Climate and Weather

Lion Eyes said:
The earth has been warmer, much warmer and the earth has been cooler.
It will continue to cool and warm as it has for millions of years...
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true ideologue pretending to know science.
 
  1. 10. Spending on "energy goods and services" as a share of US consumer spending has been at or below what percent in the last 8 months for the first time in history?
    Scored 0 of the 1 point
    1. 8Your answer
    2. 16
    3. 4
    4. 12
 
  1. 7. At the Ivanpah Solar Plant in California, federal biologists estimate that this number of birds are killed every year in what are called daily fireworks displays of "streamers."
    Scored 1 of the 1 point
    1. 6,000Your answer
    2. 3,000
    3. 500
    4. 1,000
 
Bruddah IZ said:
  1. 7. At the Ivanpah Solar Plant in California, federal biologists estimate that this number of birds are killed every year in what are called daily fireworks displays of "streamers."
    Scored 1 of the 1 point
    1. 6,000Your answer
    2. 3,000
    3. 500
    4. 1,000
Click to expand...

"We have had zero bird fatalities since we implemented this solution in January, despite being in the standby position as well as flux on the receiver for most days since then,” he said. “This change appears to have fully corrected the problem.”​

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/16/one-weird-trick-prevents-bird-deaths-solar-towers/
 
Wez said:
Spoken like a true ideologue pretending to know science.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a pompous buffoon thinking you know better...
You want to exchange insults Wez?
I'm your Huckleberry....
There is nothing ideologue-ish below.
The earth HAS been warmer and it has been cooler...FACT (Say dinosaurs)
Climate is cyclical...FACT (Say ice age)
 
Lion Eyes said:
You want to exchange insults Wez?
I'm your Huckleberry....
Click to expand...

That's what you do when cornered Lion, you lash out with Ad Hominem.

I don't pretend to know Science, I listen to people who do know it, unlike the wannabe scientists here who think they know the 1st thing about AGW.

Next we'll get a comment about it's hot in Summer and it's cold in the Winter...
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Anyone who refers to that link has not done any homework.
Click to expand...

Skeptical science (the site) is not bad; the content and commentary contains some real scientific discussion. From the other "side" it is maybe best balanced by WUWT, which also has some valid discussion of real data. Both are infinitely better than "no tricks". But perusing the climate blogosphere is not homework. It is just ACC candy. Homework would be along the lines of-there's about a 10°C annual average temperature difference between Big Bear and J-Tree. That considerably greater than, for example, the estimated 5-6°C increase in global average temperature associated with the superplume events that temporally correlate (give or take several million years) with the Permian-Triassic mass extinction events. Given such extreme regional variability, how does one monitor and compute changes in mean global temperature? Along the way it may start making sense as to why the handle part of the hockey stick started to flatten out compared to the version you posted earlier.
 
Wez said:
That's what you do when cornered Lion, you lash out with Ad Hominem.

I don't pretend to know Science, I listen to people who do know it, unlike the wannabe scientists here who think they know the 1st thing about AGW.

Next we'll get a comment about it's hot in Summer and it's cold in the Winter...
Click to expand...

That's been done already.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
There is no question that there is disagreement, and debate on the theory of AGW.
Click to expand...

True, but sites like "no tricks" are antithetical to that debate. Self styled guerillas misrepresenting papers so they can compile bogus lists to impress their online sycophants is intellectually dishonest and gets everybody else nowhere. For example, following the response tracking back to a comment tracking back to a paper and the paper feels the need to specifically state that they are not trying to make claims one way or another about AGW. Why might the authors feel compelled to add a statement like that?
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
True, but sites like "no tricks" are antithetical to that debate. Self styled guerillas misrepresenting papers so they can compile bogus lists to impress their online sycophants is intellectually dishonest and gets everybody else nowhere. For example, following the response tracking back to a comment tracking back to a paper and the paper feels the need to specifically state that they are not trying to make claims one way or another about AGW. Why might the authors feel compelled to add a statement like that?
Click to expand...
EG21 what do you think the U.S. should be doing that it isn't already doing? And I don't mean the U.S. government, which is funding both unreliable and reliable energy sources.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...

Most correlations are empirical and allow one to fish out relationships between variables in a predictive way. They point at trends, not at mechanism. Consider the correlation shown below. Even in light of a current understanding of limited stem cell proliferative potential, telomere erosion, etc., a mechanistic understanding of why more life leads to more death escapes us. Yet the correlation appears inescapably strong. But here's a question for you. Would you consider the modeling methodologies that characterizes climatology today fundamentally reductionist or holistic in approach?

survfract.png
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Most correlations are empirical and allow one to fish out relationships between variables in a predictive way. They point at trends, not at mechanism. Consider the correlation shown below. Even in light of a current understanding of limited stem cell proliferative potential, telomere erosion, etc., a mechanistic understanding of why more life leads to more death escapes us. Yet the correlation appears inescapably strong. But here's a question for you. Would you consider the modeling methodologies that characterizes climatology today fundamentally reductionist or holistic in approach?

View attachment 156
Click to expand...
Depends. I'm not a big fan of the binary approach.
 
Wez said:
That's what you do when cornered Lion, you lash out with Ad Hominem.

I don't pretend to know Science, I listen to people who do know it, unlike the wannabe scientists here who think they know the 1st thing about AGW.

Next we'll get a comment about it's hot in Summer and it's cold in the Winter...
Click to expand...

"The earth has been warmer, much warmer and the earth has been cooler.
It will continue to cool and warm as it has for millions of years"... Lion Eyes
Spoken like a true ideologue pretending to know science. Wez

You think that is cornered? Muahahahaha...pinhead. True ideologue? Geezzuss.
I respond in kind to your insults ya poodle dick. Again I'm your Huckleberry Wez.
So you don't know science and apparently history is also a mystery?

Let's get you started so you don't appear so stupidly childlike...
"The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles.
Read up
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top