The Global Warming Fraud

[pood]

Grasping at straws in the wind. I expect you are feeling a bit of anxiey, that feeling you get in the gut that pushes you to make a weak knee jerk reaction post.

Anxiety? Not in the slightest. You are the one that frets about a non existent looming catastrophe.

It really is a religion for you.

Here’s a guy who, in another thread, made the bald statement that ALL global warming forecasts since the last century have proven to be false. When I showed him documented evidence that all of them were in fact CORRECT, and indeed in a few cases they UNDERSTATED the severity of global warming, he went dead silent, after I repeatedly asked him to respond to my documentation. He only resurfaced to throw a little hissy fit at me after I suggested his lack of responose was bordering on trolling. Go figure. Yawn. Nothing new here.

 

[Jarhyn]

To answer the question, it sure seems like they are a YEC.

They seem to reject entirely the logically necessary implications of the following facts:
1. That the principle of least action dictates the second law of entropy, and as such that all present gradients in our universe will reduce over time.
2. That a subset of available configurations of stuff is currently in representation in our universe, and that such configurations as exist may lead to the production of configurations that do not as yet exist.
3. That some such configurations are represented by our genetics, a reproducing system of whatever origin.
4. That there are more efficient or effective configurations as to ensure reproductive capacity than the ones we currently reflect, within our immediate environment.

As such these four facts together demand that evolution must happen.

It must happen in any situation where there is "energy", an imperfect reproduction process, unrepresented beneficial states accessible within the configuration states of such imperfect reproductions.

I would hazard I am far from the first to pull this necessity from those four facts. In fact I think I recall in college someone mentioning vaguely how entropy drives evolution and my response was something not dissimilar from the above, connecting all those pieces.

I'd like cites for the phrases I've reddened.

IIUC, entropy (e.g. waste heat) is often produced by "smart" activity like living organics. HOWEVER the best such activities, while producing positive entropy. minimize such production, to achieve more Gibbs free energy — or do I have that backwards?

Not waste heat per SE, but the underlying things that Steve got all fucked up over in his thread: that there are microstates and macrostates, and the macrostate has a series of state transition probabilities available to it's microstates, and the one which involves the shortest vector is the one that is going to happen, probably, and the house wins in the end

These processes are improving efficiency at reproductions. The efficiency of the individual isn't entirely at issue here. Individuals minimize energy consumption as they may, but the existence of more individuals opens up more paths between the "supply" and the "sink".

The life that first existed represented a connection on the circuit, and the process, while creating local maxima higher than existed, created a lower global minima, much like the action of fire, in breaking a false equilibrium of apparent stability.

Overall, given the fact all this starts at a reproduction, one needs to look at the overall reproduction rate and the fact that life expands to carrying capacity. Entropy is going to drive the system towards efficient competition for all available resources. The result will always be an increase in consumed available energy.

Essentially, the wind was always there, but for us to put a sail in it and move ourselves for it gives us push, at the expense of disordering the gust; that we would be cool on a hot day makes it inevitable that we would heat the outdoors even further.

Life in it's own way contributes to this insanity being the most effective way, at the time, of burning off marginal energy. To be sure, we will find more and more ways of standing at the connection of newer and more exotic paths to stability, all so we can yeet our skeets further into the void.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

“We could use up all of the proven oil reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” – President Jimmy Carter, 1977

Just a FEW of the Climate FAILS on snow​

Caroline Snyder (iceagenow.info)

FAIL! “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
— Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

FAIL! “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.” — Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

FAIL! More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.” — Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

FAIL! “Good bye winter. Never again snow?” — Spiegel, 1 April 2000

FAIL! Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
— Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

FAIL! Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.” — Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

FAIL! “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter. — Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

FAIL! Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
— David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, 20 March 2000

FAIL! The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.” — Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

FAIL! The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
— IPCC Climate Change, 2007

FAIL! We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
— Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

FAIL! Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
— Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

FAIL! January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” — Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund

 

[pood]

“We could use up all of the proven oil reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” – President Jimmy Carter, 1977

Just a FEW of the Climate FAILS on snow​

Caroline Snyder (iceagenow.info)

FAIL! “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
— Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

FAIL! “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.” — Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

FAIL! More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.” — Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

FAIL! “Good bye winter. Never again snow?” — Spiegel, 1 April 2000

FAIL! Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
— Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

FAIL! Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.” — Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

FAIL! “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter. — Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

FAIL! Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
— David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, 20 March 2000

FAIL! The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.” — Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

FAIL! The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
— IPCC Climate Change, 2007

FAIL! We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
— Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

FAIL! Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
— Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

FAIL! January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.” — Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund

Not a single one of those so far as I can tell is actually a fail, for they are projecting several decades into the future, beyond now. So you are wrong again. Are you going to tell us what is wrong with evolution in the other thread? That should be good for a few laughs.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Swammerdami life is a system which produces as much available energy in as concentrated a form as possible so as to fund the direction of it towards entropic results for fun, and reproductive results, the fun being a carrot to the sticking it in of reproduction.

It navigates a surface of error towards success at causing another little spark of connection, powering towards least action: making the losing fun. Maybe some day we improve efficiency, but it will always tend towards use, efficiently filling the space, and being at the heart of that flame, being the flame itself that burns.

Why merely burn? But to be a poem...

 

[Worldtraveller]

Honestly, mods, the OP has literally bot replied to a single answer to his assertions. Then continues to just post PRATTs.
Is there a reason to allow this shtick?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, mods, the OP has literally bot replied to a single answer to his assertions. Then continues to just post PRATTs.
Is there a reason to allow this shtick?

I'm pretty sure they have to like, discuss each of the infractions, probably for brevity sake and "just because we're really soft around here" reasons give some warnings in private before a hammer falls. That takes time and the "pariah" buzzed in here in a course of days.

 

[atrib]

He'll be gone soon. Meanwhile, sit back and watch as the convoy of stupid goes on parade down Main Street.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ice cores have shown that the CO2 concentration remained below 300ppm for at least 800,000 years, fluctuating as low as about 180 or so in the ice ages. But in the last hundred years, the concentration has increased by about 50%.

Our friend would have us believe that 96% percent of this increase in atmospheric CO2 is from decomposition within the biosphere.

How many plants and animals would it take to account for a 50% increase? Do you think we would notice that much death of plants and animals?

 

[JohnG]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

 

[JohnG]

Astros sweep the Mariners, must be global warming. Is there anything you won’t blame on global warming? Probably not. You want it to be global warming because it’s a religion for you. You’re every bit as bad as flat earthers.

You are confusing weather and climate.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

 

[Jarhyn]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

For me it's less about consensus and more about whether the results are reproducible or whether the results of continued investigation stand on previous results.

But then, that's how most scientists arrive at consensus, not through group-think but through a thousand attempts to cut without apparent wound landing on the model.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

For me it's less about consensus and more about whether the results are reproducible or whether the results of continued investigation stand on previous results.

But then, that's how most scientists arrive at consensus, not through group-think but through a thousand attempts to cut without apparent wound landing on the model.

Imagine you and a group of people are on safari. you see something approaching from a distance. At first everyone had a different opinion on what it could be. Elephant? Lion? As it gets closer you get more detail and can start narrowing options. At some point you all agree it’s a Lion. Did it become a Lion because you all agreed? Or did you all agree because it is indeed a Lion? Maybe the guy with very poor eyesight still thinks it is a hippo but that doesn’t call into question with the others what they are seeing.

 

[Jarhyn]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

For me it's less about consensus and more about whether the results are reproducible or whether the results of continued investigation stand on previous results.

But then, that's how most scientists arrive at consensus, not through group-think but through a thousand attempts to cut without apparent wound landing on the model.

Imagine you and a group of people are on safari. you see something approaching from a distance. At first everyone had a different opinion on what it could be. Elephant? Lion? As it gets closer you get more detail and can start narrowing options. At some point you all agree it’s a Lion. Did it become a Lion because you all agreed? Or did you all agree because it is indeed a Lion? Maybe the guy with very poor eyesight still thinks it is a hippo but that doesn’t call into question with the others what they are seeing.

True, but the guy with really bad eyesight keeps his fucking mouth shut, is the point. He doesn't say "no it's a hippo" and get to turn the safari cart around because "hippos are dangerous".

 

[Ford]

[consistency edit]

Anyway, on the subject of hippos, yesterday I was listening to Snap Judgement on NPR, and they had a harrowing tale of a safari guide who was nearly killed by a rampaging hippo. Shit's dangerous, yo.

Episode

 

[steve_bank]

[post deleted]

Copious graphics aside, you do realize we live in a thn atmospheric shell maybe 100 miles high don't you? Weare in a 'closed room'.


Wht we put in tye atmospher does not just go away.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

For me it's less about consensus and more about whether the results are reproducible or whether the results of continued investigation stand on previous results.

But then, that's how most scientists arrive at consensus, not through group-think but through a thousand attempts to cut without apparent wound landing on the model.

Imagine you and a group of people are on safari. you see something approaching from a distance. At first everyone had a different opinion on what it could be. Elephant? Lion? As it gets closer you get more detail and can start narrowing options. At some point you all agree it’s a Lion. Did it become a Lion because you all agreed? Or did you all agree because it is indeed a Lion? Maybe the guy with very poor eyesight still thinks it is a hippo but that doesn’t call into question with the others what they are seeing.

True, but the guy with really bad eyesight keeps his fucking mouth shut, is the point. He doesn't say "no

View attachment 40759View attachment 40762View attachment 40763

Copious graphics aside, you do realize we live in a thn atmospheric shell maybe 100 miles high don't you? Weare in a 'closed room'.


Wht we put in tye atmospher does not just go away.

100 miles is being exceedingly generous. The exponential scale height of the atmosphere is about 8km.

 

[steve_bank]

Sore body like Pariah wolud ner run a car in a closed garage. Yet those kind of people think nothing about pumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

Depends on how you look at it.

Dec 20, 2018 — In the 1900s, Hungarian physicist Theodore von Kármán determined the boundary to be around 50 miles up, or roughly 80 kilometers above sea level ...

Earth's Atmospheric Layers - NASA

Diagram of the layers within Earth's atmosphere.

www.nasa.gov