|
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 10:16:54
And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal.
After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-28 10:20:52
I'll have you know I didn't believe in bigfoot till I was in the grocery checkout line.
[+]
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-02-28 10:27:36
And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal.
After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love.
Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org
This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 10:32:30
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal.
After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love.
Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org
This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon. While the national enquirer actually got one story correct, it's still batting 1/1,000,000.
Not saying that their breakthrough was due to journalistic integrity or anything, it's like hitting a 1" bullseye while blindfolded and throwing 100 feet away. It happens, just very rare and due to luck more than skill.
By fonewear 2014-02-28 10:33:24
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal.
After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love.
Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org
This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon.
Cheating on your wife is good for a marriage though. It makes it stronger.
Also good for global warming.
Lakshmi.Zerowone
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2014-02-28 10:37:58
Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. I'm interested in where this claim comes from. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy; in no way, shape or form can the amount of energy exceed the input to the system.
The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium.
This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system.
Then there was this tidbit:
Gary Novak said: O2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters.
The key word to focus on here is "frequencies" in that:
Carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared Radiation (IR) only at two very narrow ranges of wavelength, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. I don’t know how much of the total IR radiation is emitted in those ranges, but, even if it’s a uniform probability distribution, it couldn't possibly be more than 10-15% of all IR. If it’s a normal probability distribution, then the percent of all IR that falls in those two ranges would be more like 5%.
Leaving, lets say for shits and giggles, about 85-95%
Disclaimer I'm just reciting what skeptics propose.
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-28 12:20:15
Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. I'm interested in where this claim comes from. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy; in no way, shape or form can the amount of energy exceed the input to the system.
The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium.
This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system. Um, what? That isn't the second law of thermodynamics, which is basically that outside any other inputs, you should eventually reach equilibrium. Which is obviously not the case here. Also, that doesn't even touch the differences in pressure/density.
Then there was this tidbit:
Gary Novak said: O2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters.
The key word to focus on here is "frequencies" in that:
Carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared Radiation (IR) only at two very narrow ranges of wavelength, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. I don’t know how much of the total IR radiation is emitted in those ranges, but, even if it’s a uniform probability distribution, it couldn't possibly be more than 10-15% of all IR. If it’s a normal probability distribution, then the percent of all IR that falls in those two ranges would be more like 5%.
Leaving, lets say for shits and giggles, about 85-95%
Disclaimer I'm just reciting what skeptics propose. Um, first: if you have no radiation after 10m, that means you had 100% absorption.
Second, the absorption spectra are not entirely correct/fully defined, you can see more here:
Link to CO2 absorption spectrum on page 5
Third, if you look at the blackbody emission spectra for -93.2 to 0 to 56.7C (I've used recorded extreme temperatures for boundary values)( simple calculator here), you can see that they are in the range of roughly 16.1um 10.6um to 8.8um, respectively.
From the link above regarding emission spectra, a good amount of the temperature range below 0C is absorbed completely by CO2, while there is some (relatively minor, compared to H20) absorption at some higher temperature ranges.
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-28 12:27:04
As a quick note, it appears that global ocean temperatures range from roughly -2C to 45C, while land temperatures range from -25C to 45C.
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-28 12:45:06
Frankly, if anyone's skeptical of global warming/climate change, they should just publish a paper and have it peer reviewed by the scientific community. If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist, you can do better than spread your knowledge on a video game website.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 12:47:41
If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist But it's the 3% of the scientist that counts!
By fonewear 2014-02-28 12:59:17
Frankly, if anyone's skeptical of global warming/climate change, they should just publish a paper and have it peer reviewed by the scientific community. If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist, you can do better than spread your knowledge on a video game website.
I come to video game websites for proof of global warming first. FFXI second.
Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-02-28 13:02:40
If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist But it's the 3% of the scientist that counts! It's whatever percentage that's right that counts.
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-28 13:20:34
97% is a phantom number that serves as more re-inforcement of the hoax and a perfect example of how the discussion is broken. 97% of scientist believe in what? That the globe has warmed over the past 100 years (no ***)? Or that CO2 is the single most important influence against planetary temperature over the past 5 billion years (incorrect)?
The goal of the hoax is to manipulate the debate into arguing against something that doesn't exist. Proponents of the hoax insist that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that warms the atmosphere. Skeptics also recognize that it warms the atmosphere, but simply point to the piles of predictions that haven't come true as evidence that the potency of CO2 and the accuracy of the claims should be re-evaluated. However skeptics are portrayed as knuckle dragging arrogant "flat-earthers" who seek out to burn scientists at the stake like witches. Weather/climate is complicated yo, after 100 years, we still clearly don't understand ***, so why panic?
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-28 13:27:31
The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-28 13:30:49
Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 is warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent.
A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-02-28 13:38:29
humanity is over rated anyways! the problem is the solution!
Hurrah for Co2!
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 13:40:50
The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. Like the government and healthcare? Or is that sacred truth to you?
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-28 13:45:51
I'm not too worried I planted a tree last year.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-28 13:51:11
It only counts if you routinely hug it.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-28 13:55:13
The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. Like the government and healthcare? Or is that sacred truth to you?
I think you're making some assumptions there.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 13:57:27
The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. Like the government and healthcare? Or is that sacred truth to you?
I think you're making some assumptions there. And so are you.
"You don't agree with my way of thinking? It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!"
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-02-28 14:00:11
unless they buy you dinner first!
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-28 14:03:05
What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore?
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-28 14:05:14
It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!"
I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field.
Any "other" opinions are not relevant, no matter how good they may sound.
If you don't agree, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-28 14:10:31
I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. I would agree with you if they weren't in the pocketbooks of "Green Energy" companies, or are strongly political biased.
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-02-28 14:11:03
Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 are warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent.
A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you.
And in comes the hateful bigot to further perpetuate the hoax and argue against people who aren't really there. Skeptic became too legitimate a term to discredit (especially since the "professionals" keep getting it wrong), so thus "denier" was coined.
You're swinging at a figment of your imagination...
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-02-28 14:12:33
But, how old is the Earth?
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-28 14:13:37
It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!"
I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field.
Any "other" opinions are not relevant, no matter how good they may sound.
If you don't agree, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Feel free to ask questions, even ones that you may think are stupid. If you have specific ones, those are the best.
In general, it is a good idea to take the advice of experts in a particular field, but also to have due dilligence in the matter (for example, get second/third opinions).
What is generally a bad idea is to keep going after different opinions until you find someone who has an opinion that suits your belief. That is usually where you find charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and generally disreputable or unethical people.
Cerberus.Pleebo
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-02-28 14:13:39
What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore? Reading some stuff at the moment. Don't scowl at me like that!
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-02-28 14:14:32
I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. I would agree with you if they weren't in the pocketbooks of "Green Energy" companies, or are strongly political biased.
I never asked you to believe what I believe because I believe it. I've only asked you to consider believing that particular field of science because that's what the scientist believe.
Where exactly is the break down in communication? Do you not believe that approximately 97% of climate scientist believe in AGW?
This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”
This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”
CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).
CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.
“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.
What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.
The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.
Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”
“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.
While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.
The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.
The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.
The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tu9uyfOX="1" href="This">Libtards are gonna cry over this one
|
|