All Things Environment

[cradleandshoot]

Father and child debunk Spencer's claim

there are lots of hits under Roy Spencer debunked for you.

Let's see if you can explain this experiment to the rest of us.

I'm asking you to opine on one specific blog post of Dr Spencers. I'm asking for YOUR scientific repudiation of ONE very specific blog post from Dr Spencer. You need me to break that down for you in simpler terms? Dr Spencer gave 5 of his own opinions. What say you about his opinions? I'm assuming you can stay focused long enough to do so.

sheesh, cradle, please give it a break.
Spencer has been discussed, defended, debunked up the ying yang.

Those who want to believe he's a genius will continue to do so, those who see him as a charlatan will continue to see that in his work product.

Enough already.

"At a minimum, I believe the water vapor feedback issue is more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is."

If you had took the time to read Dr Spencers blog post you would have come to the very last sentence. Are you debunking what he is saying about water vapor? Is it really not more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is?? Maybe this country could use more charlatans like Dr Spencer and less gullible people like yourself. You sure you don't want to learn how to play poker? Your the kinda guy we are always looking for.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

[jhu72]

Father and child debunk Spencer's claim

there are lots of hits under Roy Spencer debunked for you.

Let's see if you can explain this experiment to the rest of us.

I'm asking you to opine on one specific blog post of Dr Spencers. I'm asking for YOUR scientific repudiation of ONE very specific blog post from Dr Spencer. You need me to break that down for you in simpler terms? Dr Spencer gave 5 of his own opinions. What say you about his opinions? I'm assuming you can stay focused long enough to do so.

sheesh, cradle, please give it a break.
Spencer has been discussed, defended, debunked up the ying yang.

Those who want to believe he's a genius will continue to do so, those who see him as a charlatan will continue to see that in his work product.

Enough already.

So we have gone from "The Coming Ice Age" to "Acid Rain" to "The Population Bomb" to "Global Warming". Now we're on the hard to quantify "Climate Change". Notice how it seems to become less specific with each new label of our latest "The Sky is Falling" narrative. What next, "Rotational Wobble"?

So your position is it is all just one long line of different names for the same thing? Just trying to scare people. Who is responsible for this long line of scary things??

Isn't scaring people the job of you and your environmental freak circus members??? If you listen real close on a cold winter night you can hear the polar bears crying...

^^^ the sound of a gnat farting.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Father and child debunk Spencer's claim

there are lots of hits under Roy Spencer debunked for you.

Let's see if you can explain this experiment to the rest of us.

I'm asking you to opine on one specific blog post of Dr Spencers. I'm asking for YOUR scientific repudiation of ONE very specific blog post from Dr Spencer. You need me to break that down for you in simpler terms? Dr Spencer gave 5 of his own opinions. What say you about his opinions? I'm assuming you can stay focused long enough to do so.

sheesh, cradle, please give it a break.
Spencer has been discussed, defended, debunked up the ying yang.

Those who want to believe he's a genius will continue to do so, those who see him as a charlatan will continue to see that in his work product.

Enough already.

"At a minimum, I believe the water vapor feedback issue is more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is."

If you had took the time to read Dr Spencers blog post you would have come to the very last sentence. Are you debunking what he is saying about water vapor? Is it really not more complicated than most mainstream researchers think it is?? Maybe this country could use more charlatans like Dr Spencer and less gullible people like yourself. You sure you don't want to learn how to play poker? Your the kinda guy we are always looking for.

This guy: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/un ... by-google/

You can buy the books.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[jhu72]

Meaningful earth based astronomy is dead.

[NattyBohChamps04]

This guy: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/un ... by-google/

You can buy the books.

I don't know, Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. lays it out pretty plainly in his post:

1. I believe the climate system has warmed
2. I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

Also, why is he calling himself a Dr. if he only has a Ph. D? I heard on the news that those are supposed to be reserved for MDs...

[Typical Lax Dad]

This guy: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/un ... by-google/

You can buy the books.

I don't know, Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. lays it out pretty plainly in his post:

1. I believe the climate system has warmed
2. I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

Also, why is he calling himself a Dr. if he only has a Ph. D? I heard on the news that those are supposed to be reserved for MDs...

Cradleanddroptheball may have his head explode:

Old Roy
“Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise.”

[cradleandshoot]

This guy: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/un ... by-google/

You can buy the books.

I don't know, Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. lays it out pretty plainly in his post:

1. I believe the climate system has warmed
2. I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

Also, why is he calling himself a Dr. if he only has a Ph. D? I heard on the news that those are supposed to be reserved for MDs...

He knows more than you and that is good enough for me.

[cradleandshoot]

Father and child debunk Spencer's claim

there are lots of hits under Roy Spencer debunked for you.

Let's see if you can explain this experiment to the rest of us.

I'm asking you to opine on one specific blog post of Dr Spencers. I'm asking for YOUR scientific repudiation of ONE very specific blog post from Dr Spencer. You need me to break that down for you in simpler terms? Dr Spencer gave 5 of his own opinions. What say you about his opinions? I'm assuming you can stay focused long enough to do so.

sheesh, cradle, please give it a break.
Spencer has been discussed, defended, debunked up the ying yang.

Those who want to believe he's a genius will continue to do so, those who see him as a charlatan will continue to see that in his work product.

Enough already.

So we have gone from "The Coming Ice Age" to "Acid Rain" to "The Population Bomb" to "Global Warming". Now we're on the hard to quantify "Climate Change". Notice how it seems to become less specific with each new label of our latest "The Sky is Falling" narrative. What next, "Rotational Wobble"?

So your position is it is all just one long line of different names for the same thing? Just trying to scare people. Who is responsible for this long line of scary things??

Isn't scaring people the job of you and your environmental freak circus members??? If you listen real close on a cold winter night you can hear the polar bears crying...

^^^ the sound of a gnat farting.

Gnats don't fart in the winter
You should know this?

[NattyBohChamps04]

This guy: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/un ... by-google/

You can buy the books.

I don't know, Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph. D. lays it out pretty plainly in his post:

1. I believe the climate system has warmed
2. I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning

Also, why is he calling himself a Dr. if he only has a Ph. D? I heard on the news that those are supposed to be reserved for MDs...

He knows more than you and that is good enough for me.

Yep, he knows that man is affecting the global climate.

[cradleandshoot]

Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

[MDlaxfan76]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

[get it to x]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

[MDlaxfan76]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

Did you think you were debating me with this post?

I agree with all but your second and last sentence.

The second sentence falsely presupposes that federal research grants for basic research, including climate research, necessarily have an 'agenda' other than to learn whatever truths as may unfold from that research. That doesn't mean that a grant, earmarked by someone with an actual agenda (whether influenced a 'green' lobby or a carbon 'lobby') can't happen, but there's nothing that says that simply being "federal" funding tilts the seeking of truth through scientific processes. It can, but not because it was funded by the government. But you're 100% right that oil companies' funded research is no more reliable than the cigarette companies was. (who funded the research the finally debunked the BS spewed by tobacco companies for so many years?)

That said, your last sentence, while hyperbolic, has an element of truth.

Models and simulations are necessarily imperfect, as it's impossible to know all potential inputs at all possible times and throughout history. Instead we have only the previously measured data, we try and gather more and more data points, and improve our models and simulations to better predict what we expect the future will hold as we do so.

This is not a flaw in approach, it's simply the reality that we cannot know all possible information and thus models cannot incorporate what is not known. So, we find as many ways as we can to approximate both historical 'data' and to measure far more going forward. And improve the models as we learn more and more.

Right now, the models, based on a huge amount of effort, point to increased warming overall and to more and more severe weather and climate events. If additional data leads to other conclusions that would be tremendously good news...but it does not appear that is likely.

[cradleandshoot]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

Did you think you were debating me with this post?

I agree with all but your second and last sentence.

The second sentence falsely presupposes that federal research grants for basic research, including climate research, necessarily have an 'agenda' other than to learn whatever truths as may unfold from that research. That doesn't mean that a grant, earmarked by someone with an actual agenda (whether influenced a 'green' lobby or a carbon 'lobby') can't happen, but there's nothing that says that simply being "federal" funding tilts the seeking of truth through scientific processes. It can, but not because it was funded by the government. But you're 100% right that oil companies' funded research is no more reliable than the cigarette companies was. (who funded the research the finally debunked the BS spewed by tobacco companies for so many years?)

That said, your last sentence, while hyperbolic, has an element of truth.

Models and simulations are necessarily imperfect, as it's impossible to know all potential inputs at all possible times and throughout history. Instead we have only the previously measured data, we try and gather more and more data points, and improve our models and simulations to better predict what we expect the future will hold as we do so.

This is not a flaw in approach, it's simply the reality that we cannot know all possible information and thus models cannot incorporate what is not known. So, we find as many ways as we can to approximate both historical 'data' and to measure far more going forward. And improve the models as we learn more and more.

Right now, the models, based on a huge amount of effort, point to increased warming overall and to more and more severe weather and climate events. If additional data leads to other conclusions that would be tremendously good news...but it does not appear that is likely.

Define more and more severe?? When, how, where. The problem is the computer models can only be as good as the data being put in to them. To use this data to predict what the earth will do in 50 years is asinine at face value. I've asked this same question here a number of times with no response. What is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? How does it work and how soon? We only get to the point where Co2 and methane levels must be lowered. So what happens if we get there in 50 years. Does it take a hundred years to get back to where we started?? As long as we are eating faux meat, driving electric cars and using more wind power... does it really matter?

[get it to x]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

Did you think you were debating me with this post?

I agree with all but your second and last sentence.

The second sentence falsely presupposes that federal research grants for basic research, including climate research, necessarily have an 'agenda' other than to learn whatever truths as may unfold from that research. That doesn't mean that a grant, earmarked by someone with an actual agenda (whether influenced a 'green' lobby or a carbon 'lobby') can't happen, but there's nothing that says that simply being "federal" funding tilts the seeking of truth through scientific processes. It can, but not because it was funded by the government. But you're 100% right that oil companies' funded research is no more reliable than the cigarette companies was. (who funded the research the finally debunked the BS spewed by tobacco companies for so many years?)

That said, your last sentence, while hyperbolic, has an element of truth.

Models and simulations are necessarily imperfect, as it's impossible to know all potential inputs at all possible times and throughout history. Instead we have only the previously measured data, we try and gather more and more data points, and improve our models and simulations to better predict what we expect the future will hold as we do so.

This is not a flaw in approach, it's simply the reality that we cannot know all possible information and thus models cannot incorporate what is not known. So, we find as many ways as we can to approximate both historical 'data' and to measure far more going forward. And improve the models as we learn more and more.

Right now, the models, based on a huge amount of effort, point to increased warming overall and to more and more severe weather and climate events. If additional data leads to other conclusions that would be tremendously good news...but it does not appear that is likely.

No, I thought your reply to cradle was not up to Dartmouth standards.

You know, as well as I, that federal climate grantees would lose their grant funding if it concluded man made climate change was not significant. They can't grow the bureaucracy without problems to solve, real and imagined. Not saying warming isn't happening, but the temperature was going up and down way before man was lighting fires.

So then, with all you say about flaws in the models, you feel we should bet big on carbon capture, electric vehicles, wind power, solar and hydro? For a potential ten feet of sea level rise? You don't think man can adapt to change? Especially one that will likely occur over a few hundred years, if at all.

Bet big, win big. Bet big, lose big.

[cradleandshoot]

Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

Did you think you were debating me with this post?

I agree with all but your second and last sentence.

The second sentence falsely presupposes that federal research grants for basic research, including climate research, necessarily have an 'agenda' other than to learn whatever truths as may unfold from that research. That doesn't mean that a grant, earmarked by someone with an actual agenda (whether influenced a 'green' lobby or a carbon 'lobby') can't happen, but there's nothing that says that simply being "federal" funding tilts the seeking of truth through scientific processes. It can, but not because it was funded by the government. But you're 100% right that oil companies' funded research is no more reliable than the cigarette companies was. (who funded the research the finally debunked the BS spewed by tobacco companies for so many years?)

That said, your last sentence, while hyperbolic, has an element of truth.

Models and simulations are necessarily imperfect, as it's impossible to know all potential inputs at all possible times and throughout history. Instead we have only the previously measured data, we try and gather more and more data points, and improve our models and simulations to better predict what we expect the future will hold as we do so.

This is not a flaw in approach, it's simply the reality that we cannot know all possible information and thus models cannot incorporate what is not known. So, we find as many ways as we can to approximate both historical 'data' and to measure far more going forward. And improve the models as we learn more and more.

Right now, the models, based on a huge amount of effort, point to increased warming overall and to more and more severe weather and climate events. If additional data leads to other conclusions that would be tremendously good news...but it does not appear that is likely.

No, I thought your reply to cradle was not up to Dartmouth standards.

You know, as well as I, that federal climate grantees would lose their grant funding if it concluded man made climate change was not significant. They can't grow the bureaucracy without problems to solve, real and imagined. Not saying warming isn't happening, but the temperature was going up and down way before man was lighting fires.

So then, with all you say about flaws in the models, you feel we should bet big on carbon capture, electric vehicles, wind power, solar and hydro? For a potential ten feet of sea level rise? You don't think man can adapt to change? Especially one that will likely occur over a few hundred years, if at all.

Bet big, win big. Bet big, lose big.

Bet Big.. spoken like a man after my own heart. If I knew what the CC/ GW line was in Vegas, and I bet there is one, I would be plopping down thousands. I'll never see the return in my lifetime and I don't know what the betting line would look like but I'll bet the farm we will all be here with no difference in life as we know it. Vegas will take bets on anything, I wonder what the line is for 50 years out?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 or 100 years, it’s not even a rounding error….you will be gone so it probably doesn’t matter what happens to the people left on Earth.

[cradleandshoot]

Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.