Global Temp Changes

[kallend 1,646]

billvon

No, actually, the cause is winter. And that icy silence is from rational people's jaws dropping. "Uh . . . do these people actually not know that it gets cold in the winter? And that most of the land of the Earth is in the Northern hemisphere? Do I tell them that?"

Shhhhhh - let it be our secret.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

No, actually, the cause is winter. And that icy silence is from rational people's jaws dropping. "Uh . . . do these people actually not know that it gets cold in the winter? And that most of the land of the Earth is in the Northern hemisphere? Do I tell them that?"

Shhhhhh - let it be our secret.


You guys are funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[grimmie 177]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-science-committee-tweets-climate-change-denying-breitbart-article-debunked-n690986

[rushmc 18]

grimmie

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-science-committee-tweets-climate-change-denying-breitbart-article-debunked-n690986

And the point is?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,646]

grimmie

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-science-committee-tweets-climate-change-denying-breitbart-article-debunked-n690986

We will shortly have the most anti-science government I can remember. A POTUS whose position changes hourly, a VP who is a creationist, house and senate committees run by deniers...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,426]

>We will shortly have the most anti-science government I can remember.

Science and math are for elite out-of-touch Washington insiders.

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>We will shortly have the most anti-science government I can remember.

Science and math are for elite out-of-touch Washington insiders.

Ok Mr. math genius, who has a lower carbon footprint, you or a backward hayseed Amish man? Run the numbers and get back to me. If you need help with the math, let me know and I will help you out.

[DanG 1]

Why compare him to an Amish man? Why not compare him to a coal burner truck dude? Or to you?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

Bill likes to pretend that high tech is compatible with low carbon, I merely pointed out that low/no tech has a much lower carbon footprint. BTW it was BillV who brought the Amish into the conversation.

[DanG 1]

The Amish don't have as low a carbon footprint as many believe. They use machines, just indirectly. I stopped by my local winery recently and there was an Amish man loading up a car in the parking lot. I asked about it inside and they told me he comes down from Pennsylvania (two hours away) to sell his cheese to local businesses. How does he do that? He doesn't drive the car, he just rides in it. He hires a non-Amsh man to drive him around.

- Dan G

[riggerrob 558]

Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists
........................................................

Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
........... the cause is winter. And that icy silence is from rational people's jaws dropping. ............
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This short-term "noise" is difficult for mere humans to understand, so we need to look at big-data collected over tens of thousands of years to understand.
Most climate shifts are preceded by a series of dramatic (hot-cold or wet-dry) fluctuations before reaching a tipping point (Irish Potatoe Famine 1845).

I only started believing climate-change propaganda after reading the "Two Mile Time Machine" (4 I'm) about analyzing 11,000 foot deep ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland.

[billvon 2,426]

>Ok Mr. math genius, who has a lower carbon footprint, you or a backward hayseed Amish man?

If he runs a pig farm? I have the lower footprint.

If he's a hermit who grows all his own food? Then he has the lower footprint.

Next question?

[winsor 187]

The scientific process is based on skepticism, and science is never, by its very nature, 'settled' - even if there is general agreement with the applicability of models in concern.

Systems of belief, OTOH, deem non-conformance with dogma to be heresy.

The relationship between 'carbon credits' and 'indulgences' is too close for my liking.

G. W. Bush may be a blithering idiot, but his ranch in Crawford is a case study in energy stewardship.

Al Gore may be the Prophet of Climate Change (tm), but his home drawing vast amounts of power and his private jet taking him around to spread the Gospel of Climate Change (tm) require mind-boggling carbon credits.

Science is great, but when it is simply religion in disguise it is beyond fucked up. Think Scientology.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,426]

>The scientific process is based on skepticism, and science is never, by its very
>nature, 'settled.'

I'd say that by this point the principles behind Maxwell's Equations (for example) are pretty settled by any realistic definition of that term. And while there will always be research going on into new uses and corner cases, denial of Maxwell's Equations is in general a bad idea, with consequences ranging from career-ending (for engineers and scientists) to life-ending (for wannabe electricians.)

If you want to call that religion, then so be it. I'll be praying to Kirchoff, Ampere and Ohm today during the religious ritual us believers call a "design review." We will be looking for the common heresies, like the classic connection of Vdd to ground through poorly labeled nets, the absence of holy bypass capacitors, or the lack of blessing by the Sacred EMI Design Guidelines. The PE (Prophet Ecumenical?) will be leading us in our devotions, with communion coming at noon. And it better not be cafeteria sandwiches again.

[winsor 187]

billvon

>The scientific process is based on skepticism, and science is never, by its very
>nature, 'settled.'

I'd say that by this point the principles behind Maxwell's Equations (for example) are pretty settled by any realistic definition of that term. And while there will always be research going on into new uses and corner cases, denial of Maxwell's Equations is in general a bad idea, with consequences ranging from career-ending (for engineers and scientists) to life-ending (for wannabe electricians.)

If you want to call that religion, then so be it. I'll be praying to Kirchoff, Ampere and Ohm today during the religious ritual us believers call a "design review." We will be looking for the common heresies, like the classic connection of Vdd to ground through poorly labeled nets, the absence of holy bypass capacitors, or the lack of blessing by the Sacred EMI Design Guidelines. The PE (Prophet Ecumenical?) will be leading us in our devotions, with communion coming at noon. And it better not be cafeteria sandwiches again.

Yeah, I don't like baloney much either. My son's middle name is 'Maxwell,' after James Clerk, so I doubt if I will try to improve on Maxwell and Faraday's work (ironically enough, I just showed my wife Maxwell's treatise on Governors yesterday).

My point is that 'Laws' of Physics often turn out to be Local Ordinances in the grand scheme of things, for example, Galilean and Newtonian Relativity were expanded by Einstein (with more than a little thanks to Maxwell, who was a much better mathematician).

When 'Cold Fusion' is put forth on a regular basis, I will admit to calling bullshit under my breath, but approve of having the submission rigorously refuted.

Yes, I can and do stake my life on physical realities as I perceive them, but my livelihood is based on challenging to fail otherwise known quantities.

Do I trust the Physics? Most assuredly.

Do I double check when possible? Yup.

The difference between the basis for Norton's or Thevenin's equivalents and the foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is vast.

I again invoke H. L. Mencken's observation that, for any complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong.


BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

and the foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is vast.

Interesting. Can you link to serious scientists who have stated this?

[billvon 2,426]

>The difference between the basis for Norton's or Thevenin's equivalents and the
>foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is
>vast.

Of course. That's a strange thing to say, though - no climate scientist claims that CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science, just as no RF engineer claims that H-field is the single determining factor in EM wave propagation.

However, neither would any sane climate scientist reject the effect that CO2 has on the climate, nor would any sane RF engineer reject the role that H-field plays in EM propagation.

[winsor 187]

SkyDekker

Quote

and the foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is vast.

Interesting. Can you link to serious scientists who have stated this?

Well there's Fred, and he's pretty serious.

Siegel & Howell's work "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer," ISBN 0-07-057316-6 covers the fundamentals pretty well. Mind you, it might be good to be at least at the Master's level in an appropriate discipline to tackle it, but YMMV.


BSBD,

Winsor

[SkyDekker 1,141]

winsor

***

Quote

and the foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is vast.

Interesting. Can you link to serious scientists who have stated this?

Well there's Fred, and he's pretty serious.

Siegel & Howell's work "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer," ISBN 0-07-057316-6 covers the fundamentals pretty well. Mind you, it might be good to be at least at the Master's level in an appropriate discipline to tackle it, but YMMV.


BSBD,

Winsor

A Master's level in a related discipline is required to read that they state it is a foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science?

Seems odd that a high level of education is required for a foregone conclusion.

[winsor 187]

billvon

>The difference between the basis for Norton's or Thevenin's equivalents and the
>foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is
>vast.

Of course. That's a strange thing to say, though - no climate scientist claims that CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science, just as no RF engineer claims that H-field is the single determining factor in EM wave propagation.

However, neither would any sane climate scientist reject the effect that CO2 has on the climate, nor would any sane RF engineer reject the role that H-field plays in EM propagation.

The difference between Al Gore et al. and qualified climate scientists is as great as the difference between your average airline passenger and Patty Wagstaff. The first group talks about climate change and the second group spends time in airplanes...


BSBD,

Winsor

[winsor 187]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

and the foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in Climate Science is vast.

Interesting. Can you link to serious scientists who have stated this?

Well there's Fred, and he's pretty serious.

Siegel & Howell's work "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer," ISBN 0-07-057316-6 covers the fundamentals pretty well. Mind you, it might be good to be at least at the Master's level in an appropriate discipline to tackle it, but YMMV.


BSBD,

Winsor

A Master's level in a related discipline is required to read that they state it is a foregone conclusion that CO2 is the single determining factor in climate science?

Seems odd that a high level of education is required for a foregone conclusion.

An example of why I dislike the ambiguity of pronouns.

If someone states that CO2 is the single determining factor, they are by default not a serious scientist. Or they are drunk. Or they are kidding.

[billvon 2,426]

>The difference between Al Gore et al. and qualified climate scientists is as great as the difference
>between your average airline passenger and Patty Wagstaff. The first group talks about climate change
>and the second group spends time in airplanes...

Of course. Which is why it pays to read climate scientists as opposed to entertainers.

Not sure what your obsession with Al Gore is. Of all the people to have obsessions with, he's one of the more boring. I'd suggest being obsessed with someone like Herman Cain instead. His economic policies are quite silly, and he's much more entertaining than Gore.

>If someone states that CO2 is the single determining factor, they are by default not a serious
>scientist. Or they are drunk. Or they are kidding.

Agreed. So why pay attention to them? I take them about as seriously as I take Trump.

[winsor 187]

billvon

>The difference between Al Gore et al. and qualified climate scientists is as great as the difference
>between your average airline passenger and Patty Wagstaff. The first group talks about climate change
>and the second group spends time in airplanes...

Of course. Which is why it pays to read climate scientists as opposed to entertainers.

Not sure what your obsession with Al Gore is. Of all the people to have obsessions with, he's one of the more boring. I'd suggest being obsessed with someone like Herman Cain instead. His economic policies are quite silly, and he's much more entertaining than Gore.

>If someone states that CO2 is the single determining factor, they are by default not a serious
>scientist. Or they are drunk. Or they are kidding.

Agreed. So why pay attention to them? I take them about as seriously as I take Trump.

It annoys the fuck out of me that the dumb sonofabitch got a Nobel Prize and has made nine figures by pontificating on issues he is singularly unqualified to evaluate.

I suppose it serves to validate my thesis that intelligence is greatly overrated, and that Dunning and Kruger were spot on.

If Herman Cain got an Economics Nobel and a freight car full of money by voicing his particular brand of stupidity, I suspect I would find him equally as offensive.

[billvon 2,426]

>If Herman Cain got an Economics Nobel and a freight car full of money by voicing
>his particular brand of stupidity, I suspect I would find him equally as offensive.

But would you then oppose lower taxes, simply because he was for them?

Richard Dawkins often annoys the shit out of me. He's made a living being rude about creationists. Doesn't mean that I'm going to start arguing against evolution.

[brenthutch 388]

Michael Mann, the top climate scientists at a major university, an IPCC luminary and a co-author of the Democrats climate plank, openly claims that CO2 is the sovereign driver of climate change.