The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[WCS + 13]

Here is another article for Red to trivialize 

From EPA .gov

Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol July 2014

HFC22 was / is being used as a refrigerant since banning CFCs but what they found out was that HFC22 acts as a GHG and a byproduct of HFC22 is HFC 23 which happens to be 14800 times more damaging to earths climate than CO2. So with all these rules and regulations in place they are still seeing an increase in HFC23 in the atmosphere.

Now to reduce the use of HFC22 some have decided to use liquid CO2 as a refrigerant for some applications . Just can’t seem to get away from that CO2

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, WCS said:

Here is another article for Red to trivialize 

You already managed that by not understanding what you said.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

[Red + 252]

Sbot on.

[WCS + 13]

12 hours ago, Red said:

You already managed that by not understanding what you said.

OK Red, go back read the article and tell me what it means.

[wrs + 893]

19 hours ago, Red said:

It's possible to rebut the paper from the outset, especially as a "technical" rebuttal was sought.  Look at Figure 1 and ask yourself why CO2 was presented as a trend line, but temperature was not.  Here's what the paper says:

"The clear and obvious difference between the two raises the possibility that there may be no common causal factor whereby the CO2 concentration drives the temperature as claimed by the IPCC."

The scale chosen for temperature, along with the "noise" of monthly data, is mischievous. In fact the satellite record shows a trend of temperature increase of around 0.2 degrees per decade.  

So, if the chart shows a long term trend (40 years) of increasing temperature, and it's consistent with increasing CO2 levels, where is this obvious difference between the two?

The entire paper lacks rigour and only exists because we live in a world where cyberspace allows the pedestrian to be Olympian.

The fact that there is a small linear trend in the temperature data with respect to time is not important in the statistical analysis of the relation between CO2 and temperature.  As the article properly points out

Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a
correlation coefficient of 0.539 from the 469 monthly data pairs. This is a measure of the
relationship between the background linear trend of each of the time series as shown by an
almost identical correlation of 0.538 between the temperature and the time. The correlation
between the CO2 concentration and the time was 0.996, that is, the CO2 concentration time
series was practically a linear trend with respect to time. Any pair of linear trends, no matter
what their source, will have a high correlation coefficient of about 1.0 which is necessarily of
no causal significance as a background linear trend with respect to time can be calculated for
any time series.

So after de-trending the two series and then cross-correlating them, there is a 44% probability that there is zero correlation between the two.  This apparently led the researchers to look for other data to confirm the results so they analyzed four more locations and came up with similar or stronger results.  Ergo, rejecting the AGW hypothesis. 

The peer reviewed argument is just nonsense because we already know that the peer review process is corrupt, there is more than adequate evidence to prove that.   The internet makes it possible to post reasonable dissent and gives dissenters a voice which the climate religionists just aren't able to refute.  This is a straightforward case of the AGW hypothesis being rejected using the same data they use to make the case.

[wrs + 893]

Comment retracted for rudeness to Red.  

Edited June 20, 2019 by wrs
OK, comment wasn't accurate

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, wrs said:

he fact that there is a small linear trend in the temperature data with respect to time is not important in the statistical analysis of the relation between CO2 and temperature. 

The "small linear trend" is over 2 degrees per century.  The fact you consider this "not important" suggests you might not realise what it means in terms of changing the nature of the planet's climate, and the damage that will be done.

1 hour ago, wrs said:

Any pair of linear trends, no matter what their source, will have a high correlation coefficient of about 1.0 which is necessarily of
no causal significance as a background linear trend with respect to time can be calculated for any time series.

LOL - do you understand what this means?

1 hour ago, wrs said:

The peer reviewed argument is just nonsense because we already know that the peer review process is corrupt, there is more than adequate evidence to prove that. 

All denialists say this when they cannot support their arguments.

2 hours ago, wrs said:

Oh you need to give it some time so he can get someone else to do it and tell you what they told him to tell you. 

Do forgive me as I have finished posting about gold in another forum, and as it's going 6.30am here I went to sleep earlier after watching the televised ICC Cricket World Cup where Australia was in action.

The point is, you do not realise the paper you quote from would be marked as a fail everywhere in the world, and you want me to keep pulling it apart.  

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, WCS said:

OK Red, go back read the article and tell me what it means.

Do your own bidding.

I told you what was wrong with your idea about irradiance, which is pivotal to climate change, and you have ignored what I asked.

[wrs + 893]

 

12 minutes ago, Red said:

The "small linear trend" is over 2 degrees per century.  The fact you consider this "not important" suggests you might not realise what it means in terms of changing the nature of the planet's climate, and the damage that will be done.

The data are only 39 years and thus 2 degrees per century would be an extrapolation of 60 years off of 40 years of data.  Not buying that.

 

14 minutes ago, Red said:

LOL - do you understand what this means?

Yes, do you?

14 minutes ago, Red said:

The point is, you do not realise the paper you quote from would be marked as a fail everywhere in the world, and you want me to keep pulling it apart.

It's a reasonable paper and I don't see you able to contradict anything it concludes.

[Red + 252]

49 minutes ago, wrs said:

The data are only 39 years and thus 2 degrees per century would be an extrapolation of 60 years off of 40 years of data.  Not buying that.

It's hard for me to comment on your point without disrespecting you.  So get a better education.

49 minutes ago, wrs said:

It's a reasonable paper and I don't see you able to contradict anything it concludes.

Please read my comments on the paper where I make it clear why the paper is a crock of cobblers.  The very evidence it begins with disproves what the paper set out show.  The remainder of the paper is barely pseudoscience.  

The bottom line is that you have found something which you appear not to understand because it selectively, and badly, uses local data to disprove a global phenomenon.  That's called cherrypicking.   The alternative it offers is about as relevant as me proposing astrology.

[wrs + 893]

6 minutes ago, Red said:

It's hard for me to comment on your point without disrespecting you.  So get a better education.

LOL, the paper didn't say anything about two degrees per century, it commented on 39 years of data.  Who should be disrespecting whom, the two degrees per century is your own imagined number.

12 minutes ago, Red said:

Please read my comments on the paper where I make it clear why the paper is a crock of cobblers.  The very evidence it begins with disproves what the paper set out show.  The remainder of the paper is barely pseudoscience. 

Well I think I have read all your comments and in none of them is there a specific criticism of the data or the conclusion taken from the data.  Not sure where it disproves what it sets out to show because then the author would not be able to conclude that his analysis contradicts AGW.  This must be another one of your fantasies like two degrees per century.

14 minutes ago, Red said:

The bottom line is that you have found something which you appear not to understand because it selectively, and badly, uses local data to disprove a global phenomenon.  That's called cherrypicking.   The alternative it offers is about as relevant as me proposing astrology

Well no, if it's a global thing then it's not of much meaning if random locations around the globe don't adhere to it.  A global phenomenon is global, ergo, every place on the globe experiences it.  

[WCS + 13]

32 minutes ago, Red said:

Do your own bidding.

I told you what was wrong with your idea about irradiance, which is pivotal to climate change, and you have ignored what I asked.

Red , read the article it is about HFC22/23 not irradiance. 

Further more you are you denying the fact that the ozone layer was disappearing due to CFCs thus allowing more UV rays to enter the atmosphere and heat up the planet.

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, wrs said:

LOL, the paper didn't say anything about two degrees per century, it commented on 39 years of data.

Try an exercise in elementary logic.  If you do not consider almost 40 years of data as scientifically meaningful, on what grounds can you then consider anything else in the paper as meaningful?

What you personally choose to believe is up to you.  When I see crap presented, I call it for what it is, and in this case have explained why.

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, WCS said:

Red , read the article it is about HFC22/23 not irradiance. 

Further more you are you denying the fact that the ozone layer was disappearing due to CFCs thus allowing more UV rays to enter the atmosphere and heat up the planet.

I think you need to understand the nature of your questions.  It's all relevant to "energy."

WRT to the ozone layer issue you can satisfy yourself with an answer by finding the data for Antarctica which would be relevant.  Try doing that first, rather than load a question with a blank.

[wrs + 893]

1 minute ago, Red said:

Try an exercise in elementary logic.  If you do not consider almost 40 years of data as scientifically meaningful, on what grounds can you then consider anything else in the paper as meaningful?

I didn't say 40 years wasn't meaningful for the purpose of the paper.  Your extrapolation of the data has nothing to do with the paper at all.

[Rodent + 1,424]

[imagine my disappointed face here]

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

14 minutes ago, Rodent said:

[imagine my disappointed face here]

Imagining intensifies....

[Red + 252]

12 minutes ago, wrs said:

I didn't say 40 years wasn't meaningful for the purpose of the paper.  Your extrapolation of the data has nothing to do with the paper at all.

That you cannot understand principles of logic and you cannot understand science make it difficult to explain this basic flaw in what was presented, and which I have reiterated.  Global temperatures in Figure 1 showed that there was a positive correlation with changing CO2 levels.  The data over 39 years was meaningful as the trend was of continuation.  It is therefore impossible to reasonably conclude the paper could discount CO2 as causative.

[wrs + 893]

1 minute ago, Red said:

That you cannot understand principles of logic and you cannot understand science make it difficult to explain this basic flaw in what was presented, and which I have reiterated.  Global temperatures in Figure 1 showed that there was a positive correlation with changing CO2 levels.  The data over 39 years was meaningful as the trend was of continuation.  It is therefore impossible to reasonably conclude the paper could discount CO2 as causative.

That's because you either didn't read it or didn't understand what you did read.  What you are failing to recognize is that a linear trend obtained by drawing a regression line through some numbers says absolutely nothing about the underlying relationship between the numbers themselves.

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, Rodent said:

[imagine my disappointed face here]

Imagine dealing with responses which defy the basics of a topic grounded in scientific concepts.  

[wrs + 893]

1 minute ago, Red said:

Thank you for confirming what I post about.

How could I do that when I mainly disagree with what you post about?  No, I think the problem here is you are making a claim about the data presented in figure one that neither the author made nor do you have any evidence to conclude.

[DallasTEC + 4]

On 6/17/2019 at 11:46 PM, Red said:

True - it a BIG mistake to believe it.

So here's just one snapshot I will explain:  Please listen to the video at 23:40 where he states there is "virtually unanimous agreement" about a range of climate events, such as el nino's, where he clearly says that "strong el ninos occur during high solar activity."

Now look at where 1998 and 2016 sit on the above chart as they were record temperature years for their respective decades as a result of strong el ninos.  Hmmm - he has balatantly lied to his audience, but that was just one of so many examples I could have chosen.

 

Looks like you are the one who is lying. Ok...look at the 98 event. On the surface it looks to correspond to around 100 sunspots.Checking it out https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/the-el-nino-of-19971998.html shows it peak strength in Dec 1997, corresponding to around 50 sunspots per the above graph. Now the 2016 El Nino started earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014–16_El_Niño_event, covering again a longer period of peak sunspot activity of around 100 sunspots.Now NASA predicts the Grand Solar Minimum in July 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=kBKJkU06ICQ ScienceCasts: Solar Minimum is Coming                                          Now the satellite clearly shows a peak in 2016 here http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2019_v6.jpg Combine this other data such as the 510 Billion Ton increase annually in the Greenland Ice Mass Balance shows we have clearly taken a turn to the cooling side.......otherwise very plainly stated "Global Warming has Died"! DS

 

[DallasTEC + 4]

Grand Solar Minimum at work – Colorado snowpack more than eight times normal in places

https://nextgrandminimum.com/2019/06/06/grand-solar-minimum-at-work-colorado-snowpack-more-than-eight-times-normal-in-places/

This definitely NOT Global Warming at work!!!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

So Ted, are you claiming that climate change due to human intervention is a fact or a theory?

Evolution is still classified as a theory, the origins of oil is still regarded as a theory, the Big Bang is still a theory, the Theory of Relativity... is still a theory!

"In the context of science, a theory is a well established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can be established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."

So, by getting several scientific investigators who agree with you together, and then cherry pick your data....Bingo! You have a theory!

.....right up until that single contrary result.

Your turn.....let the rant begin!

Math has proofs, and there are some "laws" of physics; but otherwise yes it's all just theory and models. Really, a climate change model is just math with some mass and energy balances; therefore, with sufficient refinement it should work just fine...