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

[CJJon]

Hello: QUOTE form the article I cited

"Others point to the short time scale over which observations were used to draw conclusions. Among them is Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an El Niño expert.

“Intuition should warn you that roughly 60 years of data is not enough to tell you anything conclusive about a 22-year cycle,” he wrote.

Among space scientists, the research is beginning to catch on. Tamitha Skov, a space weather physicist who goes by “Space Weather Woman” on social media, described the work as “a [wake-up] call to terrestrial meteorologists and solar/space weather scientists.”"

Out of context?

Not necessarily out of context, you don't understand what you are reading. Did you even read my post? I quoted the exact same thing. If you did, you missed this part though:

"Which means they are sceptical of the data and they want to investigate more. Scientists calling out "problems" in research is what they do.

WOW, scientists doing...science!!!

Really, this is getting silly now. Maybe you should go buy yourself a Mustang and go for a drive!"

This is really getting silly. You use a feature of the scientific method as a negative. You really do not understand. Just like your traffic views they are wrong.

I really don't know what else to say. It's as if your hair is on fire and you are arguing with me about it. Believe what you want, just stop trying to convince everyone that you know what you are talking about. Although, to anyone that thinks critically it is obvious.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread.

The basic fact is the earth has gone through hot and cold cycles through out it's existence. It does look like we are in a warming cycle, perfectly natural event and there is nothing we as humans can do about it.

It will get warmer or colder no matter what we do. If you look at this with open eyes you will see it as a money grab, follow the money.

Your linked charts and graphs remind me of the Arlo Guthrie song, Alice's Restaurant.
8 by 10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows.....

I can guess the reply's.

 

[CJJon]

Your linked charts and graphs remind me of the Arlo Guthrie song, Alice's Restaurant.
8 by 10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows.....

Maybe you're dyslexic?

 

[sk47]

The sun may offer key to predicting El Niño, groundbreaking study finds (msn.com)

Hello; Here is a new report from scientists. There is one line which struck me as fitting for the way this thread has been going.

It seems when the early evidence was presented to a "climate scientists" he responded that 60 years of study (on sun cycles I suppose) is not good enough for a 20 years (sun) cycle.

Let me think about that. The climate models are made on computers which have not been in use all that long. The computer climate models are making statements about climate cycles that can take hundreds of thousands of years. Sorry about that.

Hello; A point has been presented here by me a few times. That point being one of the climate scientists wrote in an article I posted a link to many posts ago that his computer model had predicted an event should happen in about 50 years. That event, he stated, is happening now. My point was not about the event itself. My point is about the very wrong prediction, by 50 years, of the computer model of climate change.

The different point in the post of mine pasted above was not about the article itself, but about the statement saying 60 years of data not being enough to be conclusive about a cycle of 22 years.

Computer modeling has a place in studies. I took part in a summer institute in the 1990's I think. The computer models were about populations of deer in the examples I recall. I cannot generate these sorts of models myself but do have some experience with a particular type. The value of a model depends on at least two things. One is having good data to plug into the model. Another is how accurately the math of the model artificially weighs that data when compared to real life or natural situations.
Having an error of 50 years in a model is OK when you are in the very early stages of development of the models. Having such an error in the model when these models are being touted currently as evidence in what is called "settled science" raises a red flag to me at least.

I am not in doubt the climate can and likely is changing. Such is to be expected. Such has happened historically. At least one story has been going around for a long time. That being during a period of glaciation there was a land bridge which allowed people to move from Europe to North America. The Ice had lowered the sea level enough to allow this.

Since then, maybe 10,000 years or more, people have been adapting to an ever changing climate. Sea levels have risen to cover that land bridge long ago. Well before the industrial age when we started to burn wood and coal in great quantities. I do not even argue against some level of human induced effect on climate.

One thing I do question is what will be the benefits of the somewhat drastic lifestyle changes being either proposed or forced onto us. Near as I can tell a lot of the dreaded changes are already baked in no matter what we do.
Also if we could somehow wave a wand and every human, government and so on reduced CO2 emissions to near zero tomorrow, then in fifty years we might begin to see a start of some reduction of warming. That in maybe 100 years of doing without co2 emissions the temps might be reduced by 1/2 a degree C.
I am called selfish for wanting to know about what I will get for my sacrifice today. That any reward will be after my death is for sure.
One thing seems certain. That not all people and all countries will jump on board the bandwagon of reducing CO2 emissions. We are to lose the chance to buy a new ICE vehicle in 2030 in some states and a number of auto makers have committed to only EV production soon. Volvo comes to mind.
Yet it is my understanding China will continue to build coal fired power plants until 2030 at the least. That these coal powered plants will continue to be used past 2030 would seem a safe bet.

I recall back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. It was predicted we would have reached peak oil by 2004 and supply would be in serious decline soon after. Such did not happen. Some new tech changed that. Oil will some time be in such short supply that we will have to move on. After all it is a finite resource. It was naturally produced by a set of circumstances millions of years ago apparently.

My thinking has been to move to some new form of transportation when it made financial sense. That plan will depend on how long I live so it has occurred to me I might squeak by with an ICE. When they get either the range way up or I can recharge in five minutes, then an EV will make sense. I also would not like to have a $2,000 or $3,000 battery pack to replace in a ten to 14 year old car.

 

[CJJon]

To paraphrase:

Science is sometimes wrong, so I don't believe in any science (especially if it will be an inconvenience to me).

 

[HiTekExec]

All good with me...and if I ever make it over to Aussie land I'll look him up for a few rounds and a few laughs at your expense.

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

The basic fact is the earth has gone through hot and cold cycles through out it's existence. It does look like we are in a warming cycle, perfectly natural event and there is nothing we as humans can do about it.

It will get warmer or colder no matter what we do. If you look at this with open eyes you will see it as a money grab, follow the money.

Good job taking a complex process and deducing it into an oversimplification so that you can understand it

 

[K4fxd]

Good job deducing a complex process and oversimplify it so that you can understand

Good job over complicating a simple cycle and making it so no one understands.

I can simplify it more. We have summer, it is hot. We have winter, it is cold

We are coming out of a "global" winter and going into a "global" summer.

Bottom line is we cannot stop it. We could kill off 3/4 of our population, go back to living like in the middle ages and it will still get warmer.

 

[HiTekExec]

To paraphrase:

Science is sometimes wrong, so I don't believe in any science (especially if it will be an inconvenience to me).

and the corollary: Progress sometimes sucks for a portion of the population, but that's life and it's better than the alternative.

 

[HiTekExec]

Good job over complicating a simple cycle and making it so no one understands.

I can simplify it more. We have summer, it is hot. We have winter, it is cold

We are coming out of a "global" winter and going into a "global" summer.

Bottom line is we cannot stop it. We could kill off 3/4 of our population, go back to living like in the middle ages and it will still get warmer.

yes, and...?

 

[K4fxd]

yes, and...?

We stop banning technology just because some don't like it. We should also keep developing alternate forms of energy. One day something better will be discovered or made and people will switch willingly.

Like the car overtaking the horse and buggy. Like natural gas taking over coal for electric generation.

If we do the "green new deal" we will force people into bankruptcy and or have to do without lives comforts.

If me driving a ICE car and having A/C in the house causes the temp to rise an additional .1 degree C in 100 years, I'm ok with that. Even if it is 1 degree C it will not cause any meaningful change from what is occurring naturally.

 

[CJJon]

We stop banning technology just because some don't like it. We should also keep developing alternate forms of energy. One day something better will be discovered or made and people will switch willingly.

Like the car overtaking the horse and buggy. Like natural gas taking over coal for electric generation.

If we do the "green new deal" we will force people into bankruptcy and or have to do without lives comforts.

If me driving a ICE car and having A/C in the house causes the temp to rise an additional .1 degree C in 100 years, I'm ok with that. Even if it is 1 degree C it will not cause any meaningful change from what is occurring naturally.

Then just argue that you don't care about global warming instead of making a fool of yourself trying to undo all the science that proves you wrong.

 

[CJJon]

Good job over complicating a simple cycle and making it so no one understands.

I can simplify it more. We have summer, it is hot. We have winter, it is cold

We are coming out of a "global" winter and going into a "global" summer.

Bottom line is we cannot stop it. We could kill off 3/4 of our population, go back to living like in the middle ages and it will still get warmer.

Gets called out for being too simplistic, attempts an even more simplistic explanation.

Can't make this stuff up!

 

[CJJon]

And for the record, I have not once said that ICE should be banned. Not once.

 

[HiTekExec]

We stop banning technology just because some don't like it. We should also keep developing alternate forms of energy. One day something better will be discovered or made and people will switch willingly.

Like the car overtaking the horse and buggy. Like natural gas taking over coal for electric generation.

If we do the "green new deal" we will force people into bankruptcy and or have to do without lives comforts.

If me driving a ICE car and having A/C in the house causes the temp to rise an additional .1 degree C in 100 years, I'm ok with that. Even if it is 1 degree C it will not cause any meaningful change from what is occurring naturally.

Ah, so your presumption is that the proposed "green new deal" is the real problem? IMO, that would be focusing on the distraction rather than the real issues, which plays into a different agenda; and it's also politics, so let's not go there.

Sponsored