independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 21st Jan 2019 1:41pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate report warns of grim consequences
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 5 <12345
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 12/20/18 7:08am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

TweetyV6 said:

No. Let's say that the vast majority agrees that the current climate science, as referred to by the politicians (e.g. the IPCC liased 'scientists'), has nothing to do with real scientific principles anymore.

And then, as usual, there was no debat on what, but only about who/how






you are one collossal fuckup. truly


a few moments after you critizised others for questioning the source instead of the content, you yourself ride your old ad hominem attack against IPCC scientists? you are just one giant fucking hypocritic JOKE, nothing else.

and all of a sudden you CAN make a diffrence bewtween politics and science??. but when someone else pointed out that you posted just a White House Trump pick & choose clusterfuck, you did not care at all about politics involvment. LMFAO

UNREAL



now get the fuck lost, end of debate, phony retard

Thank you for the compliment. You have a nasty habit there. confused

The dabate on what is simple. I thought you had that figured out by now.

The scientific principle is that if you drop a statement that X does Y if Z and your theory (model) explains how (Z) and if you monitor actual values of X and Y and they don't align with your model predictions, you shouold review and adjust Z to tune your model (if possible at all; otherwise your theory is falsified)
What happens in current climate science, is tha Y gets adjusted to align to the desired outcome.

Let's say I see raw data at its origin and how we send it out and I see what is derived from them and how it is presented to the public.
There is some disconnect.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 12/20/18 7:11am

RodeoSchro

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

BombSquad said:

And then, as usual, there was no debat on what, but only about who/how






you are one collossal fuckup. truly


a few moments after you critizised others for questioning the source instead of the content, you yourself ride your old ad hominem attack against IPCC scientists? you are just one giant fucking hypocritic JOKE, nothing else.

and all of a sudden you CAN make a diffrence bewtween politics and science??. but when someone else pointed out that you posted just a White House Trump pick & choose clusterfuck, you did not care at all about politics involvment. LMFAO

UNREAL



now get the fuck lost, end of debate, phony retard

Thank you for the compliment. You have a nasty habit there. confused

The dabate on what is simple. I thought you had that figured out by now.

The scientific principle is that if you drop a statement that X does Y if Z and your theory (model) explains how (Z) and if you monitor actual values of X and Y and they don't align with your model predictions, you shouold review and adjust Z to tune your model (if possible at all; otherwise your theory is falsified)
What happens in current climate science, is tha Y gets adjusted to align to the desired outcome.

Let's say I see raw data at its origin and how we send it out and I see what is derived from them and how it is presented to the public.
There is some disconnect.




Just out of curiousity, what are your scientific credentials? Education, certifications, titles, etc?

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 12/20/18 7:47am

poppys

We've been told he makes a lot of $$.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 12/20/18 8:26am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

TweetyV6 said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


TweetyV6 said:



No. Let's say that the vast majority agrees that the current climate science, as referred to by the politicians (e.g. the IPCC liased 'scientists'), has nothing to do with real scientific principles anymore.



It's junk science which has become religion like.

We have these discussions frequently as part of the data we provide is input for climate models.



Lol “let’s say the vast majority agrees with current climate science” What exactly do you do for a living if you don’t mind me asking? You sound mighty superior to your peers. lol [Edited 12/20/18 5:56am]


I'm the Quality Assurance Competence Area Manager of Eumetsat, the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

This is what we do: https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/AboutUs/WhatWeDo/index.html

My team and I are involved in sending & revceiving data to and from satellites we operate and data provision to 3rd parties (our 'customers')
We're also involved in developing satellites at universities and ESA, NASA and Roskosmos.

Large part of the people I'm in contact with are scientists. They know how science works.
Climate 'science' is an example of how it shouldn't be done.

So no, I'm not superior, but we all have knowledge of the scientific principles.




Props to you. Thats pretty cool.
President Trump is a disgusting piece of shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 12/20/18 8:52am

jaawwnn

avatar

Right

https://www.eumetsat.int/...index.html

this page is now bookmarked. We're gonna have this debate in person!! hammer

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 12/20/18 1:24pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

BombSquad said:

And then, as usual, there was no debat on what, but only about who/how






you are one collossal fuckup. truly


a few moments after you critizised others for questioning the source instead of the content, you yourself ride your old ad hominem attack against IPCC scientists? you are just one giant fucking hypocritic JOKE, nothing else.

and all of a sudden you CAN make a diffrence bewtween politics and science??. but when someone else pointed out that you posted just a White House Trump pick & choose clusterfuck, you did not care at all about politics involvment. LMFAO

UNREAL



now get the fuck lost, end of debate, phony retard



The dabate on what is simple. I thought you had that figured out by now.

The scientific principle is that if you drop a statement that X does Y if Z and your theory (model) explains how (Z) and if you monitor actual values of X and Y and they don't align with your model predictions, you shouold review and adjust Z to tune your model (if possible at all; otherwise your theory is falsified)
What happens in current climate science, is tha Y gets adjusted to align to the desired outcome.

Let's say I see raw data at its origin and how we send it out and I see what is derived from them and how it is presented to the public.
There is some disconnect.

.

So you read how your own customers are using your data to support and better understand Anthropogenic Climate Change. Do you read what your own organisation says in support of these theories about Anthropogenic Climate Change? Your website was certainly not written in support of your opinion.

.

There is no scientific principle that says that if changes to X (being the set of changed independent variables) do not exactly result in Y (being the hypothesised change to set of dependent variables) under Z (being the identified set of experimental contraints and the causal mechanism between X & Y) that you should only ever review and adjust Z. This is not how scientific experimentation works. This is especially so when the constraints/mechanisms need to reflect our constantly improving best understanding of how incredibly complex systems work such as the global environment. You may need to review and adjust all the contributors to X, Y and Z as you learn more and more about these.

.

Whilst no current climate change theory is perfect, not all climate change data is manipulated by communist eco-warriors hoping to justify taxing you further. There is an issue that funding for research more favours funding those looking for Anthropogenic Climate Change. This is a common problem with so many areas of research funding (religious interference in scientific research in medieval/rennaisance times has been replaced today by corporate/political interference - but that is another topic). However, just because you come from the other side of politics and opinions from those that more influence funding does not mean you are right (other then right-wing, not that there is anything wrong with that). The science stands or falls on its verifiably proving its valid and document causalities. It does not fall on measures of what energy we transform for human use or that a large proportion of the ~33 degrees is from water vapour or that the sun has seasons and events that seriously affect our weather. It is on the changes to the balance as a result of the full impacts of human activty (not just CO2 - NO model I know of is solely reliant on just CO2)

[Edited 12/20/18 16:07pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 12/20/18 10:06pm

TweetyV6

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

TweetyV6 said:

Thank you for the compliment. You have a nasty habit there. confused

The dabate on what is simple. I thought you had that figured out by now.

The scientific principle is that if you drop a statement that X does Y if Z and your theory (model) explains how (Z) and if you monitor actual values of X and Y and they don't align with your model predictions, you shouold review and adjust Z to tune your model (if possible at all; otherwise your theory is falsified)
What happens in current climate science, is tha Y gets adjusted to align to the desired outcome.

Let's say I see raw data at its origin and how we send it out and I see what is derived from them and how it is presented to the public.
There is some disconnect.




Just out of curiousity, what are your scientific credentials? Education, certifications, titles, etc?

I'm a bachelor in Chemical Technology (basically the crossroads of physics & chemistry) since 1994
I am a Master of Quality Management. Have worked all my professional life in the field of Quality Management in Automotive (pre-mass production) and Aerospace.
I have a specialization in Measurement System Analysis, Capability Studies and I am a certified Lead Auditor for AS9100 and AS9110 (aerospace specific quality management frameworks)

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 12/20/18 10:07pm

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Right

https://www.eumetsat.int/...index.html

this page is now bookmarked. We're gonna have this debate in person!! hammer

Good. Looking fwd to it.

But off site whilst enjoying a beer. beer


.

[Edited 12/20/18 22:30pm]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 12/20/18 10:28pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:



The dabate on what is simple. I thought you had that figured out by now.

The scientific principle is that if you drop a statement that X does Y if Z and your theory (model) explains how (Z) and if you monitor actual values of X and Y and they don't align with your model predictions, you shouold review and adjust Z to tune your model (if possible at all; otherwise your theory is falsified)
What happens in current climate science, is tha Y gets adjusted to align to the desired outcome.

Let's say I see raw data at its origin and how we send it out and I see what is derived from them and how it is presented to the public.
There is some disconnect.

.

So you read how your own customers are using your data to support and better understand Anthropogenic Climate Change. Do you read what your own organisation says in support of these theories about Anthropogenic Climate Change? Your website was certainly not written in support of your opinion.


Correct.

Guess whom were funded by? Something with biting & hand & feeding wink


.

There is no scientific principle that says that if changes to X (being the set of changed independent variables) do not exactly result in Y (being the hypothesised change to set of dependent variables) under Z (being the identified set of experimental contraints and the causal mechanism between X & Y) that you should only ever review and adjust Z. This is not how scientific experimentation works. This is especially so when the constraints/mechanisms need to reflect our constantly improving best understanding of how incredibly complex systems work such as the global environment. You may need to review and adjust all the contributors to X, Y and Z as you learn more and more about these.


Partially agree.
But what is happening, is that the data are being manipulated (especially those from terrestial origin, so land based measurement stations arround the world) to show or trend at the desired outcome.


.

Whilst no current climate change theory is perfect, not all climate change data is manipulated by communist eco-warriors hoping to justify taxing you further. There is an issue that funding for research more favours funding those looking for Anthropogenic Climate Change. This is a common problem with so many areas of research funding (religious interference in scientific research in medieval/rennaisance times has been replaced today by corporate/political interference - but that is another topic). However, just because you come from the other side of politics and opinions from those that more influence funding does not mean you are right (other then right-wing, not that there is anything wrong with that). The science stands or falls on its verifiably proving its valid and document causalities. It does not fall on measures of what energy we transform for human use or that a large proportion of the ~33 degrees is from water vapour or that the sun has seasons and events that seriously affect our weather. It is on the changes to the balance as a result of the full impacts of human activty (not just CO2 - NO model I know of is solely reliant on just CO2)

[Edited 12/20/18 16:07pm]


The human caused climate change story is abused to carbon-tax our asses.

There are even people who claim that it's all about re-distributing wealth over the world.
And it's controled by eco-communists from the UN and derived lobby groups all over the world.
I do understand where those people come from, but I'm reluctant to fully agree.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 12/21/18 2:34am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:


Partially agree.
But what is happening, is that the data are being manipulated (especially those from terrestial origin, so land based measurement stations arround the world) to show or trend at the desired outcome.


.

Whilst no current climate change theory is perfect, not all climate change data is manipulated by communist eco-warriors hoping to justify taxing you further. There is an issue that funding for research more favours funding those looking for Anthropogenic Climate Change. This is a common problem with so many areas of research funding (religious interference in scientific research in medieval/rennaisance times has been replaced today by corporate/political interference - but that is another topic). However, just because you come from the other side of politics and opinions from those that more influence funding does not mean you are right (other then right-wing, not that there is anything wrong with that). The science stands or falls on its verifiably proving its valid and document causalities. It does not fall on measures of what energy we transform for human use or that a large proportion of the ~33 degrees is from water vapour or that the sun has seasons and events that seriously affect our weather. It is on the changes to the balance as a result of the full impacts of human activty (not just CO2 - NO model I know of is solely reliant on just CO2)

[Edited 12/20/18 16:07pm]


The human caused climate change story is abused to carbon-tax our asses.

There are even people who claim that it's all about re-distributing wealth over the world.
And it's controled by eco-communists from the UN and derived lobby groups all over the world.
I do understand where those people come from, but I'm reluctant to fully agree.

.

Some on the left see it as such an opportunity.

.

Some on the right see it as you do and over emphasise every issue and grasp at any alternative theory to deny Anthropogenic Climate Change.

.

The rest of us see it, not as a political issue, but a scientific and environmental issue.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 12/21/18 1:48pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

Weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.



Oh, and... https://debamboozled.file...-10-15.png

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 12/21/18 5:11pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



TweetyV6 said:




IanRG said:




Partially agree.
But what is happening, is that the data are being manipulated (especially those from terrestial origin, so land based measurement stations arround the world) to show or trend at the desired outcome.




.


Whilst no current climate change theory is perfect, not all climate change data is manipulated by communist eco-warriors hoping to justify taxing you further. There is an issue that funding for research more favours funding those looking for Anthropogenic Climate Change. This is a common problem with so many areas of research funding (religious interference in scientific research in medieval/rennaisance times has been replaced today by corporate/political interference - but that is another topic). However, just because you come from the other side of politics and opinions from those that more influence funding does not mean you are right (other then right-wing, not that there is anything wrong with that). The science stands or falls on its verifiably proving its valid and document causalities. It does not fall on measures of what energy we transform for human use or that a large proportion of the ~33 degrees is from water vapour or that the sun has seasons and events that seriously affect our weather. It is on the changes to the balance as a result of the full impacts of human activty (not just CO2 - NO model I know of is solely reliant on just CO2)


[Edited 12/20/18 16:07pm]




The human caused climate change story is abused to carbon-tax our asses.

There are even people who claim that it's all about re-distributing wealth over the world.
And it's controled by eco-communists from the UN and derived lobby groups all over the world.
I do understand where those people come from, but I'm reluctant to fully agree.





.


Some on the left see it as such an opportunity.


.


Some on the right see it as you do and over emphasise every issue and grasp at any alternative theory to deny Anthropogenic Climate Change.


.


The rest of us see it, not as a political issue, but a scientific and environmental issue.



Exactly.

Whatever is done or not done in the near future will not effect me. I will mostly likely be dead by then. I just care enough about future generations to play it safe. These are long term ideas that we will see results one way or another by generations to come.

Whether we try to intercede or not, we will eventually have data one way or another.
President Trump is a disgusting piece of shit.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 01/08/19 4:40am

jaawwnn

avatar

Cheer me up tweety/onlyinthe

tell me why this is wrong and we're all going to be fine:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/08/when-the-ice-melts-the-catastrophe-of-vanishing-glaciers


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 01/08/19 12:45pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

BREAKING NEWS
U.S. carbon emissions rose sharply in 2018, even as coal plants closed. One big reason: the growing economy.

Tuesday, January 8, 2019 5:34 AM EST

America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 01/09/19 11:38pm

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Cheer me up tweety/onlyinthe

tell me why this is wrong and we're all going to be fine:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/08/when-the-ice-melts-the-catastrophe-of-vanishing-glaciers



Guardian bla-di-bla bullshit.

This, just this kind of selective information: "The heat-trapping nature of CO2 and methane, both greenhouse gases, has been scientific fact for decades", which in itself isn't incorrect, is deliberately misleading; it does not give the full picture.

There are more GH gasses then CO2 and CH4. One of those, namely H2O, plays a much more significant role then these 2.

Water is the only big contributor to the GH effect. 80-95% (depending on RH) are coming from water. Not Carbondioxide nor Methane.

FFS, SF6 (Sulphorhexafluoride) has a 22.000 times larger GH effect than CO2 has.
You don't hear anybody whining about that, do you?


And that's a scientific fact for decades.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 01/09/19 11:50pm

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

BREAKING NEWS
U.S. carbon emissions rose sharply in 2018, even as coal plants closed. One big reason: the growing economy.

Tuesday, January 8, 2019 5:34 AM EST

America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.

Again.

Only valid if you believe that CO2 is the sole, or most significant, driver of Global Warming/Climate Change.

Otherwise... who gives a shit?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 01/10/19 2:22am

jaawwnn

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


Guardian bla-di-bla bullshit.

This, just this kind of selective information: "The heat-trapping nature of CO2 and methane, both greenhouse gases, has been scientific fact for decades", which in itself isn't incorrect, is deliberately misleading; it does not give the full picture.

There are more GH gasses then CO2 and CH4. One of those, namely H2O, plays a much more significant role then these 2.

Water is the only big contributor to the GH effect. 80-95% (depending on RH) are coming from water. Not Carbondioxide nor Methane.

FFS, SF6 (Sulphorhexafluoride) has a 22.000 times larger GH effect than CO2 has.
You don't hear anybody whining about that, do you?


And that's a scientific fact for decades.

So tell me about this

https://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming. Carbon monoxide is an ozone precursor, and also reacts with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the atmosphere, reducing their abundance. As OH radicals reduce the lifetimes of many strong greenhouse gases (such as methane), CO indirectly increases the global warming potential of these gases.

Nasa seem to be saying it's important whether it's the strongest or not.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 01/10/19 3:02am

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

TweetyV6 said:


Guardian bla-di-bla bullshit.

This, just this kind of selective information: "The heat-trapping nature of CO2 and methane, both greenhouse gases, has been scientific fact for decades", which in itself isn't incorrect, is deliberately misleading; it does not give the full picture.

There are more GH gasses then CO2 and CH4. One of those, namely H2O, plays a much more significant role then these 2.

Water is the only big contributor to the GH effect. 80-95% (depending on RH) are coming from water. Not Carbondioxide nor Methane.

FFS, SF6 (Sulphorhexafluoride) has a 22.000 times larger GH effect than CO2 has.
You don't hear anybody whining about that, do you?


And that's a scientific fact for decades.

So tell me about this

https://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateroles/

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming. Carbon monoxide is an ozone precursor, and also reacts with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the atmosphere, reducing their abundance. As OH radicals reduce the lifetimes of many strong greenhouse gases (such as methane), CO indirectly increases the global warming potential of these gases.

Nasa seem to be saying it's important whether it's the strongest or not.


You're missing some oxygen here lol


And... read the first sentence of the article to which you link:

Water Vapor

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.

eek Damn... exactly what I say and the Guardian deliberately doesn't.


.

[Edited 1/10/19 3:06am]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 01/10/19 5:18am

jaawwnn

avatar

Dude, I posted the link because the first sentence agrees with you, and then it goes on to talk about CO2 and says it's important, which you are dismissive about.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 01/10/19 12:37pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Dude, I posted the link because the first sentence agrees with you, and then it goes on to talk about CO2 and says it's important, which you are dismissive about.


Dismissive about, or ignorant about? wink

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 01/10/19 12:51pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

And there's this:

BREAKING NEWS

Scientists say the world’s oceans are heating up faster than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for climate change.

Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:05 PM EST

A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster than the United Nations estimated five years ago. The escalating water temperatures are already killing off marine ecosystems, raising sea levels and making hurricanes more destructive.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 01/10/19 10:07pm

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Dude, I posted the link because the first sentence agrees with you, and then it goes on to talk about CO2 and says it's important, which you are dismissive about.


READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO AGAIN. VERRY CAREFULLY, LETTER BY LETTER.

You're talking shit and you don't even notice it.
Damn...


.

[Edited 1/10/19 22:09pm]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 01/10/19 10:12pm

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

jaawwnn said:

Dude, I posted the link because the first sentence agrees with you, and then it goes on to talk about CO2 and says it's important, which you are dismissive about.


Dismissive about, or ignorant about? wink

So you're reading skills are also below average?
But I bet you haven't read the article jaawwnn linked to at all.

You just made an as funny intended, but stupid remarke based on jaawwnn's bad reading skills.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 01/10/19 11:14pm

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

And there's this:

BREAKING NEWS

Scientists say the world’s oceans are heating up faster than previously thought, a finding with dire implications for climate change.

Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:05 PM EST

A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster than the United Nations estimated five years ago. The escalating water temperatures are already killing off marine ecosystems, raising sea levels and making hurricanes more destructive.


Hehehehehe... junk science at it's best.

Go to the paper from which this headline is derived.
There you will read that there are over 3000 probes to measure the sea temperature to 2000m depth.


Surface of all oceans is about 360.000.000 sq.km.

Which means, provided the probes are distributed homogeneously, there is 1 probe available per

120.000 sq.km; about the size of the state of Mississippi.

So we can conlude that the vast majority of the ocean is NOT measured.
These gaps are 'filled' by 'multi model simulations to provide an improved prior ESTIMATE and error covariance' (quotes from the paper itself)

If you read the paper [only 4 pages!] carefully, you will encounter the word 'estimate' 10 times, model(s) 13 times


Aaaand it gets worse........

If you go to the supplementary material, which the paper links to, you'll get to a MS Word file.

There you will find that the estimates in this paper are based on 5 models. These 5 model estimates are then again based on 100 (!!!) other models:
25 models for piControl+Hist+RCP26, 33 models for piControl+Hist+RCP45, and 42 models for piControl+Hist+RCP85.


And the CMPI5 model used for IPCC's AR5 is leading, meaning: the observations from the probes ar 'corrected'(gap fills by modeling) to fit the AR5 conclusion.

As I said. Junk science at its best and they're not even trying to cover it.

But hey... it generates nice catasrophical healines.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 01/11/19 12:54am

jaawwnn

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

jaawwnn said:

Dude, I posted the link because the first sentence agrees with you, and then it goes on to talk about CO2 and says it's important, which you are dismissive about.


READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO AGAIN. VERRY CAREFULLY, LETTER BY LETTER.

You're talking shit and you don't even notice it.
Damn...


.

[Edited 1/10/19 22:09pm]

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming

Look nevermind, I was trying to meet you halfway but you're just a patronizing dick, fair enough. I'm out.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 01/11/19 2:40am

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

TweetyV6 said:


READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO AGAIN. VERRY CAREFULLY, LETTER BY LETTER.

You're talking shit and you don't even notice it.
Damn...


.

[Edited 1/10/19 22:09pm]

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming

Look nevermind, I was trying to meet you halfway but you're just a patronizing dick, fair enough. I'm out.


Not my fault you don't understand the difference between CarbonMONOXIDE, CO 1 atom of Carbon (C) and 1 [=MONO] atom of Oxygen (O) and CarbonDIOXIDE, CO2 1 atom of Carbon, and 2 [=DI] atoms of Oxygen.

That's why I initially made the joking remark that you were missing some oxygen.....

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 01/11/19 3:14am

jaawwnn

avatar

There now, was that so hard? I understand the difference, I just didn't read the difference. Not all of us spend all day in our important climate monitoring jobs thinking about these things, my eyes glaze over half of this stuff. I need stuff like the guardian article above to explain it to me, maybe you should consider submitting rebuttals?

[Edited 1/11/19 3:14am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 01/11/19 5:44am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Voxx 2014

'nuff said.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 5 <12345
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate report warns of grim consequences