Global Warming

Return to Off Topic

Re: Global Warming

Postby Realhoops » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:30 pm

You guys might all enjoy this event taking place later this month at Creighton:

http://www.creightontoday.com/headlines ... scientist/
_________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then ... I contradict myself.
I am large ... I contain multitudes.
--Walt Whitman
User avatar
Realhoops
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:10 am
Location: In your head.

 

Re: Global Warming

Postby ZMagic30 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:44 pm

Well, I can think of one person who won’t be enjoying that event

*cough* CU Dunce Cap *cough*
User avatar
ZMagic30
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:44 pm

Re: Global Warming

Postby bird_call » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:11 pm

CUF4,

Your claim, and that of the post, is that most surface temperature land data are "modeled". The inference being that the "raw" data as reported are better/more true/more accurate than the "modeled" data and as such that the surface temperature record can't be trusted to show that global warming is happening.

1) The inference that raw temperature data is more accurate than "modeled" or "adjusted" temperature data is false. Temperatures are clearly affected by diurnal patterns and seasonal patterns. If raw hourly data is missing or invalid, then a daily or annual average will be biased if the data is not representative of winter or nighttime temperatures. Thus, someone would require either infilled data with monthly median/mean values for that hour or day to make sure they aren't biased. Another example is the adjustment to account for surrounding environment, most notably urban heat islands. If a monitor is moved or the surrounding area changes from grass/forest to urban concrete and buildings, the temperatures will be biased over time as that land-use changes. Correcting for that is necessary to account for the underlying trend in temperatures at that site.

2) We have corroborated the surface land temperature records with satellite records of temperature, changes in the first bloom of the season, bird migrations, and water temperature records. We also have borehole temperature records, tree-ring records, sediment records, and glacial temperature records to compare too. So we have at least 8 independent other measures of average temperature records which we can compare our land-surface temperature records too. We aren't relying on a single dataset in order to make the claim that global average temperatures are rising. I've shown you these multiple independently generated temperature records.

Thus, this falls under the cherry-picking and misrepresentation fallacies. Next?
bird_call
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: Global Warming

Postby CU Final Four » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:06 pm

We also have borehole temperature records, tree-ring records, sediment records, and glacial temperature records to compare too.


How can the above be anywhere close to accurate?

You, fine sir, talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you can get accurate temps to the third decimal point with mechanical devices like a thermometer. On the other hand, tree rings give you accurate temps in some fashion. How can both be right?

I would absolutely go to that lecture at Creighton but I am going to be out of town. But if there is a video or transcript, please post. I will review it.
I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Re: Global Warming

Postby bird_call » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:20 pm

CU Final Four wrote:
We also have borehole temperature records, tree-ring records, sediment records, and glacial temperature records to compare too.


How can the above be anywhere close to accurate?

You, fine sir, talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you can get accurate temps to the third decimal point with mechanical devices like a thermometer. On the other hand, tree rings give you accurate temps in some fashion. How can both be right?



I never said they were "as accurate". Fallacy of misrepresentation.

I said that the independent data records from other temperature records corroborated the surface land temperature trend.

*edited to be pedantic about precision levels*
Also, typical modern meteorological temperature sensors have accuracy and precision of about +/- 0.1 degrees celsius. Historical instruments from 100 years ago might be ten times that. While that is still our best temperature record, there are going to be very few long-term operational temperature records with precision and accuracy better than 0.1 degrees celsius on an hourly basis. Getting accuracy to one-thousandth of a degree celsius isn't happening anywhere other than a lab or a research station, and it certainly won't be happening long-term on anywhere near a global basis.
bird_call
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: Global Warming

Postby CU Final Four » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:46 pm

Preview of paid propaganda this Wednesday at CU.

http://www.omaha.com/living/vatican-cli ... 6a30a.html

As a conservative and climate skeptic am I no longer welcome in the Catholic Church ? I really think I should quit if the Pope is telling me it is my Catholic duty to believe this Malthusian scam.

The thing that absolutely infuriates me is that while the Pope wastes time and money on this political matter he is diverted from what should be his main mission: The Catholic faith.

1. How is Church attendance these days in France, Italy and Spain?
2. How are the efforts going to bring lapsed American Catholics back to the Church?
3. How is worldwide conversion and missionary working out?
4. Let’s talk about the extermination and murder of Catholics by Islamists. Murder is a sin and serious business. Third World and the poor are the hardest hit and it is happening right now.

As to that story, the OWH article is really pathetic. Blake trouts our the disproven 97% canard. No credibility.

The paid academic shill trots out his one allegedly correct prediction but we readers don’t know get the details. And, of course, no seacoast flooding seen today. We then are treated to the nonsensical tautology that if the sea level rises 16 feet they “could devastate coastal cities....” Duh. How likely is that going to happen? When is it going to happen? And are these predictions based on the same failed models that NASA used back in the 80’s and that were spectacularly wrong?

Dr. Malthus then plays the liberal the scare tactic of “do it for your kids and grandkids.” Yes, doctor I hate my kids and future grandkids and that’s why I refuse to buy a coal burning and federal tax credit subsidized Tesla like the one that passed me on Interstate 680 an hour ago at 80 mph.

And, of course, the good academic’s prediction of Doomsday will never be tested in his lifetime. In the meantime he jets around the world and takes speech money from dopey students.

This clown is only lucky I can’t be there to carve his idiotic arguments up on Wednesday night. If there are any skeptics brave enough to walk into the lion’s den, feel free to use this post for a question.
Last edited by CU Final Four on Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Re: Global Warming

Postby CU Final Four » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:47 pm

Sea level rise maybe 4-12 inches per century. A long way to go at that rate to 16 feet.

Scam.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/s ... f-nothing/
I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Re: Global Warming

Postby CU Final Four » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:08 pm

I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Re: Global Warming

Postby bird_call » Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:31 pm

Bless your heart, CUF4.

The 97% Consensus is not a "canard", it is a robust result.

Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.


Show me a peer-reviewed article that disputes that rather than a blog post on a contrarian website.

Re: Sea level rise is "exaggerated" with a current 4-12 inches per century vs. 16 feet prediction.

1. The IPCC fifth assessment predicts a mean sea level rise of 0.75 to 2.4m (2-8 feet) over the next 100 years, not 16 feet. The only predictions that would result in a 16 foot prediction would be those that predict a collapse in either the Greenland or Antarctic glaciers. While possible, those are not considered likely. Thus, the initial 16 foot claim is not the current state of the science prediction.
2. The claim that sea level will only rise 4-12 inches was based on a limited analysis of satellite record data is another case of cherry picking data. Sea level tide gauge records go back to 1880 and provide additional information on the long-term changes in sea level rise; three different approaches to reconstructing global mean sea level rise have been tested there. Paleo marine isotopic analyses provide pre-tide gauge data going back 3000 years. Salt marsh data provides reconstructions going to 1700.

Figure 13.3 in IPCC 5 shows the entire record and how the different data sets compare. There is consensus in the long-term trend that the cherry-picked satellite record does not display. Thus, the assumptions of a linear trend are false and misleading based on a cherry-picked dataset.

Re: the Pope's teachings regarding climate change - You are the one creating an unnecessary ultimatum between the tribal politics of the modern Republican party and its rejection of climate science above the teachings of the Catholic Church. Honestly though, the current Republican party has many policies that explicitly reject the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, so I guess they must know the way to salvation. They certainly don't believe in "Love thy neighbor as yourself". They don't believe in serving the poor, needy, oppressed, marginalized, diseased, and sinful (e.g. opposition to ObamaCare, food stamps, welfare, immigration policy, prison, racism, etc.). They certainly don't "love thine enemies, do good to those who hate you".
bird_call
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: Global Warming

Postby CU Final Four » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:11 pm

BC

I’m safe here in Nebraska but I am worried about YOU in California. I’m a man for Others.

I plan on living another 50 years so I can see at least a 2 foot rise is sea level. The Big East Tournament in 2068 should be fun. Let’s meet up then. Mark your calendar.

Don’t get me going on tribalism as that is the core concept of today’s Left. All women were required to vote for Hillary but thankfully not all of them obeyed their overlords and masters.

The Pope is completely out of his lane when he wades into the politics of CAGW. But in pure Jesuit fashion he has given the lesser-educated the thought that he is speaking as the infallible Pope and with the full authority of the Church on global warming. It is not my Catholic duty to buy high priced wind power (3x more expensive) in order to possibly prevent a future event 100 years from now.

And please tell me how well socialism has worked for the poor and the environment in Cuba and Venezula. People in VZ are breaking into zoos to kill the animals for food.

I had high hopes for the Jesuit Pope but he grew up in South America. If only John Schlegel would have lived. He could have been the first American Pope.

Francis needs to stick to fundamentals. Get out and bring Catholics home in Europe and America. Religion is like college basketball. If you don’t recruit, your program is finished. Ask Rick Johnson.
I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests