starting strength gym
Page 30 of 49 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 481

Thread: Commentary #6: Global Warming

  1. #291
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Ads View Post
    Carbon dioxide does not cause warming.

    "In other words, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. Only in academic theory are there greenhouse gases that retain temperature from day to day. In the real world, they do not exist. The reason carbon dioxide causes no warming in our atmosphere is that it cools too quickly.

    These tests further prove that no gas — whether carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, or even humid atmospheric air — retains heat from day to day. They all cool too quickly. Prolonged warming, if it occurs, is caused by the Sun."
    This is one of the most intolerably stupid things I have ever read. This person has no understanding of even the most basic concepts of physics, let alone the physics of different modes of heat transfer. For Christ's sake, he actually thinks that energy is constantly destroyed by gravity, and apparently that is what causes gases to cool. The energy just ceases to exist. Astonishing.

    And it is not at all news or sole propriety knowledge of "gas engineers" that the ideal gas law breaks down at high pressures. That's why it's called the ideal gas law, and it's mostly used to illustrate basic thermodynamic concepts and general gas PVT relationships in a simplified manner.

    His experiment proves absolutely nothing about climate change. If you stop heating something it cools down spontaneously. Thanks Einstein. How was the gas sample heated? By a wide spectrum of high intensity electromagnetic radiation? Probably not. Do that experiment, and then tell me what happens to the temperature of the solid surface behind the gas sample. Compare the cooling of that surface to what happens to the same surface heated with the same source in a vacuum, or hell, even in an 80/20 N2/O2 mixture with no water vapor or CO2. That is the greenhouse effect.

    If no gas retained heat within the atmosphere of the planet, humans would not exist. The temperatures of the Earth would be so inhospitable that no life whatsoever would exist.

    But I'm sure I'm being "professorial" or "academic" when I argue in favor of the "academic theories" that are the laws of thermodynamics, which have only proven to be the foundation of pretty much all human engineering accomplishment since the industrial revolution.

  2. #292
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Schexnayder View Post
    This is one of the most intolerably stupid things I have ever read.
    Agreed. Which is too bad because it is trying to poke holes or raise questions in a controversial subject but that doesn’t mean you get to make physics up.

  3. #293
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    87

    Default

    I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

    childish? a little. hilarious? Also yes.

    I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
    I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

    By Patrick T Brown

    September 5, 2023


    So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.

    The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

    This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

    To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

    snip

    So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)

    In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.
    even though this guy is still a 'believer' its definitely worth reading. He is basically making a case to un-sound the alarm.

  4. #294
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

    childish? a little. hilarious? Also yes.



    even though this guy is still a 'believer' its definitely worth reading. He is basically making a case to un-sound the alarm.
    Why would they unsound the alarm? On a random guess, I looked up some stats for the EU - because the EU is even more hardcore than California about this bullshit. From Wikipedia: In 2023, energy costs increased for 83% of EU enterprises, and by more than 25% for 68% of EU firms. Electricity rates in the European Union are typically three times higher than in the United States for example.

    Someone is making a killing out of all this, and all that those guys have to do is bribe some statisticians and journalists.

  5. #295
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    Why would they unsound the alarm? On a random guess, I looked up some stats for the EU - because the EU is even more hardcore than California about this bullshit. From Wikipedia: In 2023, energy costs increased for 83% of EU enterprises, and by more than 25% for 68% of EU firms. Electricity rates in the European Union are typically three times higher than in the United States for example.

    Someone is making a killing out of all this, and all that those guys have to do is bribe some statisticians and journalists.
    oh course 'they' wont; this is just an isolated example of someone that could no longer be intellectually dishonest by telling what they perceived to be a half truth. If a quarter of the so called climate scientists all came out and said something similar, perhaps the people would wake up? Realize that in fact, the science is not settled?

  6. #296
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Mann’s Other Nature Trick << Climate Audit

    After 25 years they finally replicated Mann's hockey stick exactly. Toey took data from climategate datasets and reverse engineered it to find *gasp* Mann lied about what proxy data and PC's he used in the reconstruction.

    In today’s post, I will report on some excellent work on MBH98 by Hampus Soderqvist, who discovered an important but previously unknown Mike’s Nature Trick: Mann’s list of proxies for AD1400 and other early steps was partly incorrect (Nature link now dead – but see NOAA or here). Mann’s AD1400 list included four series that were not actually used (two French tree ring series and two Moroccan tree ring series), while it omitted four series that were actually used. This also applied to his AD1450 and AD1500 steps. Mann also used an AD1650 step that was not reported.

    Soderqvist’s discovery has an important application.

    The famous MBH98 reconstruction was a splice of 11 different stepwise reconstructions with steps ranging from AD1400 to AD1820. The proxy network in the AD1400 step (after principal components) consisted 22 series, increasing to 112 series (after principal components) in the AD1820 step. Mann reported several statistics for the individual steps, but, as discussed over and over, withheld the important verification r2 statistic. By withholding the results of the individual steps, Mann made it impossible for anyone to carry out routine statistical tests on his famous reconstruction.

    However, by reverse engineering of the actual content of each network, Soderqvist was also able to calculate each step of the reconstruction – exactly matching each subset in the spliced reconstruction. Soderqvist placed his results online at his github site a couple of days ago and I’ve collated the results and placed them online here as well. Thus, after almost 25 years, the results of the individual MBH98 steps are finally available.

    Remarkably, Soderqvist’s discovery of the actual composition of the AD1400 (and other early networks) sheds new light on the controversy about principal components that animated Mann’s earliest realclimate articles – on December 4, 2004 as realclimate was unveiled. Both articles were attacks on us (McIntyre and McKitrick) while our GRL submission was under review and while Mann was seeking to block publication. Soderqvist’s work shows that some of Mann’s most vehement claims were untrue, but, oddly, untrue in a way that was arguably unhelpful to the argument that he was trying to make. It’s quite weird.

    Soderqvist is a Swedish engineer, who, as @detgodehab, discovered a remarkable and fatal flaw in the “signal-free” tree ring methodology used in PAGES2K (see X here). Soderqvist had figured this out a couple of years ago. But I was unaware of this until a few days ago when Soderqvist mentioned it in comments on a recent blog article on MBH98 residuals.

  7. #297
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,425

    Default

    Indeed, Michael Mann is a genuine piece of shit: Amazon.com Michael E Mann: A Disgrace to the Profession

  8. #298
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    80

    Default

    What I don't understand about this whole thing is, if it's all a load of bullshit, why would a majority of climate scientists across the world more-or-less agree on it? If we were talking only about American scientists, or even just US, UK, and EU folks, then sure, whatever. All our governments get together and decide a bunch of bullshit that has no basis in science, and decide to start giving grants preferentially to people who will toe the party line, and that creates a self-reinforcing cycle of bullshit where questioning the holy scripture of climate change becomes a career ender. That I would buy.

    But why would the Chinese government see the west, led by the US, doing this stupid bullshit, and go "Oh hey that's some great bullshit, we gotta get in on that!" and do the same thing? Why would Chinese climate scientists feel any need to go along with the party line being delivered by their western counterparts?

    I'm about as uneducated on this whole thing as it's possible to be, while still being a functioning adult in the English speaking world. And as per usual my take on alarmism of any sort is to suspect a profit motive, stupidity, or a youthful desire to Be Involved. But the fact that there's a global consensus really makes me question the "government conspiracy" angle. Could some other force be convincing otherwise disparate scientists to fall in line?

    I'm not particularly convinced by arguments about the physics of it, or whatever. Nobody here is a climatologist, which means we're all stepping out of our lane, trying to argue about a topic we're not qualified to discuss. Every damn thing under the sun is more complicated when you dive into it than it seems at first; I don't see why the climate would be any different.

  9. #299
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,081

    Default

    We have global warming here. My Mrs cooking contributes somewhat to this calamity, and when I tell her it is burnt, the climate changes.

  10. #300
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,425

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    What I don't understand about this whole thing is, if it's all a load of bullshit, why would a majority of climate scientists across the world more-or-less agree on it?

    ... Could some other force be convincing otherwise disparate scientists to fall in line?
    Money, my child.

Page 30 of 49 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •