Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EMAWican

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1202
  • 'Murica
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #75 on: June 13, 2013, 10:22:55 AM »
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.


Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2013, 10:37:55 AM »

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.

The models are not set up to prove or disprove climate change. The changes in the atmosphere do that. The models are set up to try to predict the effects, and of course they are not perfect.

That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.
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 husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #77 on: June 13, 2013, 10:56:24 AM »
link?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #78 on: June 13, 2013, 11:03:36 AM »
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36550
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #79 on: June 13, 2013, 11:06:54 AM »
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

God.  God makes it how it should be so that we can dominate the Earth's ass and make it as much of our bitch as we can. 

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #80 on: June 13, 2013, 11:15:13 AM »
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #81 on: June 13, 2013, 11:25:58 AM »
CNS gets it

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

:adios:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2013, 11:28:12 AM »
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!

Good analogy. Spot on. :facepalm: A 100 year flood plain is an area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that man made global warming models projected much greater warming than has actually occurred. The hypotheses are wrong, and must be re-examined.
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 CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36550
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2013, 11:57:06 AM »
Cathy is going to wish she didn't buy that place when all the ice melts and that creek backs up and swallows her entire house.  Neighbors should be stoked though.  New neighborhood lake complete with structure at bottom for fish habitat.


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2013, 12:19:27 PM »
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

This is why I always laugh when warmers like beems and algore say "the science is done, and anyone that doesn't believe is a denier!"  Climate isn't really a science at this point, and may never be. It's really an art.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2013, 12:30:28 PM »
CO2 MAY be causing AGW/Climate Change, it MAY be influencing AGW/Climate Change . . . other forms of Greenhouse Gases MAY be causing/influencing AGW/Climate Change.

Yes, it is absolutely laughable when the warmist run around saying the "science is settled" and calling anyone who rightfully says there's no way the "science is settled" a "DENIER".

Warmists parrot the same thing over and over again . . . it's as if all other forms of climate forcing, natural variability etc. etc. don't exist.   In their world there can only be on cause for "Climate Change" CO2 (or other Greenhouse Gases). 

I just re-read a number of the ClimateGate emails (likely "hacked" by a Whistle Blower) and it's laughable to think that anyone still trumpets "out of context" and things of that ilk to explain those frauds.   It was concentrated effort of manipulation, obfuscation, fraud and scientific thuggery . . . and some of those guys are lucky they either weren't fined significantly if not sent to jail for a little while for their clear violation of FOIA (related UK) laws.


Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2013, 01:14:43 PM »
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

We're focused on the trapping of the heat first.  Then we'll get into your chemistry voo doo.  I bid you good day, sir! 

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2013, 01:39:21 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2013, 01:43:28 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

I'm interested to know:


- is any perceived change a net good or bad?
- what's the threshold (of our contribution) for giving a damn?
- are there more pressing problems we ought to solve first with the resources dedicated to answering the first two?

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #89 on: June 13, 2013, 01:46:04 PM »
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #90 on: June 13, 2013, 02:01:01 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #91 on: June 13, 2013, 02:19:18 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?
  That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.


Quit playing dumb.  A huge portion of the population thinks that climate change is a hoax.  Visit Texas sometime if you don't believe me.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #92 on: June 13, 2013, 02:19:49 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.

Exactly. To say that "97% agree, it's just matter of how much" - even if that were true - is completely meaningless. First, "consensus" is not science. Second, there's a hellofalotof difference between, hypothetically, man made CO2 emissions contributing 10% of the increase in warming versus 90% (warming of maybe a whopping half degree Celsius, no less). Third, whomever among the "97%" create the climate models have drastically overstated the impact of such emissions on temperature.

This isn't just some academic debate. Policy with far reaching consequences is being made on these flawed models. The billions spent on subsidies to "green" energy is a fart in the wind compared to the cost of the regulatory burdens imposed.
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 Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #93 on: June 13, 2013, 02:22:27 PM »
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2013, 02:29:26 PM »
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

okay, thanks!

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2013, 02:31:51 PM »
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Every living thing on Earth contributes to climate change, and the climate has always been changing since the dawn of time. 100% of scientists will agree that the sun and ocean currents contribute nearly all of the factors that affect climate. Human activities certainly contribute an infinitesimal amount of input into the equation, but certainly not enough to warrant monetary penalties on anyone or anything. We all want clean air, and we should be working on clean fuels, but not at the public's expense. The person or company that discovers these technologies will become very rich, and I can guarantee there are private entities working on it now, without any tax dollars. 

Al Gore and academia are in it for the money, and the government is in it for the power.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2013, 02:43:33 PM »
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Offline Unruly

  • Oh so Unruly.
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2703
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2013, 02:44:16 PM »
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?
:dance:


Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2013, 02:52:47 PM »
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

Because government isn't a special interest group.  Isn't it liberals that are always occupying things and complaining they can't afford lobbyist? 

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline EllRobersonisInnocent

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 7690
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2013, 02:55:33 PM »
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?

What a great idea!

Yours truly,

David & Charles Koch