1436
oriel36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 330
I have mentioned Thomas Malthus often enough in relation to the empire building notion of Darwin/Wallace in terms of population control and from there to the holocaust or indeed the Irish famine where English policy was enacted by Charles Trevelyan as a student of Malthus among others -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it."
Thomas Malthus


This was re-formatted by Darwin/Wallace into an evolutionary narrative based on aggression which was picked up by the national socialists in 1930's Germany.

"Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather
our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its
present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of
vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation."

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


In between Malthus and Darwin was the English response to the Irish famine as both an academic policy and political policy. It was more an exploitation issue wrapped up in detached empirical thinking and so , with population control raising its ugly head again on this island, people should become familiar with how academic policy influences political policies to the devastation of society when otherwise people would act with responsibility and accountability.

The word 'denier' is thrown around but it really is unfamiliarity among those reasonable people who can figure things out themselves rather than rely on a weak opposition using the same experimental and data strategies as the proponents. They can be forgiven for believing that academics act with integrity in much the same way people believed proffessionals in charge of financial institutions acted with integrity 10 years ago but that is naive. People probably refuse to believe that humans can act in an evil way within academic circles but history has demonstrated otherwise and it is being repeated today.

In following the 'scientific method' trail there is always worse but that goes nowhere without a positive approach to climate research.

Last edited by oriel36; 24-01-2020 at 22:13.
oriel36 is offline  
24-01-2020, 23:22   #1437
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by posidonia View Post
I'm not surprised you're prepared to go as far as to say such a horrible and scurrilous thing. A particularly nasty, loaded language, sentence.


Shameful.
They really have you, don't they..
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
25-01-2020, 00:11   #1438
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by posidonia View Post
But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.


So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?
The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

Quote:
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
Meaning there are some studies out (e.g. Bates 2016) that has it down around 1.0, but of course we don't like to talk about him on this forum...

The way some of you are going on you'd think that it's all "virtually certain" with everything IPCC, but it's really not. It brings us back to that one UAH versus Mears TLT dataset again. Which is right? Low confidence. Settled science is not low confidence.

Quote:
It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations
allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere
than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere
extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere. {2.4}
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
(2) thanks from:
25-01-2020, 07:53   #1439
posidonia
Registered User
 
posidonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
They really have you, don't they..

You scurrilously imply many scientists want genocide - and I'm under their control for pointing that out?



Nurse, it's worse than we thought...
posidonia is offline  
25-01-2020, 07:59   #1440
posidonia
Registered User
 
posidonia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.


There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.



Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?



Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.

Last edited by posidonia; 25-01-2020 at 08:09.
posidonia is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search