Reply With Quote
Yay!
That was... incoherent.
97% incoherent.
The meta-studies that summarize the body of available evidence.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../2/024024/meta
Yay!
Lol heartland
How many of those skeptics are qualified in the field of climate science?
You could post a graphic about 100 "skeptics" and be referring to turtles for all you have shown.
In contrast, the people mentioned in the study I posted are actual human experts.
I mean this kindly:
You are making some really bad arguments here. They reflect poorly on you, and you would do well to put more thought into them.
climate convo with WC?
That is a distinction without meaning. Given that you used to post crap about "the exoneration of CO2," "the heat is coming from the ocean," and "warming drives CO2" it is laughable. And as RG demonstrated you cannot read for .
Now what about the other 6 studies? Shall we reevaluate what the other organizations that I listed have to say?
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 08-23-2017 at 08:06 PM.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...es/question-2/Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.
STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL
A study has found even if there had been no Industrial Revolution, current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now.
James Delingpole from Breitbart News reports a paper by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy that was published in GeoResJ “uses the latest big data technique to analyse six 2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic regions.”
“Proxies,” Delingpole explains, are markers which scientists use to assess global temperature trends in the ages before thermometers existed. The evidence suggests the planet was approximately a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is today. The study also explains there is nothing unnatural about the “climate change,” of the late 20th century and early 21st century.
Delingpole explains this finding contradicts “the claims of alarmist scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “man made” global warming is a worrying and dangerous phenomenon.”
Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.
Delingpole also provides a graph which suggests the recent warming of the planet is part of a natural trend.
Jennifer Mahorasy, the co-author of the paper and the person behind the recent exposure of the scandal in which Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology erased record-breaking low temperatures from its records, explains the planets global temperature has increased and decreased naturally for the past 2000 years.
We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.
Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)
Delingpole reports, until the 1990’s, this was accepted by the climate change community. However, there was a unified effort led by alarmists, including Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, to remove the Medieval Warming Period from records.
Those scientists that argued against the alarmists were lambasted for their “incorrect” thinking.
The new study, however, proves those alarmists wrong, and the skeptics right.
To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – ing during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.
In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].
The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series.
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/08/study-confirms-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural/
Lol sucker milo yano is
You are going to cite Milo....STUDY CONFIRMS GLOBAL WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY NATURAL
An admitted truthbender.
Excellent.
Then put Al Gore's picture in there just to make sure Republicans like Darrin take the bait.
This is a great thread to look back on and figure out how many Cosmo fruit bats we have on this site. I did not think Darrin was part of the hocus pocus group.
My god, you guys are ing idiots.That was... incoherent.
97% incoherent.
The meta-studies that summarize the body of available evidence.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../2/024024/meta
Read the actual papers., Not what someone spins them to be.
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
The authors, all experts in their fields, read those papers, and quantified them using defined, testable, reproducible, metrics, and published the paper in a peer reviewed journal.
It seems reasonable to accept their conclusion, especially since you can't specify any flaws.
I have provided evidence. You have provided 9-11 truther-grade derisive bull .
Here is what conversations with 9-11 truthers looks like.
That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.
Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.
"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "
Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?
I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"
Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.
The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C
References
[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).
[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).
[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).
[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).
[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).
[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).
[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).
[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).
[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).
[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).
[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).
[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).
Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.
Here is what our resident "skeptic" is arguing. Notice a pattern?
Is this statement accurate?
John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky are hacks, btw. Lol, using anonymous internet surveys as "data".
Their paper trying to link skeptics to conspiracy nutters was retracted.
I see RG tried to do the same a few posts back.
Yikes -- the cringe is strong with these two
Last edited by DarrinS; 08-24-2017 at 11:19 AM.
Aw, those pranksters
It would appear so, insomuch as a tweet from someone without a background in science ever is.
Hard to encapsulate a lot of qualifiers in 150 charactors.
That doesn't appear to be scientific evidence. Is it? How exactly does it apply to the scientific question at hand?John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky are hacks, btw. Lol, using anonymous internet surveys as "data".
Their paper trying to link skeptics to conspiracy nutters was retracted.
I see RG tried to do the same a few posts back.
Yikes -- the cringe is strong with these two
That doesn't appear to be scientific evidence, either. Is it? How exactly does it apply to the scientific question at hand?
Darrin, the le of the thread is "why I think climate change denial is pseudoscience"
The largest part of that was that the majority people who say they are "skeptical", really are using code word for outright dogmatic denial.
I laid out what I would do, and provided a metric for demonstrating "denial". The biggest part of that was using arguments that were deeply, obviously logically flawed made by people who claimed to be skeptics.
Over the past few years, I have pointed out, dozens of times, how logically flawed your posts are.
You are proving my point for me, every time you post something so obviously bad.
I even try to be kind and tell you that you aren't helping your case, merely making it look worse and worse.
Yet you keep it up, never bothering to learn how to make a logical argument, or learn anything in the science, economics, or risk management topics here.
So it seems like we should try something a bit more constructive, and basic.
Definitions.
What is your understanding of what cons utes a logical fallacy?
I think you messed up and this wasn't meant to be a response to Chris's posts
I just think people should see these two psychologists for themselves. I don't give their shoddy "science" any weight.
Here's an excellent critique of the Cook paper
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/...-cooks-97.html
You find the conclusion excellent. That's your starting point
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
