The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[Ptolemy]

I dunno, percentages are pretty hard, can't even imagine judging sensitivity to change. 

Percentages of contribution are a bit more certain than sensitivity...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/the_climate_sensitivity_controversy.html

[Ptolemy]

So is it a complete hoax to be worried about carbon dioxide?

The most expensive and criminal hoax ever perpetuated on mankind.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is essential for life on earth to survive and thrive.

[Ptolemy]

Further proof...when I first entered engineering school refrigerants used to fuel the vapor compression cycle were developed and employed according to their efficiency and capability in delivering heat transfer. Early mechanical refrigeration systems employed sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and ammonia. Being toxic, sulfur dioxide and methyl chloride rapidly disappeared from the market with the introduction of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). CFCs were little used for refrigeration until better synthesis methods, developed in the 1950s, reduced their cost.

CFC domination of the refrigeration market was halted suddenly in the 1980s because someone first noticed that the earth's ozone layer has a thin area in the southern hemisphere near the Antarctic.  Without EVER measuring whether the ozone layer has EVER been the same thickness throughout, legislative regulations on ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) took effect. In 1997, FCs and HFCs were included in the Kyoto Protocol and every new Democrat coming into the White House tries to enact more restrictions.

Beyond the nonsense of acknowledging that vapor compression cycles are CLOSED systems and a relatively small volume of it is ever vented to the atmosphere, we alongside this monumental idiocy install pvc ductwork and powered fans on our homes that suck the cancer-causing radon out of our basement slabs and vent it into the air we breathe in our yards and through our open windows.

Liberals are dumb!

[Rage Against the McKee]

OMG

[TCUHornedFrog]

Further proof...when I first entered engineering school refrigerants used to fuel the vapor compression cycle were developed and employed according to their efficiency and capability in delivering heat transfer. Early mechanical refrigeration systems employed sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and ammonia. Being toxic, sulfur dioxide and methyl chloride rapidly disappeared from the market with the introduction of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). CFCs were little used for refrigeration until better synthesis methods, developed in the 1950s, reduced their cost.

CFC domination of the refrigeration market was halted suddenly in the 1980s because someone first noticed that the earth's ozone layer has a thin area in the southern hemisphere near the Antarctic.  Without EVER measuring whether the ozone layer has EVER been the same thickness throughout, legislative regulations on ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) took effect. In 1997, FCs and HFCs were included in the Kyoto Protocol and every new Democrat coming into the White House tries to enact more restrictions.

Beyond the nonsense of acknowledging that vapor compression cycles are CLOSED systems and a relatively small volume of it is ever vented to the atmosphere, we alongside this monumental idiocy install pvc ductwork and powered fans on our homes that suck the cancer-causing radon out of our basement slabs and vent it into the air we breathe in our yards and through our open windows.

Liberals are dumb!

says the guy that cites a TV meteorologist as a credible source on global warming.   

[Ptolemy]

says the guy that cites a TV meteorologist as a credible source on global warming.   

METEOROLOGY

Degree: B. A. or B. S.

Description of Major
Meteorology is divided into four branches: physical, dynamical, synoptic, and applied meteorology. Physical meteorologists deal with such areas as the physics of rain formation, atmospheric electricity, and atmospheric optics; dynamical meteorologists work in such areas as the mathematical representation of atmospheric flow patterns and the numerical prediction of these patterns; synoptic meteorologists are involved with the description of atmospheric disturbances and with weather forecasting; and applied meteorologists deal with the application of meteorological and climatological knowledge to such areas as agriculture, architecture, ecology, and air pollution. The undergraduate program provides a broad overview of these branches of meteorology plus climatology, while graduate students are encouraged to specialize in one of them. Meteorologists are needed in research, forecasting, and operational positions to study, interpret and predict weather and climate processes and patterns and to relate these to human activities. Severe storms, floods, droughts and air pollution are examples of atmospheric phenomena, which influence health, safety, transportation, agriculture, and business activities.

Prerequisite Coursework:
All of the prerequisites are also part of the required collateral coursework.
MAC X311 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry I
MAC X312 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry II
CHM X045, X045L (3,1) General Chemistry I, Lab
PHY X048C (4) General Physics A or PHY X048/X048L (5 credits @ FSU)
PHY X049C (4) General Physics B or PHY X049/X049L (5 credits @ FSU)

MAC X313 (5) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry III
And either MAP 2302 (3) Ordinary Differential Equations or MAP 3305 (3) Engineering Mathematics
MET 2700 (3) General Meteorology
MET 2700 (3) General Meteorology
MET 2101 (3) Physical Climatology
MET 3220C (3) Meteorological Computations
MET 3300 (3) Introduction to Atmospheric Dynamics
MET 2507C (2) Weather Analysis and Forecasting
MET 4301 (4) Atmospheric Dynamics I
MET 4302 (4) Atmospheric Dynamics II
MET 4420 (3) Atmospheric Physics I
MET 4450 (3) Atmospheric Physics II
MET 4500C (3) Synoptic Lecture/Lab I
MET 4501C (4) Synoptic Lecture/Lab II
Collateral Coursework (33 hours):
CHM 1045, 1045L (3,1) General Chemistry I
PHY 2048C (5) General Physics A
PHY 2049C (5) General Physics B
MAC 2311 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry I
MAC 2312 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry II
MAC 2313 (5) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry III
MAP 2302 (3) Ordinary Differential Equations or MAP 3305 (3) Engineering Math I
STA 3032 (3) Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists

Sounds like a really lightweight degree regimen!

[sonofdaxjones]

I don't think you're getting this Memphis.

[TCUHornedFrog]

Sounds like a really lightweight degree regimen!

If only......

Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

[Rage Against the McKee]

Well, in the movie Hardball, Coach O'Neill said that the most important thing in life is showing up. Watts showed up to Purdue and that has to mean something, right?

[Ptolemy]

If only......

Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

Watts is the presentation guy, like Al Gore is for you...

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

[TCUHornedFrog]

Watts is the presentation guy, like Al Gore is for you...

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The 97% consensus article is completely accurate.

-Poindexter McSmartypants, Ph.D.  Professor of Climate Change, University of Bumfuckistan

[TCUHornedFrog]

Well, in the movie Hardball, Coach O'Neill said that the most important thing in life is showing up. Watts showed up to Purdue and that has to mean something, right?

Maybe

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's remarkably stupid to say the 97% comment is accurate when scientists included in the 97% disagree with the statement.

The entire sentiment was debunked some time ago, and I'm surprised people are still using it. Then I remember we're dealing with ignorant and psychopathic people, and am no longer surprised.

[catastrophe]

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

It's remarkably stupid to say the 97% comment is accurate when scientists included in the 97% disagree with the statement.

The entire sentiment was debunked some time ago, and I'm surprised people are still using it. Then I remember we're dealing with ignorant and psychopathic people, and am no longer surprised.

[Ptolemy]

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

As Galileo maintained 400 years ago on his way to jail for refusing to believe that the Sun rotated around the Earth, science is not a consensus.

[catastrophe]

Yea, well I'm just saying if your only argument is that it's not a 97% consensus, then it might as well be a 96% consensus. If your point is that it is actually impossible to determine consensus then you cannot say with certainty that the 97% figure is wrong.

[Ptolemy]

Yea, well I'm just saying if your only argument is that it's not a 97% consensus, then it might as well be a 96% consensus. If your point is that it is actually impossible to determine consensus then you cannot say with certainty that the 97% figure is wrong.

O.K., so what you're saying is if I cannot see my aunt's penis she must be my uncle. 

The point is, science is an on-going process. Those belching out the 97% figure (which considering that over 10,000 papers were initially studied and most were tossed out, is likely more like 0.03% of scientists believe man causes all global warming) want to use it as a reason for instituting massive carbon taxes on mankind.  THAT is not science.

[star seed 7]

You could trust your aunt, who is an expert on if she has a penis or not.

You know, like scientists who pretty much all agree on science stuff but you don't agree so you don't trust them so you assume your aunt has a penis

[slobber]

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

This is a very strange argument. There is little logic in this, and I doubt I am the first person to point that out.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   

Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.

Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.

this isn't accurate. the bill you are referring to passed with a 100% vote in the state senate and 95% in the assembly. The repub - dem is nearly an even split. you can blame Warren Buffet and Berkshire if you need someone to blame.

[bucket]

Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   

Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.

Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.

this isn't accurate. the bill you are referring to passed with a 100% vote in the state senate and 95% in the assembly. The repub - dem is nearly an even split. you can blame Warren Buffet and Berkshire if you need someone to blame.

Actually, I was blaming Republican Governor Brian Sandoval. His top two political advisers are from Nevada Energy so when he chased the solar industry out of Nevada I had my suspicions.

An independent study commissioned by the state legislature in 2013 concluded, however, that solar users created a $36m net benefit for traditional customers, a finding NV Energy dismissed as reliant on outdated solar pricing data.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/13/solar-panel-energy-power-company-nevada

[bucket]

That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

[Ptolemy]

That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

And why those on the Left are mostly Warmist Chicken Little Frauds.

[Ptolemy]

You could trust your aunt, who is an expert on if she has a penis or not.

You know, like scientists who pretty much all agree on science stuff but you don't agree so you don't trust them so you assume your aunt has a penis

These days, I don't trust ANYBODY on gender.  It's apparently all a matter of perception, self or outward.

Again, Galileo didn't agree with "pretty much all" went to jail for it, and got an apology 400 years too late.  Science is not a consensus opinion matter.