Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Chef jpd]

Sponsored

 

[Chef jpd]

 

[sk47]

Warming effect of greenhouse gases 'has been overestimated' (msn.com)

Hello; This one ought to strike a nerve. I just this morning was trying to point out that computer models might be flawed and this afternoon was given a gift.


From the article "Antarctic ice has revealed that pre-industrial air pollution was worse than thought, suggesting climate models have overstated the warming from greenhouse gases. "

"

 

[sk47]

A Clean Energy 'Reality Check' At BofA's Energy Transition Conference (msn.com)

Hello; Another gift . This is a closer look at what going green energy can require.

 

[sk47]

Biden proposes to spend big on combatting climate change (msn.com)

Hello; Another follow the money link. This is just a proposal so far and will have to make it thru congress.

 

[Burkey]

Warming effect of greenhouse gases 'has been overestimated' (msn.com)

Hello; This one ought to strike a nerve. I just this morning was trying to point out that computer models might be flawed and this afternoon was given a gift.


From the article "Antarctic ice has revealed that pre-industrial air pollution was worse than thought, suggesting climate models have overstated the warming from greenhouse gases. "

"

Allow me to easily summarise that for you.
That my good sir is a MEDIA report, not an article published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
PLEASE stop getting your information from journalists who may or may not have an agenda.

I can find you a scientist or group of scientists who believe almost ANYTHING. It’s what they can prove to their peers that matters.

I can also find you reporters who quote mine and deliberately (or otherwise) miss pertinent details when quoting their sources.

 

[Burkey]

A Clean Energy 'Reality Check' At BofA's Energy Transition Conference (msn.com)

Hello; Another gift . This is a closer look at what going green energy can require.

Great. You’ve found an article that tells us nothing more than the OPINIONS of a man who is paid by a conservative “think tank”.
Brilliant.
In a discussion that revolves around science, why should we care what a conservative think tank might come up with? Aren’t they the same people who don’t even accept the science in the first place?

 

[sk47]

Great. You’ve found an article that tells us nothing more than the OPINIONS of a man who is paid by a conservative “think tank”.
Brilliant.
In a discussion that revolves around science, why should we care what a conservative think tank might come up with? Aren’t they the same people who don’t even accept the science in the first place?

Hello; Actually I just read the article. Have no ideas about the conservative think tank part. So you avoid the content by being critical of the source in two links I provide. Bet no one will see past that strategy.

 

[K4fxd]

That my good sir is a MEDIA report, not an article published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
PLEASE stop getting your information from journalists who may or may not have an agenda.

Actually it was a study done by harvard university, hardly a right wing media outlet. It was also published in a scientific journal.

 

[sk47]

Warming effect of greenhouse gases 'has been overestimated' (msn.com)

Hello; This one ought to strike a nerve. I just this morning was trying to point out that computer models might be flawed and this afternoon was given a gift.


From the article "Antarctic ice has revealed that pre-industrial air pollution was worse than thought, suggesting climate models have overstated the warming from greenhouse gases. "

"

Hello; Here is another quote from the article.

"Specifically, in order to account for the observed increase in surface temperatures since then, models may have overestimated the warming from greenhouse gases.

While the world is 'clearly' warming, as the team put it, the new findings suggest that it might not be heating up at quite the rate that was previously feared."

Hello; Now this does not do away with the idea the earth has warmed, it does appear to cast at least some question about the CO2 greenhouse gas contribution. The potential implication being the danger so loudly broadcast about fossil fuels and their CO2 is overstated.
The report is not saying CO2 is neutral as I understand it, but is perhaps having a lesser effect than we have been led to believe. this should take some pressure off fossil fuels, especially the cleaner natural gas.

A question come to mind. The computer models we hear so much about have to have data input. Then the equations in the programing do their thing and make predictions based on the data. An old saying about data is; trash in = trash out. I am not a computer programer so can not say from experience how important it is for the accuracy of a prediction to have good input data.
I would think it is extremely important myself. So if the power of CO2 is off the mark by some factor, then it would seem the predictions will be off.
This following is a guess based on what is seen in active weather forecasts. In particular storms such as hurricanes. There are a number of models used to predict hurricane strength and paths. In the first hours all the models are pretty close together. After a day the predictions begin to diverge. Two or three days out the models can be significantly different. Now this is understandable since as time goes on the multitude of random chance events will change things.
So two questions come up. One is why are there so many computer models for tracking hurricanes in the first place? If the "science" of the models is good then it would seem eventually one would prove to be the better and the others not used anymore.

The second is what will a mistake in the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas do to the model predictions? I get that just as in the early hours of a hurricane track the models may be close to what is being observed. What I question is how a fundamental error in the data will do to the accuracy of a prediction in ten years, in fifteen years, in 20 years and so on.

 

[Burkey]

Actually it was a study done by harvard university, hardly a right wing media outlet. It was also published in a scientific journal.

The article makes no mention of this whatsoever.
If you can find that information, that would be appreciated.

 

[K4fxd]

A team led from Harvard University analysed cores of Antarctic ice, trapped in which were soot particles from Africa, Australia and South America dating back to 1750.

While most studies have assumed less fire took place in the preindustrial era, the ice cores suggested a much fierier past, at least in the Southern Hemisphere,' said atmospheric chemist Loretta Mickley, also of Harvard University.

The full findings of the study were published in the journal Science Advances

From sk47's msn link.

 

[Burkey]

A team led from Harvard University analysed cores of Antarctic ice, trapped in which were soot particles from Africa, Australia and South America dating back to 1750.

While most studies have assumed less fire took place in the preindustrial era, the ice cores suggested a much fierier past, at least in the Southern Hemisphere,' said atmospheric chemist Loretta Mickley, also of Harvard University.

The full findings of the study were published in the journal Science Advances

From sk47's msn link.

We’re talking about a different link it seems.
I was referring to this one specifically:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ransition-conference/ar-AAKugy0?ocid=msedgntp

 

[sk47]

We’re talking about a different link it seems.
I was referring to this one specifically:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ransition-conference/ar-AAKugy0?ocid=msedgntp

Hello; Slick move, but no prize.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Slick move, but no prize.

Fuck. It wasn’t a “move”. Read my reply and take note of how I referred quite specifically to a conservative think tank. Then read the article I linked and tell me I’m wrong again.
It’s actually infuriating having to deal with this shit.
We have you who’s obsessed with trying to find flaws in climate models because you can’t read between the lines when statements are made and a guy who can’t read graphs.

Here‘s Tony Heller, leading “sceptic” making an absolute mess of science because he hasn’t read the literature properly, can’t read graphs properly and frankly hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Even when corrected, he continues to make the same mistakes.
The parallel’s are amazing really.

Sponsored