PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Aug 2017, 21:27   #681 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 133
Statistics are like a bikini. Very interesting, but cover up the best parts.

Here is the main issue I have with AGW.

Throughout the process, a meme has been pushed that is so incredibly deceptive that it is difficult to understand its part in the findings.

All increase in GMT is attributed to CO2. All of it. Water vapor and the Sun itself is left out, such that any one following the process would believe CO2 is solely responsible for any increase in GMT.

That's not just deceptive, that's fraud.

Last edited by Concours77; 9th Aug 2017 at 23:35.
Concours77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 02:52   #682 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concours77 View Post
This post describes elegantly how the shortening of data cycle recording masks the true conclusions to be had re: AGW.

As before, Climate studies require patience. No sound conclusions can be formed without the passage of a reasonable length of time, such that these temporary perturbations can be normed.

The limitations of collection of data and the need to be satisfied with larger and longer "margins" of "error" foreclose the type of rhetoric spouted by the alarmists, to include politicians, journals, and scientists, especially scientists.

The body politic moves ponderously, unless of course, some fearful rhetoric can move it more quickly.

Hysterics. Carbon Merchants. Well coiffed politicians.

There simply is no way to make legitimate the ever more desperate attempts to frighten the people into acquiescing, and opening their bank accounts to the Temperature Fascists...

"But I'm sure you are a nice guy." Hmmm...... As with Climate, remains to be seen....
Benefit of the doubt and all that Concours.
He does, at times, appear to be mellowing.
fltlt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 02:55   #683 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coventry
Posts: 292
Boulder Colorado having one of the coldest summers on record.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...ies/101871406/
And Al Gore said the Arctic ice pack would be melted by now.
Eclectic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 03:44   #684 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,976
In other news, I ate breakfast today, ergo global hunger is a myth
Hempy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 05:19   #685 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 245
Quote:
Normal, everyday folks see, read and hear all the apocalyptic current and future predictions, look around and see nothing.
They cannot be bothered, nor care enough to go beyond the headlines,
Then, perhaps, they shouldn't pretend to have opinions on something that they clearly don't have a clue about. Pilots get annoyed when amateurs tell them how to do their job, so do doctors. Why should scientists have to put up with people pretending to know what they're doing?
Quote:
But I'm sure you are a nice guy.
No, I'm not. If I was then I'd have more patience with cretins.
Quote:
All increase in GMT is attributed to CO2. All of it. Water vapor and the Sun itself is left out, such that any one following the process would believe CO2 is solely responsible for any increase in GMT.
Such stupidity, of course they haven't been left out, they're included in the GCMs. If you spent at least a modicum of time doing some background research before posting then you'd know that.
Quote:
That's not just deceptive, that's fraud.
And your post isn't factual, it's utter ignorance.
Nemrytter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 15:18   #686 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
Then, perhaps, they shouldn't pretend to have opinions on something that they clearly don't have a clue about. Pilots get annoyed when amateurs tell them how to do their job, so do doctors. Why should scientists have to put up with people pretending to know what they're doing?
No, I'm not. If I was then I'd have more patience with cretins.
Such stupidity, of course they haven't been left out, they're included in the GCMs. If you spent at least a modicum of time doing some background research before posting then you'd know that.
And your post isn't factual, it's utter ignorance.
I apologize Concours, obviously I was wrong in my opinion of Nem.
fltlt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 15:54   #687 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 70
Posts: 361
I listened to Al Gore this morning on Radio 4, banging on about how we all must stop polluting and I had to wonder; did he row his own boat across the Atlantic or did he have others doing the rowing for him? Or, did he get to London via some sort of quantum physics jiggery pokery? (Or perhaps he came by a polluting aircraft?)
KelvinD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 16:21   #688 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 133
Nem,

I hope you take this in the spirit it is offered. You tend to focus utterly on your own narrow understanding of my post, then react in a very reactionary way.

You actually affirm my post in its meaning.

At no time do I state that CO2 is the sole driver, as you seem to think I do. I am so convinced of the opposite point of view that I base my criticism on it.

My point is that virtually all the published hype of AGW allows, no enforces a conclusion that each ppm of Carbon Dioxide creates a concomitant increase in Temperature.

Take a moment, then read and reread:

Such a plan to disseminate information such that the public perception is that the relationship CO2/GMT is direct, and 1/1, is at the least propaganda, and at worst, fraud, as I state above.

If in fact a single ppm increase annually is "responsible" for the observed GMT increase, we need to weigh the following.

The Temperature is increasing, at the "advertised rate" of .02 degree C per year. (two degrees per century).

So one millionth part (one ppm) of the entire heterogeneous atmosphere raises the temperature sufficient to be measurable and responsible for a fiftieth of a degree Celsius.

Ponder that and admit, as you must, that is not possible, other drivers are at work.

If they are, the effect of CO2 becomes diminished by a calculated value (by me) of more on the order of ten ppm. A reduction of forcing of ninety percent.

Of this ninety percent diminution, what percentage of the increase is man responsible for? Ten percent, as agreed by "science"?

This makes CO2's part not only negligible, but not observable on an annual basis.

That is why I am so adamant about staying with traditional increments of time when addressing CLIMATE. Ten years, at a minimum, but twenty five is more realistic.

GHG drive is a fact, as I readily admit. The impatience and mistakes made in trying to change the rules about Climate Study are patent, and obvious.

Leaving this disclaimer out of any public proclamation remains a fraud.
Concours77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 10:03   #689 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,446
US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section
ORAC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 13:48   #690 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 119
I am the furthest thing from a scientist, as I'm sure Nem will agree with, however even Helen Keller can see what a money grabbing scam AGW is.
Here in LaLa land this coming November we get to pay 70 cents per gallon more for gas and another 20-30% increase in the cost of utilities ( gas and electric).
Why, Climate Change of course, but the monies are going to finish Governor Moonbeams toy train.
He only got enough votes by bribing a couple of Republicans with a couple of hundred million dollars for parks in their districts.
And who pays for all this, we the CA taxpayers.
fltlt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 20:27   #691 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 245
Quote:
At no time do I state that CO2 is the sole driver, as you seem to think I do.
No I don't.
Quote:
Such a plan to disseminate information such that the public perception is that the relationship CO2/GMT is direct, and 1/1, is at the least propaganda, and at worst, fraud, as I state above.
Good thing that scientists aren't doing that then, isn't it?
Quote:
Ponder that and admit, as you must, that is not possible, other drivers are at work.
Have you read *anything* on this topic, ffs?
Quote:
If they are, the effect of CO2 becomes diminished by a calculated value (by me) of more on the order of ten ppm. A reduction of forcing of ninety percent.
Show your working.
Quote:
This makes CO2's part not only negligible, but not observable on an annual basis.
You really should publish a paper on this, you've proved thousands of highly educated scientists wrong by using no knowledge whatsoever, it's remarkable.
Quote:
That is why I am so adamant about staying with traditional increments of time when addressing CLIMATE. Ten years, at a minimum, but twenty five is more realistic.
It's jolly fortunate, then, that the time series used in climate analysis are far longer than that.
Quote:
The impatience and mistakes made in trying to change the rules about Climate Study are patent, and obvious.
If they're so obvious then it really is rather surprising that no one has managed to demonstrate this in a scientific fashion. If they're that obvious then I suggest that you do so.

Quote:
, as I'm sure Nem will agree with
Phrases like that are an abhorrent style of argument.
Nemrytter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 20:29   #692 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 62
Posts: 50
Was wondering what a small thermonuclear war's effect on global warming and climate change would be?
meadowrun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 21:21   #693 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 245
Cooling.
Nemrytter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Aug 2017, 13:19   #694 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
No I don't.
Good thing that scientists aren't doing that then, isn't it?
Have you read *anything* on this topic, ffs?
Show your working.
You really should publish a paper on this, you've proved thousands of highly educated scientists wrong by using no knowledge whatsoever, it's remarkable.
It's jolly fortunate, then, that the time series used in climate analysis are far longer than that.
If they're so obvious then it really is rather surprising that no one has managed to demonstrate this in a scientific fashion. If they're that obvious then I suggest that you do so.

Phrases like that are an abhorrent style of argument.
Nem,

You haven't paid for an argument, therefore there cannot be one.
fltlt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Aug 2017, 16:10   #695 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 133
Quote:
"At no time do I state that CO2 is the sole driver, as you seem to think I do."
No I don't.
Quote:
"Such a plan to disseminate information such that the public perception is that the relationship CO2/GMT is direct, and 1/1, is at the least propaganda, and at worst, fraud, as I state above."
Good thing that scientists aren't doing that then, isn't it?
Quote:
"Ponder that and admit, as you must, that is not possible, other drivers are at work."
Have you read *anything* on this topic, ffs?
Quote:
"If they are, the effect of CO2 becomes diminished by a calculated value (by me) of more on the order of ten ppm. A reduction of forcing of ninety percent."

Nem responds: "Show your working...."

Nem,

You are a person who has without question embraced the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It is you who must respond to my critique, not the reverse. I have no obligation to provide proof of my critique. It is the adherent to the theory who must show his "working".

Your ignorance is excused.
Concours77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1