Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2081 - 2100 of 2929 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
I certainly do believe in global warming. I find it odd that car-people and engineers, normally level-headed data-driven folks, have such a problem with the issue. But I blame Jeremy Clarkson for that...
I am curious as to what part of the popular narrative a level-headed data-driven person believes as the narrative covers everything from consistent warming since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century (which doesn't require human input to explain) to outrageous doomsday scenarios unsupported by data but rather by extremely fallible, and to this point untrustworthy (based on past performance), climate models. As well, every climate event seems to be blamed on "Global Warming" (by many at least) without any scientific justification.

What do we know, relying on data? The earth has been warming gradually for well over 100 years. The Arctic is feeling the brunt of that while the Antarctic is being spared, suggesting that most of the retreating Arctic ice is likely due as much to shifting global weather patterns as with a .1 deg C per decade rise in global mean temperatures over the last century and a half. Sea levels aren't rising any faster than they were one hundred years ago (the only data that suggests they are had to be "adjusted" without justification, like so much of the data needed to support the alarmist narrative).

So I'm just curious if you are aware of data I am missing. I ask because I happen to work in aerospace and rely on hard data for many things, such as failure analysis where unsupported suppositions aren't tolerated. Yet, pretty much all I see among the AGW alarmist crowd are unsupported suppositions and claims -- more droughts, more hurricanes, more severe weather events! None of that is true. There is a lot of tea leaves reading though. Less snow confirms AGW. More snow confirms AGW. A warm winter confirms AGW. A cold winter confirms AGW. Etc etc. Precious little data that is allowed to stand on its own; i.e., without "adjustments". Anyway, I don't like to get into these discussions as I'm too busy trying to stay clear of the ManBearPig, but your plea for data-based reasoning made me too curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
Well, Clarksons emissions could certainly cause some problems.....
Global warming thou... I bought into theGlobal COOLING data, so warming is very un- science.
Do I need to post the 1973 magazine article again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
....We need to be careful about global warming and take drastic measures, because by 2015 New York will be underwater! (Al threatened that!) Oh, and by now the Polar Ice caps are gone....well they are supposed to be. ;-/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
....We need to be careful about global warming and take drastic measures, because by 2015 New York will be underwater! (Al threatened that!) Oh, and by now the Polar Ice caps are gone....well they are supposed to be. ;-/
I was on a date about 11 years ago, walking around Baltimore's inner harbor. The lady said, "Too bad this will all be under water in ten years." Turns out she had recently watched An Inconvenient Truth. That was our first and last date. Fortunately I met my wife not long after. She's never been very impressed with His Rotundity.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
101 Posts
I was on a date about 11 years ago, walking around Baltimore's inner harbor. The lady said, "Too bad this will all be under water in ten years." Turns out she had recently watched An Inconvenient Truth. That was our first and last date. Fortunately I met my wife not long after. She's never been very impressed with His Rotundity.
That was so funny that I had to repeat it to my wife, who shares your wife's outlook on His Rotundity.

People who believe something in spite of physical, provable facts to the contrary, even in the total absence of provable facts, and in the face of fraud and cooking the data, have already determined to believe that something based upon faith and bias. It is a religion to them, and facts are irrelevant.

I read recently that there is all of the difference in the world between a belief in something and an acceptance of something. A belief is a view held that has no nexus to provable facts. We all hold many beliefs. On the contrary, we accept certain things because we and other logical people have observed them and made statements scientifically and logically proving the existence of those things beyond any doubt. We all accept things like Newton's Laws and that the earth actually is a ball and not a flat sheet, etc. We have to accept those things because they are absolutely and logically provable facts, leaving no room for disagreement by any logical mind.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Solar Minimum Continues

One of the measures of solar activity is the sunspot count. Or during a cyclical solar minimum, the number of spotless days.
For this year, the number of such days is 27, or 46%. For all of 2017, the count was 105 days or 28%. 2016 was 32 and 9%. 2015 was 0 and 0%. Which was the case back to 2010 when it was 51 days and 14%. That was during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23.
The point is that climate warming has been associated with increasing solar activity and the Modern Solar Maximum recorded the highest in thousands of years. Solar physicists, Penn and Livingston, in the 1990s forecast a major decline in solar activity. SC 23 and 24 have been the lowest cycles in 200 years. So, the forecast has been valid.
This represents a significant cooling force. Built in--so to speak. The El Nino that peaked in 2016 provided a sharp surge in the temp record, which is weather. But it has been fading as we go into the next La Nina weather cooling.
This ice age began about a million years ago with the last 12,000 years being a regular interglacial.
Some solar physicists think this phase of declining solar activity could become a Grand Solar Minimum.
In which case, this interglacial is coming to an end.

On the nearer-term, just a slight cooling would confound "Global Warmers" and their mania to impose regulations and grab taxes. The concept of providing a "perfect" climate is the greatest audacity in history.
But when the ambitious get going, anything is possible. The Communists set out to create the "Perfect Man" and the Nazis were out to create the "Perfect Landspace".
Some cooling would derail another experiment in authoritarian government that cannot tolerate any limitation.

:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Numbers Update

Spotless Day Count, for this year, is at 39 or 53%. Consecutive days at 11, which is a good run.
SC #24 is scheduled for a low at around 2019.
North American snow cover stayed close to the mean for the winter and is now rolling over. Same for the Northern Hemisphere.
And the Danish Met Office Daily Temp for North of 80, is back down to the mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Just found this thread.

If threads could be renamed I'd recommend this one be retitled "Kook's Corner"

And the time not spent trying to convince others that climate change is a hoax is no doubt spent yelling at clouds.

those who believe it is a hoax, I have one question, what if you are wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
I consider those who believe the constantly changing doomsday predictions and the never verified computer models to be the 'kooks'.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,132 Posts
Just found this thread.

If threads could be renamed I'd recommend this one be retitled "Kook's Corner"

And the time not spent trying to convince others that climate change is a hoax is no doubt spent yelling at clouds.

those who believe it is a hoax, I have one question, what if you are wrong?
[/QUOTE]


One good thing about the bb is that you are not required to be here. Now, please go away.
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,003 Posts
Smart money in lala "what if" land is actually 7:1 on the moon being made out of green cheese over AGW. P.T. Barnum sure had it right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
I get so fricken pissed when I read this crap. Global warming is the biggest pack of lies and bullsh*t ever promulgated to the public, beating even Bush's WMD.

CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION!!! CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS BREATHE TO TURN CARBON INTO FOOD. FOOD THAT WE EAT, ONLY SOME OF US DON'T GET ENOUGH TO EAT, LIKE SEVERAL THOUSAND EACH AND EVERY DAY WHO DIE OF STARVATION.

People are so stupid they will believe any nonsense if "authorities" say it. Cripes!
With this thread's first post, Randy got it right. Roughly written, but well understood. That was in 2008!
Wish he was still with us.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
If "Glo-Bull" warming is real hurry up and get it going!
I'm unable to cross the Sierra to buy Alfa parts I need due to all the March SNOW!
We are past daylight savings time, I want MY glo-bull warming NOW!
Al Gore PROMISED we would be warm year round by now, but I'm still dealing with 6ºF too many nights. :(
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
The establishment has been busy altering the temp record so that it fits the theory that rising CO2 "causes" global warming. On the nearer-trend, this has been done by lowering the actual record from some 20 years ago. Current posts are from stations clocking lots of urban heat, such as at airports or next to parking lots.
However, there are some series that they have yet to alter.
Ice coverage and Arctic ice thickness are examples.
I'll just post this one on Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover.

https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/_tracker/nh_sce.png

Hope it works. Early winter was on the high-side of the mean range. Mid-winter was within the range. Spring is on the high-side.
Also, note that August, the period when the minimum would be set was above the mean.
North America's chart is more so.

Was it ten years ago when some "expert" bewailed that kids would grow up not knowing what snow is?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,415 Posts
"The establishment has been busy altering the temp record so that it fits the theory that rising CO2 "causes" global warming"

That is a bogus statement. You are not looking at the worldwide situation but just cherry picking, looking for local effects (meaning even on the continental level) which supposedly support your assumptions.

The newest Nova program illustrated just how global average atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels are very closely correlated for the last 800,000 years, as determined by ice core and fossil shell analyses, among other correlating but different research. The last few decades of that determination matches exactly the CO2 measurements taken for decades on Mauna Loa in Hawaii for those same decades. The atmospheric CO2 levels are now higher than they have been for that 800,000 years. I suggest you watch that program. Basically, you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

We are going back to DC again this May to once again visit our manager friend at Goddard to see the latest research results on this subject. Always very illustrating and disturbing when he shows us the resulting effects thus far from the rising worldwide atmospheric and oceanic temperatures as gathered and determined by researchers around the world.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Hi Del
Visiting Goddard would be interesting, particularly with the following quotation by Goethe:
"Most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, but they will worship error when it affords them a subsistence."


You've been looking at the chart of temp and CO2 on the big scale.
If you look at it in 1000/years spans, you will find, as others have, that the rise in temp leads the rise in CO2 by some 600 to 800 years. This is doesn't even rank as correlation and is nothing a careful researcher would use to provide the foundation for a theory.
 

·
USTA BE AN AD-MIN
Joined
·
11,136 Posts
I get so fricken pissed when I read this crap. Global warming is the biggest pack of lies and bullsh*t ever promulgated to the public, beating even Bush's WMD.

CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION!!! CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS BREATHE TO TURN CARBON INTO FOOD. FOOD THAT WE EAT, ONLY SOME OF US DON'T GET ENOUGH TO EAT, LIKE SEVERAL THOUSAND EACH AND EVERY DAY WHO DIE OF STARVATION.

People are so stupid they will believe any nonsense if "authorities" say it. Cripes!
With this thread's first post, Randy got it right. Roughly written, but well understood. That was in 2008!
Wish he was still with us.
:)
So, the assumption here is that the number of trees and plants has remained unchanged throughout time. If there has been a decline in the number of trees and plants that convert CO2 to O2, isn't it fair to assume the CO2 levels would rise?

If folks feel that the number of trees and plants has increased throughout time, it would be fair to assume that the O2 levels would be on the increase. But then, there are more people and animals wondering around consuming that O2 and creating CO2. And, let's not forget the farting cows and pigs and the rise in methane levels.

Personally, I think it's funny that there are folks who are so far to either side and that they all feel they are right.:thumbup1:
 

·
Certified Oldschooler
Joined
·
7,003 Posts
Yea I was wondering too why we all can't just get along and believe this (s#it). People can be so mean . . . . ;)
 
2081 - 2100 of 2929 Posts
Top