OT: Climate Change Bullshit

Obviously you don't understand when something is recorded as 0.04 in science, they don't mean 0.0400. Someone already explained this to you, but.... you can lead a horse...

Rick C.

Tesla referral code +

You probably got that from the denialist propaganda thrown up in the essentially spurious hockey stick controversy

If you pager down to "continuing research" you'll find that the alleged single tree ring result has been replicated by roughly two dozen other studies using other proxies - including sea floor and lake-bed sediments.

I'm afraid that you and Cursitor Doom are the comic objects here - two fatuously gullible twits.

This is the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory of climate change.

There is a real - and documented - conspiracy to obscure the reality of climate change

organised and managed by liars for hire orginally set up to lie to the public about the damage that cigarette smoking was doing to their health.

It's a well-funded program, but has to be primarily aimed at gullible idiots like Cursitor Doom and John Larkin - more sceptical audiences find it comically inadequate.

So how has precession - a slow process - jacked up global temperatures by one degree Celcius (or Kelvin) in the past century?

The last time temperature and CO2 levels went nuts

some 55.5 million years ago, the climate seems to have taken some 83 thousand years to recover. Biofeedback effects don't seem to have been important.

The greenhouse gas injected seems to have been methane, but it gets oxidised to CO2 in about a century, and the injection phase seems to have been spread over a couple of thousand years.

There are. Australia has one at Cape Grim

One does need to keep CO2 monitors away from local sources of CO2 which add noise to the measurements.

EPA Climate research projects list: Click on the "Grant Amount" column heading for the $$$ amounts. The Such research projects are rarely awarded to an individual running a small think tank, but rather to universities and research organizations which then pass the funding to the researchers. At the bottom of the list, printed in nearly invisible black text on blue background, is the total of $157,752,792 (from 1998 to present). Predictably, the subtotals, shown in fine print between sections seem to be increasing. Offhand, I would say there's money in climate change "research".

Except that it wasn't taken seriously at the time, because there wasn't much evidence that anything interesting was actually going on.

The evidence for actual global warming took quite a while to build up to the point where majority started taking it seriously.

John Larkin doesn't have a clue about science, or how one would discuss it.

He posts links to climate change denial propaganda websites, and think this constitutes discussion - as opposed to evidence of his gullibility - and feels hurt when we point that he is being gullible.

Evidence doesn't get a look in.

In fact you ought to bet that the measurements are all over the place.

The thing about Mauna Loa measurements is that they were the culmination of a program to get reliable and reproducible data. Sticking professional qua lity infra-red absorption-based CO2 sensors way up a mountain in the middle of the Pacific may have been a slight over-kill, but it finally got data t hat could be relied on.

If you weren't totally ignorant about instrumentation and measurement, you' d have known this. Because you are the kind of gullible idiot who feels hur t when his gullibility is exposed - like John Larkin - you kill-file everyb ody who injures your tender ego, rather than learning to get your facts str aight.

"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

You're wrong.

in which case a trend could be developed

Wrong again.

Perhaps you're making a bit of a premature judgment? Are we any better today at deciding the validity of global warming theory, and more important, the validity of the proposed solutions? There's a simple test which I use often. I put myself in the shoes of the opposition and force myself to simulate a proponent of their point of view, and a critic of my former position. If I am able to justify their position, counter their arguments, debunk their theories, and find fault in their solutions, then the issue is at a minimum still in doubt. Whatever, the conclusion, performing such a reversal will give you a better picture of the opposition, and most important, why they favor that position. However, if you are unable to do what I suggest, and become a temporary proponent in what you currently label as dogma, then you do not understand the issues or position of either side.

My apologies for core dumping but I have a personal distaste for non-negotiable dogma in any form. I'm trying hard not to be offensive and personal, but don't know if I've succeeded.

Drivel: Long ago, I was cleaning up my rental house in preparation for the next horde of student renters. A group of what I believe were the Jehovah's Witness approached and politely started a discussion. I'm a sucker for religious arguments, so I played the willing victim. What I didn't notice was that one of the new tenants, who was helping with the cleanup, had neatly slipped in and began answering questions for me. While continuing to talk, he had neatly converted the table saw into a podium, and began a excellent version of a fundamentalist and evangelistic minister presenting a hell and damnation sermon from the pulpit. The Jehovah's Witness's were soon gone. Of course, I asked my new tenant where he had learned to do that. His entire family was involved in the evangelist movement in some manner, and he was well aquatinted with all the necessary methods and tricks. However, he had decided it was not for him, and wanted a technical education instead. Last time we exchanged email, he had just sold his automobile dealership and was planning retirement. Oh well.

And more importantly, lots of jobs for those who would otherwise not have a job.

lol an average of a whole $7.5 million in grant money a year for everyone in the country involved. Nearly enough to by a sort-of-nice mansion in SV. There are finance industry/quant guys in my area whose Christmas bonus in a good year is probably around 3 mil.

Thought we were talking _real_ money figures bruh these are like Ernie Boch Jr's, the local used car dealership chain, owner's secondary- checking-account-for-his-wife's-esxpenses-figures. Get back to me when u want to talk real money :)

Yeah a pretty low paid one for someone with a PhD in the sciences compared to like, what you could be doing working in the private sector doing basically anything

The dungeness crab season just opened. We got a wonderful one at Ikedas last week.

A group of crab fishermen are suing 30 oil companies for the damage that AGW has done to their business. They all use rowboats and sailboats. They boil the crabs in wood-fired kettles and pack the crabs in ice hauled by horses from glaciers in the Sierras. They all bicycle to work.

1. Conclusion While I respect the amount of work done by Beck to look at the historical data, I only can disagree to a large extent with his conclusions. Besides the quality of the measurements themselves, the biggest problem is that most of the data which show a peak around 1943 are taken at places which were completely unsuitable for background measurements. In that way these data are worthless for historical (and current) global background estimates. This is confirmed by other methods which indicate no peak values around 1943. As the minima may approach the real background CO2 level of that time, the fact that the ice core CO2 levels are above the minima is an indication that the ice core data are not far off reality.

The way I read this is that since the quality of the data showing a CO2 peak in 1943 were "taken at places which were completely unsuitable for background measurements", then any data that also shows the 1943 peak must also be useless. Never mind that the author says nothing about why every data source that he deems "unsuitable" is also erroneous.

Do you really agree with the aforementioned logic, have I misread the authors conclusions, or did I miss something?

We had a version of "unsuitable" data here in Santa Cruz CA about 10 years ago. Someone located the official atmospheric gas sensor station about 500 meters from a major freeway in a residential area. Behind and downwind from the sensor, was a row of 30 meter high hills that tended to accumulate smog and particulates when the air was fairly still. The problems began when the sensor started to show alarming increases in peak atmospheric CO2, very much like the ascending trend lines shown in the above URL, but with a much steeper slope. Eventually, someone "discovered" that the amount of traffic on the nearby freeway was increasing rapidly, and that the freeway had been widened to add additional traffic lanes. The result was about 10 years later, the sensor was moved somewhere else. I haven't bothered to check what happened to the garbage data.

More by Ferdinand EngelBeen: "About spurious correlations and causation of the CO2 increase"

One of the likely consequences of anthropogenic global warming is some ten metres of sea level rise, when the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarct ic ice sheet slide off into the ocean.

This will devalue a lot of shore-front real estate, and any prudent governm ent would spend money on getting a better grasp of when this is likely to h appen.

The effect is to encourage university researchers to put more effort into s tudies of matters with likely economic consequences.

They'd get much the same money to study other things - with less dramatic, but perhaps more immediate economic consequences - if anthropogenic global warming didn't look real.

The people who own lots of fossil carbon, and the rights to extract it and sell it as fuel, have a different take on the economics.

All irrelevant to whether there are plenty of jobs for those who want to claim that man made climate change is a problem.

That last is a lie.