Posted on 12/10/2018 10:54:32 AM PST by rktman
“Most of this is conveniently overlooked in climate models.”
Why include it if you are already getting the ‘answers’ you want..
No, she’s not saying she thinks that. She’s chastising those who think co2 is a control knob, not claiming it. Read it again, you’ll see. That’s why it’s in quotes.
[[the data being fed into it. I believe that there are those who wish to produce an accurate model and get scientific results that can be scrutinized and seen as competent.]]
You have more faith than i in their intentions-
Awhile back, Satellite data showed there was no warming for nearly 20 years- the ‘science community’ was frantic trying to prove there was- yet the data didn’t support their claim- so what did they do? They claimed one of their satellites had ‘veered off course’ or was ‘out of position’ or some such nonsense, and they claimed the readings had to be thrown out, and new figures calculated based on what ‘they should have been, had the satellite ‘been in the right position’
And lo and behold, what do you suppose they found? Yup- global warming ‘had really occurred during that 20 year period’, and they had the ‘new figures to prove it’
Yep, either the thugs with the bullhorn show up at her home or someone throws 200M at her under the table
I always thought it was a scam to inflate the price of carbon credits.
LOL. They should build a model that inputs all of the data collected and spits out "$ Required="
I met quite a few climate scientists (PhD's) in post-grad school who truly were seeking an answer, whether man had any substantive influence on conditions due to pollutants or by-products. Their research was considerable but even they admitted there was no exhaustive source.
[[She’s chastising those who think co2 is a control knob, not claiming it.]]
Ah my bad- My reading comprehension is not up to par today- thanks for pointing that out- I read excerpts like this and immediately my radar goes up because I’ve read so many of them that ‘dispute’ the current findings, but which still support the idea that man is responsible- so i just skimmed this thread and assumed she was one of them- and read it wrong- it’s encouraging that she doesn;t think that- but her voice will be overlooked by the ‘scientific community’ unfortunately-
>>“With regards to 21st century climate projections, we are dealing with deep uncertainty, and we should not be basing our policies based on the assumption that the climate will actually evolve as per predicted,” Curry told TheDCNF.<<
That is because they are not predictions. They are guesses.
[[whether man had any substantive influence on conditions due to pollutants or by-products.]]
We absolutely have an influence on health due to these things, but CO2, which isn’t a pollutant, does not have an influence on climate change- There simply isn’t enough CO2- any honest scientist would admit this-
Someone figured out for me, how much water 0.00136% would be when added to an olympic sized pool- they said it amounted to four five gallon pails
My analogy, though a little flawed- but not badly flawed, was:
Take 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water and dump them into an olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees
What happens? Practically nothing, because the 100 degree water reaches stasis nearly instantly because there simply is nowhere near enough 100 degree water to overpower the cooler 90 degree pool water- nowhere near enough-
Same with CO2 in the atmosphere- there simply is nowhere near enough to cause a thick enough blanket around the globe to trap heat and prevent the earth from cooling- there is so little ‘man produced’ CO2 that scientists should be ashamed for even suggesting that it is causing warming-
0.00136% (that figure comes form the fact that greenhouse gases combined, both natural and man made = 0.04% of the atmosphere-
of that 0.04%, man is responsible for only 3.4% (or so)
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136% of the atmosphere having CO2 due directly to man
How can 0.00136% of the atmosphere blanket the globe in a thick enough mass to trap heat? It can’t- at best it can only cause very very minor localized heat trapping- an d most of that heat gets radiated out in all directions- not just back to earth- so an even tinier amount of heat makes it’s way back to earth-
It’s simply silly to suggest that this small amount is resulting in global temperature rises-
Now if CO2 were say 1/4 of the atmosphere- you could make an argument for some localized heating I suppose- but where it’s only 0.00136%, how can they, with a straight face, claim they are serious about learning whether CO2 is causing global climate change?
[[I always thought it was a scam to inflate the price of carbon credits.]]
It is- France is your proof of that-
Also- it’s a scam to raise the price on everything ,and to give the government the ‘right’; to levy carbon taxes, and ‘environmental fines’ on everyone for practically everything- because practically everything relies on releasing carbon to succeed-
“What Say Ye Inquisitor Gore?” “Burn Her!!!!!!” “But Won’t That Create Some Of The Forbidden Substance?” “Can’t Make An Omellete Without Cracking Some Eggs Dude”
“All of the AGW types keep using CO2 as the root cause of warming. Ice core analysis has shown time and again that CO2 FOLLOWS all global warming. “
It’s the other way around.
“Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).”
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
The nutballs believe that that is exactly what co2 is. It is a great way to nail the argument with an understandable analogy.
Sea level rise is real and imminent. That’s why all those folks with the multi-million dollar homes in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and the Florida Keys, are selling them at 10 cents on the dollar, and none of them can get insurance coverage. /s
My Possum Holler Tennessee Seaport is worthless?
>>Sea level rise is real and imminent. That’s why all those folks with the multi-million dollar homes in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and the Florida Keys, are selling them at 10 cents on the dollar, and none of them can get insurance coverage. /s<<
I need to check back in Malibu to see if I can buy Linda Rondstadt’s old home for $50K or so. Should be high bid if I can get there with all the frantic drivers motoring up PCH. On PCH even oncoming traffic can cause huge snarls (I lived in Malibu for about 12 years).
Right...as the temperature warms, CO2 is absorbed into seawater, and as the temperature cools, CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
The rise in CO2 levels is a lagging indicator for seawater warming which lags atmospheric warming.
The left knows this. Al Gore knows this, it is why in his stupid “Inconvenient Truth” video, he was very careful to not put the two graphs one directly above the other on the same scale.
Honest researchers would have not put them on SEPARATE graphs which over long time limits on the “X” axis would make that important “alignment” disappear.
The graphs show TEMPERATURE increases, followed by 100-1000 years later, by CO2 outgassing from seawater, resulting in an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Of course, the Left has been trying madly to get rid of that lag, because it doesn’t fit the storyline. I just read an article where they have found some way to mathematically pound that square peg of “CO2 lags behind temperature” to the climate alarmist “temperature increase lags after CO2 increase”.
They will make it the truth, with the help of a compliant media and educational system.
>>Why include it if you are already getting the ‘answers’ you want..<<
Climate “science” methodology: draw your lines then plot your points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.