Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1450 on: August 30, 2015, 10:18:57 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 10:22:36 PM by john "teach me how to" dougie »

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1451 on: August 31, 2015, 02:54:04 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1452 on: August 31, 2015, 03:17:47 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 5000 years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1453 on: August 31, 2015, 05:37:07 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

All it means is that this is a strongest el nino ocean cycle in recent history. Pacific hurricanes generally peter out after a few days, but the warmer water extends their duration.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1454 on: August 31, 2015, 05:40:35 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1455 on: August 31, 2015, 05:43:54 PM »
heretic
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1456 on: August 31, 2015, 06:08:53 PM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

Pangaea tho

I'm sure there were more than 3 cat 4 hurricanes in the Panthalassa at one time.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52954
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1457 on: August 31, 2015, 06:21:13 PM »
Guys NASA/NOAA is so busy adjusting and readjusting temp records from the past 100 years they don't have time to consider all that really ancient stuff and technology only fits into the discussion when it supports the agenda.  Come on now.

First Time Ever *in recorded history reads so much better in the headlines.




Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1458 on: September 01, 2015, 08:02:48 AM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

RINO

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1459 on: September 01, 2015, 09:21:29 AM »
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

RINO

Registered independent

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1460 on: September 19, 2015, 08:25:28 AM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1461 on: September 19, 2015, 09:57:24 AM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1462 on: September 19, 2015, 10:17:27 AM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36547
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1463 on: September 19, 2015, 10:19:51 AM »
Is there not more benefit to deniers as far as control (lack of/ regulation) and profit?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 19, 2015, 10:58:00 AM by CNS »

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39041
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1464 on: September 19, 2015, 11:54:37 AM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

Free market will take care of this

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39041
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1465 on: September 19, 2015, 11:55:14 AM »
Also this is the best thread title on this blog

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1466 on: September 19, 2015, 12:38:11 PM »
Is there not more benefit to deniers as far as control (lack of/ regulation) and profit?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

This is my favorite part of the deniers "bias" talking point
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1467 on: September 19, 2015, 12:56:16 PM »
I mean, oil and natural gas producers make huge profits and they receive subsidies from the government. Why is it bad if wind and solar companies are doing the same thing?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1468 on: September 19, 2015, 01:56:07 PM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1469 on: September 19, 2015, 05:48:57 PM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source



Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36547
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1470 on: September 19, 2015, 07:57:59 PM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
dnr most of this,  but would you not deny that this debate will never go anywhere because a large portion of one side of the debate believes in a certain interpretation of the bible? 


There is no debate.  Just an argument.   The ppl willing to actually debate have already looked into it and believe in climate change.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


Offline wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30234
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1471 on: September 19, 2015, 08:18:04 PM »
Anyone who drives a car doesn't think climate change is actually serious.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1472 on: September 19, 2015, 08:37:45 PM »
i think it's serious; still plan on using my share of carbon.  eff all y'all's children.  let them burn.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1473 on: September 19, 2015, 09:50:04 PM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1474 on: September 19, 2015, 10:08:38 PM »
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.