Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
If you have to lie to make your point -
WestlinnDuck
Member Posts: 13,839
in Tug Tavern
Maybe you don’t have a point. But leftards don’t do science and economics, they do feelings. If leftards actually cared about CO2 production they would be promoting nukes and fracking for natural gas. US reduces CO2 production and is condemned because they haven’t signed the worthless Paris Accord. Germany increases CO2 production but signed a worthless piece of paper and is celebrated for virtue signaling. Leftards just want the power and the money from a carbon tax. Leftards refuse to tell us how much it will cost and what will it accomplish. Hundreds of billions flushed down the toilet off the backs of the American middle class. And the dems tell us how much they care.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/climate-alarmism-fails-the-test-of-observation.php
CLIMATE ALARMISM FAILS THE TEST OF OBSERVATION
The Science and Environmental Policy Project produces a weekly newsletter on climate-related subjects, The Week That Was. I highly recommend subscribing to TWTW as the easiest way to keep abreast of climate news.
This week’s edition begins, not for the first time, with a famous quotation from Richard Feynman, one of the greatest of 20th Century scientists:
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is falsified by observation, and therefore is wrong. Ken Haapala, SEPP’s President, explains. There is far more at the link, but I will try to excerpt enough to make the point comprehensible:
Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Guelph, and John Christy, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, have undertaken to identify a core hypothesis common to the climate models used by the IPCC and to test the hypothesis against the longest data set available that describes what is actually occurring.
Haapala reminds us that it was McKitrick who demonstrated that Michael Mann’s hockey stick was a hoax, because any random numbers fed into Mann’s formulas would produce–voila!–a hockey stick.
In weeding through the countless hypotheses to identify one common, major testable hypothesis, McKitrick and Christy used four criteria: measurability, specificity, independence and uniqueness.
***
They found: “Air temperature in the 200-300 hPa layer of the tropical troposphere meets all four test conditions, pretty much uniquely in the climate system as far as we are aware.” The 1979 Charney report and all five IPCC reports indicate that any CO2-caused warming will be amplified by an increase in water vapor, primarily over the tropics.
As you probably know, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 arguably may produce a one degree C warming, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a good thing, especially as the additional CO2 would help to green the planet. In order to get the “catastrophic” into CAGW, you have to assume something else: that this one degree warming would produce significantly more water vapor in the environment. It is this hypothetical (but unobserved) water vapor that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the warming claimed by the alarmists’ models.
This theory isn’t very plausible, since the Earth has often, in the past, been a degree warmer than it is now, and that never led to runaway warming due to increased water vapor. But back to the subject at hand:
Using three different 60-year sets of weather balloon records, they test the warming demonstrated in the models against observations. They find:
The mean restricted trend (without a break term) is 0.325 +/- 0.132ºC/decade in the models and 0.173 +/- 0.056ºC/decade in the observations. With a break term included they are 0.389ºC/decade (models) and 0.142 +/- 0.115ºC/decade (observed). Figure 4 shows the individual trend magnitudes.
The break-term is the adjustment for the PCS. During the 60 years covered, the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa went up 29%.
As McKitrick states in his post, this finding shows that “models misrepresent a process fundamental to their usability for studying the climate impacts of greenhouse gases.” That is, the models show warming trends that are significantly greater than the observed warming – about 2.7 times the observed trend for the data sets that include the [Pacific Climate Shift] (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
The warming bias in the models should be unacceptable for any prudent government agency, including the EPA which relies on the GCMs for its finding that CO2 endangers public health and welfare.
In most industries, if you produced calculations that were off by a factor of 2.7, you would quickly be out of a job. But government, and pro-government research, are different. Here the purpose is not to be right, but to produce alarmist reports that, amplified by uncritical news stories written by ideologically aligned journalists, justify ever-greater government control over the economy and many billions of dollars in “green” cronyism. When the whole purpose of an enterprise is corruption, truth is only an inconvenience.
Still, truth remains an annoying presence–annoying, that is, if you are a global warming alarmist. Feynman’s adage remains indisputable: a theory that is disproved by observation is worthless.
Comments
Is Hondo like the retarded mascot of this board? Is he tolerated here they way some families tolerate their mentally challenged relations?
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the zeitgeist of this place.
The argument is that we wasted several billions of dollars on the backs of middle class trying to reduce greenhouse gasses. As stated right in the first paragraph. Then goes on to discredit research on global warming.
But ok. What is the point then?
God you are FS...
So such fag Bob..... Houston is exactly what I referring to. He doesn't believe the Earth is warmer. Cause the number of days over 95 degrees in the United States hasn't changed from his graph.
I'm sure it is just a wild, freak coincidence that the rest of the globe warmed dramatically while the only places that actually measured it show in the raw data that although there was a general warming from the mini-Ice Age, there was a huge spike in temps in the 1930s (hmm...wonder what in the news could have correlated to that) and its nothing like what is being claimed by the people trying use it to take political control of everything. Magic...
Its also why all the most recent models fail miserably when trying to correlate CO2 data to the recent temperature data.
HondoFS...
Hondo is a leftard. Leftards don’t do numbers and sh*t. Leftards don’t care about the private sector working families. Yeah, the fraud of global warming only costs a few cents. Like the price of a gallon of gas in Cali is $3.63 a gallon. In Texas its $2.59 a gallon. So, each 20 gallon tank of gas costs a working family an extra $20.80 cents. Then electricity prices are 19.9 cents a kilowatt hour. In Texas, 11.4 cents a kilowatt hour. So, Hondo feels that having an electrical bill that is 75% higher is just a few cents. Hondo is a rube that feels that he is somehow smarter that the conservatives on this board. Hondo needs to go get his participation ribbon and a hug from an adult. Then it’s back home in the short yellow bus.
And I'll trust the work of people who study the climate for a living over politicians, oil companies, and political pundits.
Now, if you literally mean "shit costs a few cents more", then I happen to agree.