Play Nice Random Chat Thread IV

[Val Keating]

Huh?



Warming is a verb.

Aren’t you suggesting that the level should be lowering because of the current reduction in emissions?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Aren’t you suggesting that the level should be lowering because of the current reduction in emissions?

No, I am stating that the modelling is not even close to predicting the phenomena. It's woo woo.

"Climate warming science" is akin to astrology in many aspects, mostly because it predominately emanates from non classically trained scientists. There's too much political interference in the subject.

 

[Val Keating]

No, I am stating that the modelling is not even close to predicting the phenomena. It's woo woo.

"Climate warming science" is akin to astrology in many aspects, mostly because it predominately emanates from non classically trained scientists. There's too much political interference in the subject.

Ok. Yeah agree that the alarmist types have done nothing to really help their cause.

Who can be trusted on this? I don’t mean I want to look at data produced by scientists, because that would just go over my head. I mean what person or people can I go to that have annualised the data and are reporting on it so the average punter like me can get a clear picture of wtf is actually happening. At the moment there’s just noise.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ok. Yeah agree that the alarmist types have done nothing to really help their cause.

Who can be trusted on this? I don’t mean I want to look at data produced by scientists, because that would just go over my head. I mean what person or people can I go to that have annualised the data and are reporting on it so the average punter like me can get a clear picture of wtf is actually happening. At the moment there’s just noise.

Actual scientists. The ones that aren't compromised by politics & ideology (and therefore do not qualify as scientists)

Climate prediction is fairly reliable for periods pertaining to days up to a few weeks, nothing more. The system is just too chaotic and there's too many factors to punch in to the modelling. As for CO2, it has received far too much focus as a point of blame. This is predominately about the sun and the oceans. Water vapor is overwhelmingly the major factor behind most climate phenomena of interest, due to it's atmospheric propensity and dipole nature.

There are reasonable schools of thought who claim that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere.!!!

 

[Val Keating]

Actual scientists. The ones that aren't compromised by politics & ideology (and therefore do not qualify as scientists)

Climate prediction is fairly reliable for periods pertaining to days up to a few weeks, nothing more. The system is just too chaotic and there's too many factors to punch in to the modelling. As for CO2, it has received far too much focus as a point of blame. This is predominately about the sun and the oceans. Water vapor is overwhelmingly the major factor behind most climate phenomena of interest, due to it's atmospheric propensity and dipole nature.

There are reasonable schools of thought who claim that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere.!!!

Sorry, I get it’s scientists. I mean who? Which scientists in particular?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sorry, I get it’s scientists. I mean who? Which scientists in particular?

Climate science is a new designated field that is overpopulated with ecologist computer programmers. In other words, they bring bias in to their formatting when doing their modelling, and this is of course not science.

The IPCC modelling has had the s**t kicked out of it on multiple occasions. It's political, and politics has no place in science. There is no "qualitative methodology" applied here, that reasoning is for the humanities.

 

[Val Keating]

Climate science is a new designated field that is overpopulated with ecologist computer programmers. In other words, they bring bias in to their formatting when doing their modelling, and this is of course not science.

The IPCC modelling has had the s**t kicked out of it on multiple occasions. It's political, and politics has no place in science. There is no "qualitative methodology" applied here, that reasoning is for the humanities.

Is that your way of saying you don’t know?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is that your way of saying you don’t know?

What do you mean?

Do I know how the climate works well enough to make long term predictions? Hell no! No one on the planet knows.

Sorry, I get it’s scientists. I mean who? Which scientists in particular?

.....is a pretty ****ing vague question.

 

[ferball]

Warming is a verb.

What is that supposed to mean?

Are you expecting that in a system as complex as the Earths atmosphere and oceans everything will be completely linear? That's ridiculous. You acknowledge how hard it is to model this stuff accurately but then expect something as simple as ongoing linearity and think what appears to be one insignificant change in that non existent linear process undermines everything? That's ridiculous.

Here's data based on measurements not models.

Learn

Quick facts, basic science, and information about snow, ice, and why the cryosphere matters The cryosphere includes all of the snow and ice-covered regions across the planet.

nsidc.org

Heres a graph, note the trend. Note the levels in 2010, there is nothing in this to justify the comment you made about it being a bad year for alarmists.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Where's the water ferb?

 

[Val Keating]

What do you mean?

Do I know how the climate works well enough to make long term predictions? Hell no! No one on the planet knows.



.....is a pretty ****ing vague question.

No, not you. You’ve already said the climate science is very complex so I don’t expect you to understand it either.


I mean do you know what scientists we should be listening to? As in their names? You keep saying listen to the scientists but who are they?

 

[ferball]

Where's the water ferb?

What has that got to do with it?

 

[andana]

• March 26, 2020

Record-breaking warm waters have bleached large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef this year, as they did in 2016 and 2017, scientists reported on Thursday — the latest sign that global warming threatens the health of one of the world’s most important marine ecosystems.
“We can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its third mass bleaching event in five years,” David Wachenfeld, chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a video posted on its website.

 

[Val Keating]

• March 26, 2020

Record-breaking warm waters have bleached large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef this year, as they did in 2016 and 2017, scientists reported on Thursday — the latest sign that global warming threatens the health of one of the world’s most important marine ecosystems.
“We can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its third mass bleaching event in five years,” David Wachenfeld, chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a video posted on its website.

It’s dying.

 

[Snake_Baker]

• March 26, 2020

Record-breaking warm waters have bleached large parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef this year, as they did in 2016 and 2017, scientists reported on Thursday — the latest sign that global warming threatens the health of one of the world’s most important marine ecosystems.
“We can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef is experiencing its third mass bleaching event in five years,” David Wachenfeld, chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, said in a video posted on its website.

A press release?

No paper published in the science literature?

Analysis conducted from a plane?



Seems about as rigorous as most of the "climate science" that I have encountered.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

A press release?

No paper published in the science literature?

Analysis conducted from a plane?

View attachment 847957

Seems about as rigorous as most of the "climate science" that I have encountered.

Bit naive of you to dismiss the authority who was quoted. A simple google (scholar) search reveals that Prof Terry Hughes is a world leading authority on the Great Barrier Reef, having published articles in numerous top tier academic journals over more than two decades, including Nature and Ecology. His expertise in the area was officially recognised by Nature.

His research is as rigorous as it gets.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Bit naive of you to dismiss the authority who was quoted.

On the contrary, it's scientifically naive of you to even take that in to account.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

On the contrary, it's scientifically naive of you to even take that in to account.

So, you dismiss the process behind getting published in Nature and Ecology?

If so, you have a very narrow perception of what constitutes academic rigour.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So, you dismiss the process behind getting published in Nature and Ecology?

If so, you have a very narrow perception of what constitutes academic rigour.

I dismiss the data in the article posted, based upon it's lack of analytical rigor or peer review reporting.

It's not a "science" report.

For all I know the science is solid, but I wouldn't wipe my arse on that media release. There's no "snobberry" in a research lab mate, and reputations are only as good as their last research.

 

[ferball]

A press release?

No paper published in the science literature?

Analysis conducted from a plane?

View attachment 847957

Seems about as rigorous as most of the "climate science" that I have encountered.

Watch the video. It's not as alarmist as you might assume.

It's not that hard to measure coral bleaching - it's a visually obvious thing. It's also worth considering that bleaching is dependent on a variety of factors not just water temp (tho that is one of them.)

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ferbs, a couple of days ago you thought temperatures above 27C could destroy Covid19, and now you're piping up about what I assume to be aerial spectrophotometry?

Give it a rest mate.

 

[ferball]

Ferbs, a couple of days ago you thought temperatures above 27C could destroy Covid19, and now you're piping up about what I assume to be aerial spectrophotometry?

Give it a rest mate.

No I posted something straight here from my phone and when I read it carefully realised how stupid it was. Everyone makes mistakes.

Except you of course.

Watch the video.

What's aerial spectrophotometery and how does it work?

 

[Snake_Baker]

No I posted something straight here from my phone and when I read it carefully realised how stupid it was. Everyone makes mistakes.

Except you of course.

Watch the video.

What's aerial spectrophotometery and how does it work?

Let's just take it as read that you couldn't school me about anything to do with chemistry, analytical chemistry, or bioscience, and we can both save on the bandwidth, because I pretty much ignore any "advice" you seem to be compelled to offer on these issues.

I like you ferbs, but pick your marks better. I wouldn't attempt to school you about fighting bushfires.

 

[Hojuman]

No haircuts for 4 weeks min. Lost my ponytail in '86.

Might make a comeback

 

[ferball]

Let's just take it as read that you couldn't school me about anything to do with chemistry, analytical chemistry, or bioscience, and we can both save on the bandwidth, because I pretty much ignore any "advice" you seem to be compelled to offer on these issues.

I like you ferbs, but pick your marks better. I wouldn't attempt to school you about fighting bushfires.

Its not just fires. Its leading people, getting the best out of them and whatever is associated with all that.

I assume I can learn off everyone i meet, even you, and if I spent six months hard study on any bioscience subject I'd certainly surprise you. As it is I probably know more about how you "work" than you do.

Your ego is way to fragile. Just let it go.

That fragility of ego constantly causes you problems, especially when it comes to ideas you dont like eg climate change. You thought someone with a physics degree and higher degrees specialising in atmospheric physics had no business commenting on it.

That is laughable. Almost as laughable as trying to do spectrophotometry thru sea water from an airplane.

Every time you try and defend an ideological point you lost all the objectivity you need to accurately assess it. If you'd watched the video you'd have seen that it wasn't at all alarmist. Quite the opposite. You would probably have approved of it.

There's an 80% chance typing all this out is a waste of time too, obviously, but its still worth the effort. I'm not prepared to give up on you that easily.