Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2013, 02:59:31 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.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2013, 03:13:01 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?

This isn't about abolishing the EPA, which does good valuable work. Did you know that the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a "pollutant" is a fairly recent development? A good start would be to reverse that decision, and get the EPA out of the business of regulating CO2. This has nothing to do with "clean" air. CO2 is not a particulate pollutant. The only reason we're regulating it is because of the severe overreaction to flawed alarmist climate models discussed herein.
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 #102 on: June 13, 2013, 03:31:20 PM »


Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2013, 03:36:27 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.

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

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2013, 03:53:17 PM »

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.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2013, 04:07:57 PM »

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.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2013, 04:08:28 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.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.

No.  Would be awesome though.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2013, 04:12:21 PM »

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.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?

science

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2013, 04:15:48 PM »
Whose?
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2013, 04:24:51 PM »
Whose?

Those who understand how the greenhouse effect works.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2013, 04:33:16 PM »
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2013, 04:38:04 PM »
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?

Yes, of course.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2013, 04:53:08 PM »
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now. 
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #113 on: June 13, 2013, 05:05:33 PM »
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now.

I really doubt they overestimated the feedback. That would have all been rooted in hard science that really isn't up for debate. They probably mis-estimated the inputs. Modeling is really hard. You need to know the inputs to judge the model. For instance, if the rise in CO2 and water vapor levels in the atmosphere was not as rapid as estimated, that is a potential reason for the model being wrong. There are also things that happen in space, population changes, changes in forested areas, deserts, etc. that are very difficult to account for. So if you really want to see if the scientists were wrong, I would suggest looking at each individual model and seeing what was assumed, then comparing that data to the real world. A good model is always an accurate portrayal of what will happen under a given set of circumstances. Getting those circumstances to actually match what ends up happening in the real world is very hard to do, though. Nobody can do it with any consistency.

Offline MeatSauce

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #114 on: June 13, 2013, 05:12:18 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!
Well, then lets focus on the correct thermal principal.  Convection.  conduction isn't that big of a player except from the surface to less than an inch above the ground.  But on to the CO2 specifically:  It absorbs infrared light in the atmosphere.  The "air" absorbs all non-blue light, thus it contains the infrared complement, that is in turn absorbed by the CO2.  The net radiation of infrared from the earth if ~400 W/m2 and in the upper limites of the atmosphere, it radiatess ~ 250 W/m2, with smoething like 150 W/m2 absorbed in the atmosphere itself.   Now, based on the isotopes of carbon found, the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere over the past 150 years is approx. 500billion metric tons, enough to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 30%.  280ppm to 390ppm....should be higher, right?  Thanks ocean, for taking the rest.
^^all of this is not debateable.

what is debateable is this:  the increased CO2/greenhouse gases have increased the amount of energy by 2.5 W/m2.  Some released chemicals actually provide a cooling effect ~(0.9) W/m2......and that's where the 1.5 W/m2 that gets tossed around comes from.  This creates a flux of energy available, which cause weird weather, ice cap stuff, and actually some positive(temporary or LT, who knows) and a 0.75 C warmer for each W/m2 that is found.  That's the crux of the argument.  Is that numver accurate? What does an increase mean? I dunno.






Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
If the models are all wrong
« Reply #115 on: June 13, 2013, 05:15:42 PM »
Hmmm.   So,  if there is indeed a feedback amplification, wouldn't we be seeing the evidence for it?  Stratospheric hotspots & a decrease in outgoing radiation?  This data is and has been collected for at the very least 10 years.  There are no stratospheric hotspots and all of the models predicting outgoing radiation have been completely opposite of reality.  This suggest there is no amplification, thus th models are wrong.  No one in the scientific community is debating whether CO2 is a GHG,  the debate is about how the millions of feedbacks effect predictions. 
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #116 on: June 13, 2013, 10:18:34 PM »


Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

I can't decide if the Skeptical Science website is more like the Onion or the National Inquirer.

Nice work huserl  :thumbs:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #117 on: June 14, 2013, 08:06:19 AM »
I'm shocked that you feel that way.  Seems pretty fantastic to me. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #118 on: June 14, 2013, 08:29:35 AM »
You do realize its essentially that Australian quack's blog, right?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #119 on: June 14, 2013, 09:14:10 AM »
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #120 on: June 14, 2013, 09:46:50 AM »
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   

Have not read the studies, but the results seem dubious at best. For one, man made emissions of CO2 only amount to a tiny fraction of all "greenhouse gases," so it makes little sense that they are between a "100% and 175%" "contributor to global warming." What does that even mean?

Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

So again, we return to the point: the global warming hypotheses (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 #121 on: June 14, 2013, 10:06:50 AM »
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #122 on: June 14, 2013, 10:38:24 AM »
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

Ok, so never mind the models that predicted skyrocketing temps in the atmosphere. We were just kidding about that. But we're totally confident that the warming is hiding deep in the oceans, or possibly Mars. Got it? Thanks.
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 john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #123 on: June 14, 2013, 12:17:40 PM »
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

One of the bloggers that run that site did thank the oceans and other CO2 absorbing inanimate objects for doing such a good job of cleaning up our mess.   :love:

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #124 on: June 14, 2013, 03:29:21 PM »
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!
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.