| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| Sculpin wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | no significant trend over the preceding 94 years. |
A single trend line fails to capture what happened. |
It wasn't intended to represent the climate of North America over the past 100 years, I just think it's funny how journalists and climate change enthusiasts like to string together a few data points and anecdotes to perpetuate the catastrophe narrative.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Left to right, or right to left?
 Climate change
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:17 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | Left to right, or right to left?
Climate change |
So to summarize a) Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions aren't causing any climate change and b) Plants will absorb all the CO2 anyway and the change will be good.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | So to summarize a) Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions aren't causing any climate change and b) Plants will absorb all the CO2 anyway and the change will be good. |
Apparently some people are more capable of holding nuanced views than others.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:49 am |
|
|
Did someone claim climate was static? How, exactly, are changes consistent with natural variation and which are *lower* than highs earlier in the current interglacial, somehow unique?
Looks like the argument is aimed at the 'we beat strawman arguments' crowd.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:52 am |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | Apparently some people are more capable of holding nuanced views than others. |
More capable of questioning why the core of particular arguments rests upon a stack of logical fallacies.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:38 am |
|
|
| Malachai Constant wrote: | | Glad you are finally realising that it is pointless to argue with a rock. |
There is no reason someone has to continue on, forever unwilling to look at arguments they dislike, even when they can't actually falsify them.
Nor continue waving such arguments away and making them secondary to the idea that a bunch of other people willingly evade these facts for social reasons as well.
Even rocks can change. But they have to be willing to do the uncomfortable, which is choose to put actual logic and proper method above social factors.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:31 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient CO2 . . . |
Leaf area sensitivity. Anybody who has traveled in high latitudes may have noticed that there isn't a lot of leaf area up there. Banana leaves are in short supply. As assuming this conclusion pans out, it probably isn't a significant change in CO2. Tundra and black spruce boreal forests just don't have that much leaf area.
Nonetheless as researchers focus on more and more details in the models, there will inevitably be corrections that both increase and decrease the overall impacts.
Btw, regarding the Alaska river ice breakup issue, I did a quick search and the Yukon River, whose records go back to the late 1800s shows a clear trend, with breakup moving earlier by about 10 days over that period. It shows the exact trend mentioned here - moving earlier into the 1930s, staying mostly flat to about 1960, then moving earlier again. There were a few others that showed similar trends.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1458 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
Getting real sick of the confirmation bias perspective of all the climate change nay-sayers. in a problem the size of an elephant they zoom in on a spec of grass underneath a toenail and claim it disproves the whole problem. It's just another flavor of the "it was cold yesterday so it's a hoax" BS.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sculpin
Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 1383 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Sculpin
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:45 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | people willingly evade these facts for social reasons |
Now it sounds like you are talking about sustainability again. You have everything all garbled up. You keep mixing up "facts and logic" with statements about sustainability, which has to do with ethics, not facts.
Instead of just sniping, why don't you tell us YOUR message? Is it that you are entitled to all the resources you can afford? That it is easier to live by your principles if you don't have any? Those are the things I am getting from what you have written.
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:08 pm |
|
|
| BigBrunyon wrote: | | Getting real sick of the confirmation bias perspective of all the climate change nay-sayers. in a problem the size of an elephant they zoom in on a spec of grass underneath a toenail and claim it disproves the whole problem. It's just another flavor of the "it was cold yesterday so it's a hoax" BS. |
Oh my yes, that must be it...someone *else's* confirmation bias is the problem.
In a *claimed* problem the size of an elephant these pesky people persist in noting facts. Like the need to use ad homs and the other logical fallacies to push the warming apocalypse...
In place of actually showing the arguments to be false. After all, the fact that the claims unique to the catastrophism are reliant upon evidence which isn't... is just a blade of grass. The blade holding up the entire rickety charade, but just a blade so...
Yes, that darned confirmation bias other people have. How is it confirmation bias to note models are not empirical evidence? How is it confirmation bias to note the fact that adjusting temps to fit purpose as model inputs, is *not* valid for reporting as temps actually recorded at a physical location with a given instrument, as is implied? How is it confirmation bias to note the Earth has been hotter for longer already during this interglacial?
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:16 pm |
|
|
| Sculpin wrote: | | Now it sounds like you are talking about sustainability again. You have everything all garbled up. You keep mixing up "facts and logic" with statements about sustainability, which has to do with ethics, not facts.
Instead of just sniping, why don't you tell us YOUR message? Is it that you are entitled to all the resources you can afford? That it is easier to live by your principles if you don't have any? Those are the things I am getting from what you have written. |
It's not sniping to point out inconvenient facts, such as continually noting the inability to stick to valid logic instead of relying upon logical fallacies to push warmism. Or the fact that the experiment has been run already and the critters, and us, are still here.
It's merely keeping what matters most in the forefront.
You are entitled to all the resources you can pay for, at free market prices, so long as you do not empirically violate innocent people's rights.
The bit about principles is unintentionally funny, since what we read here and so many other places shows folks with claimed principles who refuse to actually live by them by choice because they provably place their own comfort, convenience, and affordability above what they claim are the Earth's needs.
Am I supposed to conclude from your argument vs what is demonstrated here is that it's superior to claim to have principles and then refuse to apply them to your own life by choice while you demand others be forced to live by them? I'm very interested in these claims about principles and living by them.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| drm wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient CO2 . . . |
Leaf area sensitivity. Anybody who has traveled in high latitudes may have noticed that there isn't a lot of leaf area up there. Banana leaves are in short supply. As assuming this conclusion pans out, it probably isn't a significant change in CO2. |
I honestly don't know enough about the earth's carbon cycle to have an opinion on how much more vegetation would be required to reduce atmospheric CO2 beyond the seasonal variations we see. And no, not a lot of leaf area at high latitudes compared to temperate/tropical zones, but still significantly more than there was 30 years ago, largely as a result of higher CO2, as I understand it. Globally, I think the number I've seen is an increase in leaf area about twice the area of the contiguous US. That's pretty interesting if you ask me, and it makes me question the parched-landscape meme that's so popular... seems to be about as honest as the sad-polar-bear meme. Do you agree it's misleading, or am I misinterpreting it?
| drm wrote: | | Btw, regarding the Alaska river ice breakup issue, I did a quick search and the Yukon River, whose records go back to the late 1800s shows a clear trend, with breakup moving earlier by about 10 days over that period. It shows the exact trend mentioned here - moving earlier into the 1930s, staying mostly flat to about 1960, then moving earlier again. There were a few others that showed similar trends. |
Yep. In the context of the article the Kuskokwim part struck me as "look - people are ALREADY DYING from global warming!!" and then you look at the data... and there's no significant trend in breakup dates for the previous 90+ years. That sort of thing makes me roll my eyes.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1458 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Yes, that darned confirmation bias other people have. How is it confirmation bias to note models are not empirical evidence? How is it confirmation bias to note the fact that adjusting temps to fit purpose as model inputs, is *not* valid for reporting as temps actually recorded at a physical location with a given instrument, as is implied? How is it confirmation bias to note the Earth has been hotter for longer already during this interglacial? |
Because you want certain things to be true (or in this case not be true), because they are inconvenient. So, you scroll past 99% of the scientific evidence to place a sticky note on the 1% you like. *That* is how this is confirmation bias.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:29 pm |
|
|
| BigBrunyon wrote: | | Because you want certain things to be true (or in this case not be true), because they are inconvenient. So, you scroll past 99% of the scientific evidence to place a sticky note on the 1% you like. *That* is how this is confirmation bias. |
Thank you for taking the time for a direct answer.
So my takeaway in terms of what I want, I'm human like anyone else. Everyone prefers what they want to be true. The issue is not what someone wants, it is wether or not they allow their wants to impact their reasoning.
This is the reason for *reason*. Science is what it is *because* of these problems, and the solution is proper logic, all the time, all the way down, with no mulligans.... NONE.
No ad homs, appeal to authority, argument from popularity, or any of the rest. I'm not the one who uses these arguments. I don't need to.
When I scroll past 99% of the actual, empirical evidence...I see evidence consistent with natural warming. The difference between the interpretations differs on the basis of what are nearly all non empirical specific claims about human causes.
The 99% is also consistent with natural warming, I'm seeing yes, the climate does change and always has. There is nothing actually invalid about this logic. I'll point out that not wanting the last sentence to be true doesn't mean it is not.
I'm interested in actual empirical evidence for warming catastrophism beyond a mere CO2 increase. Endless stories about how climate is changing are not unique evidence for human causation.
Since models are not empirical evidence, the claims made don't hold status as actual evidence. Treating them as empirical evidence is one of the logical fallacies.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
