Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429349 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

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 #1475 on: September 19, 2015, 10:10:30 PM »
what if aliens were training giant lasers on the earth, wouldn't that cause the interior to warm?
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

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 #1476 on: September 19, 2015, 10:13:00 PM »
what if god put us in the microwave just to see what would happen
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

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 #1477 on: September 19, 2015, 10:16:54 PM »
what if god put us in the microwave just to see what would happen

the interior would warm.  duh.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

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 #1478 on: September 19, 2015, 10:21:35 PM »
exactly
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1479 on: September 20, 2015, 04:57:04 AM »
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for co2.  It's how we survive. 

Warm, much easily adapted to, cold means almost certain death. 

Fossil fuels: The only way underdeveloped nations can escape their plight. 

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1480 on: September 20, 2015, 09:02:39 AM »
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for co2.  It's how we survive.  False

Warm, much easily adapted to, cold means almost certain death.  False

Fossil fuels: The only way underdeveloped nations can escape their plight. False

and dax goes down on strikes.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30234
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1481 on: September 20, 2015, 09:04:53 AM »
Treysolid what is causing global warming, is it cars?
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1482 on: September 20, 2015, 09:22:59 AM »
So plants don't need co2?  Plants do well in the cold?  Underdeveloped countries are going to dig their way out on the back of alternative energy? 

LOL.  okay.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1483 on: September 20, 2015, 09:52:06 AM »
Treysolid what is causing global warming, is it cars?

the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and methane (natural gas) in the atmosphere is causing global warming. as far as gases go, these molecules are very potent insulators, trapping heat which would otherwise dissipate out into space. the sharp increase in carbon dioxide and methane concentration in the atmosphere is due to human activity, or at least that's where the overwhelming majority of research is pointing. the excess carbon dioxide comes from burning crap that we find in the ground (so yes, cars are one component of this) and the excess methane comes from failing to properly contain other crap that we find in the ground (fracking, etc.).

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30234
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1484 on: September 20, 2015, 09:59:48 AM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1485 on: September 20, 2015, 10:14:15 AM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.


Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.
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 treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1486 on: September 20, 2015, 10:22:13 AM »
So plants don't need co2?  Plants do well in the cold?  Underdeveloped countries are going to dig their way out on the back of alternative energy? 

LOL.  okay.

The main problem here is you are oversimplifying a very complex issue to bring it down to your level of knowledge instead of making the effort to increase your level of knowledge to truly comprehend the magnitude of the issue. These little "shadow arguments" (bolded above) are no different than the old anti-evolution argument of "well, if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? did they forget to take their evolution pills? HUR HUR HUR" and highlights a fundamental lack of scientific knowledge on your part.

yes, plants need carbon dioxide for their respiration. but the carbon cycle was working just fine before we (humans) started dumping 40 billion tons (annually) of carbon dioxide on top of it. soil and vegetation are carbon sinks, but like all sinks, there is a limit to how much they can hold. the excess is going into our atmosphere, and trapping heat. your cooling argument is so dumb, i'm not even going to address it here (PM me if you want it). and to address your third statement, undeveloped countries need to focus on establishing sustainable systems of agriculture before anything else and you don't need to burn fossil fuels to do that. its hard to pull your citizens out of economic blight when they are malnourished or otherwise unhealthy and can't contribute to society

beyond that, it's time to look forward. i appreciate everything that fossil fuels have done for society. the industrial revolution enabled us to implement the knowledge of the Enlightenment and build modern society, but the need for alternative energy sources is way past due. staying the course will warm and acidify the oceans to the point where earth can no longer sustain life.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30234
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1487 on: September 20, 2015, 10:40:45 AM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.


Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1488 on: September 20, 2015, 10:46:03 AM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.


Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?

I don't even think Tesla sells that model any more. The new Tesla that will be released next year will cost ~$35k. Or you can buy a Prius, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt right now for $24k-35k.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30234
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1489 on: September 20, 2015, 11:01:57 AM »
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.


Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?

I don't even think Tesla sells that model any more. The new Tesla that will be released next year will cost ~$35k. Or you can buy a Prius, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt right now for $24k-35k.

Americans drive trucks, suvs and sedans.  They aren't going to drive 30k sub compacts.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1490 on: September 20, 2015, 11:04:33 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?

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.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1491 on: September 20, 2015, 11:11:51 AM »
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.
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 #1492 on: September 20, 2015, 11:32:06 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?

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.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?

just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.

But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source.  good question, though.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1493 on: September 20, 2015, 11:34:23 AM »
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1494 on: September 20, 2015, 11:37:30 AM »
Modern agriculture of the kind needed to feed the world is not sustainable without fossil fuels. 

Undeveloped countries will not be able to move forward without fossil fuels.   This isn't oversimplification, it's reality. 

I'll just mark Trey down on the side of massive depopulation.   

The U.S. and other developed countries, besides China and India are making massive moves via the market systems in place to reduce emissions.  But the simple facts remain that it will have to be a gradual process otherwise the economy will be destroyed and people across the world will be much worse off.  But that's what some people want, which is sad. 

Alternative energy is no where close to meeting the energy demands of our economy and fossil fuels will drive the growth of alternative energy systems manufacturing.


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1495 on: September 20, 2015, 11:46:52 AM »
Also evil Big Energy owns that patents on so many alternative energy systems they're too numerous to mention.   They also own the rights on carbon trading systems and software. 

To say that Big Energy doesn't have a vested interest to explore alternative energy is patently (oops) absurd. 

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1496 on: September 20, 2015, 11:59:32 AM »
Modern agriculture of the kind needed to feed the world is not sustainable without fossil fuels. 

Undeveloped countries will not be able to move forward without fossil fuels.   This isn't oversimplification, it's reality. 

I'll just mark Trey down on the side of massive depopulation.   

The U.S. and other developed countries, besides China and India are making massive moves via the market systems in place to reduce emissions.  But the simple facts remain that it will have to be a gradual process otherwise the economy will be destroyed and people across the world will be much worse off.  But that's what some people want, which is sad. 

Alternative energy is no where close to meeting the energy demands of our economy and fossil fuels will drive the growth of alternative energy systems manufacturing.

Hmmm...both you and KSU-W wanted to talk climate change science and now you want to talk economics and KSU-W doesn't want to talk at all...

I'm glad that you are no longer a climate change denier, dax, and that you recognize fossil fuels for the necessary (but becoming increasingly unnecessary!) evil that they are.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1497 on: September 20, 2015, 12:03:18 PM »
I don't think they're evil and my post farther up the thread wasn't really scientific in nature.    Plants need CO2, warmer climates have longer growing seasons, 3rd world countries will get no where on the back of alternative energy.

I've also never been a denier I am just smart enough to understand that the science is not settled, and that politcal agendas are driving warmest propagandist science, thus rendering it  in need of questioning every step of the way.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 12:06:48 PM by sonofdaxjones »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52953
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #1498 on: September 20, 2015, 12:09:12 PM »
But warmest propagandist scientists want Momma Teat Government to protect them from people who question their work using RICO laws.  Pathetic

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 #1499 on: September 20, 2015, 12:39:34 PM »
Well this thread took an interesting turn  :lol:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite