Climate Change Mega Thread

Computer questions/solutions, technology news, science topics.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science and several failed fact checks. (Updated (02/02/2024)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch

Par for the course. :smt045
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
77TA
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3500
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2005, 9:48 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by 77TA »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 5:19 pm
Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science and several failed fact checks. (Updated (02/02/2024)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch

Par for the course. :smt045
Yes, it's par for the course that a biasedfactcheck won't agree with anything that is "not in line"(lol) as stated. Checking the fact checker always finds something like this.
it is now very likely that global mean Sea Surface Temperature changed by 0.88°C from 1850-1900 to 2011-2020, and 0.60°C from 1980 to 2020.
So because it "likely" there has been a possible minute change, any other theories are conspiracies right? I didn't bother going further into the silly fact check but perhaps it was full of absolute certainties when you read through their methods of conclusion determination.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

I see a trend. Can you see a trend?

Image

Never mind, that was rhetorical. I really don't care what the Castanet Climate Panel sees or thinks. I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.

Take it or leave it. I'm not telling you to eat crickets or put up a windmill - you do you.

:130:
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
77TA
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3500
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2005, 9:48 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by 77TA »

When posting up fact checks that call out quackery because the information is "not in line", I must wonder how good the science can be when the conclusion can only be labeled as "likely". I prefer not to fall in line because of a chart showing some sea surface variance within about 1 degree range over 50 yrs or so. Do you really see a confirmed trend? Could you show 2017 18 19 21and 22? Why aren't those years colored? Nevermind, I don't care what the short term chart watchers think because the science obviously isn't settled.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6738
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 7:39 pm I see a trend. Can you see a trend?

Never mind, that was rhetorical. I really don't care what the Castanet Climate Panel sees or thinks. I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.

Take it or leave it. I'm not telling you to eat crickets or put up a windmill - you do you.
What is the recent climate trend and why is it happening? Please point out the quackery in the article. We are all good with the science.
This sudden, anomalous, and inexplicable change in ocean surface temperature has left scientists who support the climate change theory baffled because it doesn’t support the conclusions of their current ocean climate models.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Jlabute wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 9:09 pm
Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 7:39 pm I see a trend. Can you see a trend?

Never mind, that was rhetorical. I really don't care what the Castanet Climate Panel sees or thinks. I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.

Take it or leave it. I'm not telling you to eat crickets or put up a windmill - you do you.
What is the recent climate trend and why is it happening? Please point out the quackery in the article. We are all good with the science.
👉This sudden, anomalous, and inexplicable change in ocean surface temperature has left scientists who support the climate change theory baffled because it doesn’t support the conclusions of their current ocean climate models.👈
Okay, points to the quote in bold. This, right there. Quackery. An absurd characterization that attempts to turn the science upside-down. 71% of the planet is ocean. With the current EEI there's no one, worth taking seriously, questioning why the oceans are warming.

There may be two schools of thought emerging in the Climate Science community. The accelerationists (Hansen et al) vs. "the truth is bad enough" crowd. (Mann et al).

The accelerationists will tell you, we're seeing the beginning of a Faustian bargain paying out for the removal of the sulfur content from marine bunker oil. The "truth is bad enough" crowd will tell you this warming is captured in the models - although at the very top end.

No one, worth listening to, will tell you they are baffled by the degree of warming starting to appear in the Oceans.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

77TA wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 8:36 pm When posting up fact checks that call out quackery because the information is "not in line", I must wonder how good the science can be when the conclusion can only be labeled as "likely". I prefer not to fall in line because of a chart showing some sea surface variance within about 1 degree range over 50 yrs or so.
1 times 360 million square kilometers, is still a big number. :smt045

To give you some idea of the energy involved - we're talking about a little more than 5 (could be as high as 7) Hiroshima's per second being absorbed by the Oceans. If you want to do the math yourself, our EEI is currently around 1.6 watts/sq meter (conservative estimate based on the 36 month running mean), so multiply that big number above by 1,000,000 and then again by 1.6.

Just take that big number you get, don't worry if you lose a few zeroes along the way, it's still going to be unimaginably big, and divide it by one Hiroshima bomb - 1.5x10^13 joules. Viola.

I'd do it for you, but I suck at maths. What it all comes down to is, our oceans are currently absorbing the energy equivalent of around 475,200 Hiroshima bombs per day.

There really isn't anyone "baffled" around why our oceans are warming.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
77TA
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3500
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2005, 9:48 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by 77TA »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 10:24 pm
77TA wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 8:36 pm When posting up fact checks that call out quackery because the information is "not in line", I must wonder how good the science can be when the conclusion can only be labeled as "likely". I prefer not to fall in line because of a chart showing some sea surface variance within about 1 degree range over 50 yrs or so.
1 times 360 million square kilometers, is still a big number. :smt045

To give you some idea of the energy involved - we're talking about a little more than 5 (could be as high as 7) Hiroshima's per second being absorbed by the Oceans. If you want to do the math yourself, our EEI is currently around 1.6 watts/sq meter (conservative estimate based on the 36 month running mean), so multiply that big number above by 1,000,000 and then again by 1.6.

Just take that big number you get, don't worry if you lose a few zeroes along the way, it's still going to be unimaginably big, and divide it by one Hiroshima bomb - 1.5x10^13 joules. Viola.

I'd do it for you, but I suck at maths. What it all comes down to is, our oceans are currently absorbing the energy equivalent of around 475,200 Hiroshima bombs per day.

There really isn't anyone "baffled" around why our oceans are warming.
So the oceans are big and absorb a lot of energy 🤔 OK then, that's not very baffling. The chaotic and complex way in which this massive amount of energy is absorbed and released on a planetary scale is not fully understood. Anyone worth listening to, (always a great statement with no metric) that says it is fully understood, is lying. Now, why they would lie like this is not "baffling" at all and it has nothing to do with lots of scary Hiroshima bombs.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

77TA wrote: Apr 7th, 2024, 6:20 am
Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 10:24 pm

1 times 360 million square kilometers, is still a big number. :smt045

To give you some idea of the energy involved - we're talking about a little more than 5 (could be as high as 7) Hiroshima's per second being absorbed by the Oceans. If you want to do the math yourself, our EEI is currently around 1.6 watts/sq meter (conservative estimate based on the 36 month running mean), so multiply that big number above by 1,000,000 and then again by 1.6.

Just take that big number you get, don't worry if you lose a few zeroes along the way, it's still going to be unimaginably big, and divide it by one Hiroshima bomb - 1.5x10^13 joules. Viola.

I'd do it for you, but I suck at maths. What it all comes down to is, our oceans are currently absorbing the energy equivalent of around 475,200 Hiroshima bombs per day.

There really isn't anyone "baffled" around why our oceans are warming.
So the oceans are big and absorb a lot of energy 🤔 OK then, that's not very baffling. The chaotic and complex way in which this massive amount of energy is absorbed and released on a planetary scale is not fully understood. Anyone worth listening to, (always a great statement with no metric) that says it is fully understood, is lying. Now, why they would lie like this is not "baffling" at all and it has nothing to do with lots of scary Hiroshima bombs.
Nothing about that is meant to be scary. Hiroshima represents a massive release of energy that we've all seen in news reel footage. If you like, we could work it out to candles on a princess cake, but you're going to need to get comfortable working with way bigger numbers. Let me know.

"Perfect is the enemy of the good". I doubt the billionaires invested in our current system are unaware of that.

"Anyone worth listening to", in my mind, is someone I can learn something from and not someone that is consistently feeding me hopium, copium, or just wasting my time. I don't need my feelings validated. That's why I'm not going to waste a minute watching the latest exciting youtube climate hoax documentary. I'll just see the same misrepresentations, plead by the same cast, and it will all rely on the same "appeals to emotion" and "arguments to the consequence".

If I want to get stupid for an hour, I'll just head to the gov't store and deal with the hangover later.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Catsumi
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19753
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Catsumi »

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Apr 7th, 2024, 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Making it personal
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. There’s a certain point at which ignorance becomes malice, at which there is simply no way to become THAT ignorant except deliberately and maliciously.

Unknown
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 85811
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 9:33 pm

No one, worth listening to, will tell you they are baffled by the degree of warming starting to appear in the Oceans.
You said it - and it's quite clear that the warming has nothing to do whatsoever with the man-made climate change hoax. No one worth listening to is still beating that stupid drum.
"The woke narcissists who make up the progressive left are characterized by an absolute lack of such conscience, but are experts at exploiting its presence in others." - Jordan Peterson
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6738
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

The Green Barbarian wrote: Apr 8th, 2024, 3:25 pm
Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 9:33 pm

No one, worth listening to, will tell you they are baffled by the degree of warming starting to appear in the Oceans.
You said it - and it's quite clear that the warming has nothing to do whatsoever with the man-made climate change hoax. No one worth listening to is still beating that stupid drum.
Exactly.

Mediabias - The same site that says John Cook's skepticalscience and other ridiculous sites are highly pro-science. Mediabias supports the 'consensus' which has been long debunked. SkepticalScience "NEVER failed a fact check" although that isn't true. All the climate justice groups and doomsayers are also highly pro-science. LOL. The article contributor James Kamis is a climate geologist, so "someone" is off target.

https://www.amazon.ca/Geological-Impact ... B0C6W46Y7W



Climate science is already upside-down and Hansen's and Mann's old views should be taken seriously? I'm afraid no one will learn anything from them. The original progenitors and fakesters of doom, whose work is proprietary and has always been doubted and scrutinized. Their views aren't the only views. The IPCC says about half of warming is natural. It is a matter of understanding the natural means of warming in a time when politicians are only interested to be our climate saviors and paying for more studies on CO2.

Either way, the worst-case fraudsters assume the ocean heat is driven by CO2 and gently diminishing SO2. Sunlight is the main contributor to ocean warming, plus unknowns. An imbalance? No one knows when if any imbalance existed or began. Can small changes in SO2 and lower global productivity after a pandemic cause a highly punctuated warming? Not likely. There are a lot of extra unaccounted atomic bombs (hilarious and meaningless measurement standard). More heat than what can be accounted for by slightly less SO2.

James Kamis wrote: Scientists who support the human-caused climate change theory are having a very difficult time explaining an extremely large temperature increase in Earth’s surface temperatures. This is because their climate models don’t accurately represent this change.

They have stated that this change is the result of human-made forces. However, the most plausible alternative explanation for these changes is massive, short-period pulses of heat emitted from ocean geological features.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 40362
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Glacier »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 7:39 pm

Never mind, that was rhetorical. I really don't care what the Castanet Climate Panel sees or thinks. I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.

Take it or leave it. I'm not telling you to eat crickets or put up a windmill - you do you.

:130:
Do you trust this science that says in just 26 years Penticton will have hotter summers than 98% of the US including Tucson, AZ?

Do you really think temperature will do this?
pentictonmean2.png
And precipitation something like this?
precipitationPent5icton.png
If so, I bet you a case of beer the mean average July temperature in Penticton in the 2050s will be under 26.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 85811
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 9:13 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by The Green Barbarian »

Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 7:39 pm I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.
If this were actually true, you'd know that this man-made climate change thing is an exaggerated hoax. "Science".
"The woke narcissists who make up the progressive left are characterized by an absolute lack of such conscience, but are experts at exploiting its presence in others." - Jordan Peterson
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6695
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Glacier wrote: Apr 10th, 2024, 12:58 pm
Drip_Torch wrote: Apr 6th, 2024, 7:39 pm

Never mind, that was rhetorical. I really don't care what the Castanet Climate Panel sees or thinks. I'm good with the science. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything.

Take it or leave it. I'm not telling you to eat crickets or put up a windmill - you do you.

:130:
Do you trust this science that says in just 26 years Penticton will have hotter summers than 98% of the US including Tucson, AZ?

Do you really think temperature will do this?
pentictonmean2.png
And precipitation something like this?
precipitationPent5icton.png
If so, I bet you a case of beer the mean average July temperature in Penticton in the 2050s will be under 26.
[icon_lol2.gif] No.

But in all fairness, that isn't science that's a hydrologist's opinion - and I did shake my head at the article.

Sorry no free case of beer for you. At least not from me on this bet.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...

Return to “Computers, Science, Technology”