Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:53:11 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:


Your broken views do not demand our attention. The Earth is not flat,
but you cannot accept that.

The Lat/Long system along with the 24 hour system generates a value of 1037.5 miles per hour at the Equator and diminishes to zero either side to the North and South poles indicative of a round and rotating Earth.

The avoidance of this basic fact does not suggest you believe in a flat Earth but neither do you support a round and rotating Earth hence there isn't the slightest difference between an imaginary flat Earth ideology and an RA/Dec fiction.

This is as bad or as good as it gets because there is nothing lower on the intellectual scale much less the astronomical scale.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 11:52:49 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Actual science deniers cannot be reasoned with. Harnagel is a good
example of this

No, he is not. Peterson wishes to paint one as such because he disagrees
with him. "Climate science" is full of sensationalist exaggeration and
flat-out wrong assertions.

Take this one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice
per year since 2002"

and compare it with this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet
showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and
2008."

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea
level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,"

- an otherwise intelligent, educated person who suffers from what is
arguably a mental illness that completely locks out reason in certain
scientific areas.

As compared to Peterson who locks out the ability to do the math to check
the numbers of the sensationalists. For example, 100 gigatonnes of ice
melted corresponds to less than 0.3 mm of ocean level rise. If that rate
were to continue, it would take over 3000 years for the oceans to rise by
one meter. If anyone believes that climate DOESN'T change over such long
periods (or even shorter periods of a few decades), they are the REAL
science deniers and have the mental illness.

And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT NOW
OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a hidden
agenda. Or they are just a science denier.

Science deniers become more entrenched as they are presented with more
evidence against their views.

Which is an apt description of Peterson. The earth is definitely in a
warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer than
humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2. Furthermore,
water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. But when
presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his heels and starts hurling
ad homs.

There are also people who deny aspects of science because it goes
against their dogmatic world views. Snell is a good example of this.

Peterson is a good example of this. For him, there is only ONE WAY that
the threat of GLOBAL DISASTER due to AGW can be avoided: stop producing CO2
RIGHT NOW! Alternatives have been presented to him, but he dogmatically
rejects them unscientifically out-of-hand.


I dot think you are a science denier but you seem to have a pair of Zaphod
Beeblebrox - like AGW sensitive sunglasses which cloud your mind when it is
presented with facts.
You keep on coming up with the "water is a much more significant greenhouse
gas" meme when you have been told and can easily research that the water
vapour content of the atmosphere and is dependent on temperature.
Temperature is much more sensitive to fluctuations in CO2. Increased CO2
increases temperature and the increased temperature increases water vapour
which in turn increases temperature more. It's not a runaway effect but it
means that increasing CO2 also increases water vapour.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the great danger
here is that methane and methane clathrates in tundra and on the sea bed
will be released by rising temperatures.

Humans had an effect on CO2 long before significant industrialisation by
clearing freest for agriculture. Abandoning agriculture in much of Amazonia
after the conquistadors contributed to the little ice age and was
accompanied by the only sustained falls in CO2 in the last 2000 years.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz wrote:

Be nice. Don't turn into Snell. :^))

Too late :-(
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:53:11 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:51:00 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Drivel snipped.

As a science denier, you've effectively removed yourself from the
discussion.

Proof that Peterson has no valid explanation for adverse evidence
contradicting his authoritarian dogmatism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which you have
not provided.

You've had it. YOU snipped it. So once again you reek of dishonesty.

It isn't the job of scientists to continually attempt educating the
uneducable.

But it IS the job of scientists to accept REAL data.

All of the things you bring up have been soundly rejected or explained.

This is a total lie. Just as this is:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

because the truth is he

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

So how come NASA is making two opposing claims. If you say Antarctica
was losing 118 GT/yr in 2008 but now it's gaining 82 GT/yr, then Peterson's
position is eroded still more since we're on an upward slope.

There is no burden on mainstream science here.

There certainly is when they lie.

Your broken views do not demand our attention.

:-))))))

"Our"? Peterson has admitted that he is NOT a "climate scientist" and only
accepts the view of the majority of real climate scientists (who likely
have a not-so-hidden agenda). He can only argue by quoting authority,
which is not a valid scientific procedure.

The Earth is not flat, but you cannot accept that.

More Peterson stupidity with the straw man and ad hominem baloney. He is
profoundly dishonest. He advocates for reducing CO2 emissions RIGHT NOW!
WE CAN'T WAIT! Baloney!

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:25:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Being nice does not require putting up with pseudoscience and bad
science in a science forum. Snell is nasty for the sake of nastiness.
Quite different.



I'm sure you believe in the justifications you offer for what you do;
but I see it differntly. You've been excessivly nasty -and not because
it was needed, or necessary.


--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:05:30 AM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

So just which NASA sourve was "discredited"?

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

You have taken a small selective part of the research that NASA did on
Antarctic glaciation. Yes, Antarctic snowfall has increased the ice
slightly, but this is a long term trend that started 10,000 years ago.
It is due to warming air, which can hold more moisture, but it is not
enough to offset the rising sea levels that we now experience. If the
rising temperatures continue, the melting of glaciers will accelerate
and offset any gains due to increased snowfall. That is the bottom line.

This is true IF the temperatures keep rising. The rise over the past 15
years is 0.79 degree (0.053 degree/year) with a sigma of 0.08 degree.

Right now glaciers in Greenland are definitely melting faster than they
can be replenished by new snowfall. One reason is that the snow is being
covered by more soot, which degreases the reflectivity and increases the
melt rate.

Yep.

If I have this right, pure snow reflects about 90% of the incoming solar radiation,

I see 95% on the web.

dirty snow reflects only 60%, and once melted the resulting melt water
reflects only 7% of the incoming radiation.

If the water runs into the ocean, there will be no net change in the
reflection of that body, so you should use zero.

This is the real reason that the Arctic is heating up 3 times as fast as
tropical regions, and is a huge concern to scientists. Once the arctic
ice melts, there is no stopping a runaway warming of the earth. We will
see conditions not experienced by mammals, rather we will see climate
conditions of eons ago when only bacteria survived on earth.

The Antarctic contains an order of magnitude more frozen water than the
Arctic, so that claim may be a bit hyper. And I just ran across this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

"Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source
of the figures – the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)
- was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected
the figure without mentioning it."

Comparing 2012 vs. 2013. This does not engender a lot of confidence in the
"experts" to make the error in the first place and then to surreptitiously
correct it. This dishonesty seems to be widespread with the government
bureaucracies. The EPA doesn't even consider the biggest contributor, water
vapor in their pie chart on greenhouse gases:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/g...ons/gases.html

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice
per year since 2002"

and compare it with this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet
showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and
2008."

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea
level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,"
....
And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT NOW
OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a hidden
agenda. Or they are just a science denier.
....
The earth is definitely in a
warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer than
humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2. Furthermore,
water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. But when
presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his heels and starts hurling
ad homs.

I dot think you are a science denier but you seem to have a pair of Zaphod
Beeblebrox - like AGW sensitive sunglasses which cloud your mind when it is
presented with facts.

I see people advocating AGW as having ZB sunglasses that turn black when
contradictory data is presented :-)

You keep on coming up with the "water is a much more significant greenhouse
gas" meme when you have been told and can easily research that the water
vapour content of the atmosphere and is dependent on temperature.

Sure it is, and the hotter it is, the more goes into the atmosphere and the
bigger effect it has.

Temperature is much more sensitive to fluctuations in CO2. Increased CO2
increases temperature and the increased temperature increases water vapour
which in turn increases temperature more.

This sounds like an attempt to dethrone the major contributor by pretending
that CO2 is the controlling factor.

It's not a runaway effect but it means that increasing CO2 also increases
water vapour.

There are lots of models but little actual experimental data, which is the
only thing that really counts in science. Fitting parameters of a model
to match observation doesn't mean that the parameters are right.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the great danger
here is that methane and methane clathrates in tundra and on the sea bed
will be released by rising temperatures.

Humans had an effect on CO2 long before significant industrialisation by
clearing freest for agriculture. Abandoning agriculture in much of Amazonia
after the conquistadors contributed to the little ice age and was
accompanied by the only sustained falls in CO2 in the last 2000 years.

Doesn't clearing forests increase CO2 levels from decay of the trees? Why
weren't CO2 levels high when Amazonia began clearing land for agriculture?

This is a VERY complex subject and "the powers that be" have already made
some giant goofs. Given the fact that present rates allow time for deeper
study, and given that alternative technologies exist, rushing into serious
change may be foolhardy, particularly if the warming trend peters out in a
few years.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:56:37 -0400, Bill wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:25:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Being nice does not require putting up with pseudoscience and bad
science in a science forum. Snell is nasty for the sake of nastiness.
Quite different.



I'm sure you believe in the justifications you offer for what you do;
but I see it differntly. You've been excessivly nasty -and not because
it was needed, or necessary.

I am never nasty. That doesn't mean, of course, that I don't offer the
occasional insult to a waste of oxygen like Snell.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You've had it. YOU snipped it.

Drivel snipped.

Usually I avoid these discussions – even though I live in the Powder River Basin. If you look up the Powder River Basin you'll discover that it's the largest coal-producing region in the U.S. In 2007 the Powder River Basin produced 396 million tons of coal. I literally live on top of a thick coal seam. I don't recall how thick that seam is, but all I would need to do would be to check my well log. That log gives the depth and thickness of the coal seam beneath my feet. From time to time I still see an occasional speck of coal come out of my water faucet.

Today I went with a family member to see our dentist, but since we live in rural Montana (pretty much in the middle of nowhere) that meant taking a trip to one of the nearer sizable towns. In this case it was a town named “Colstrip�. Colstrip's coal-fired power plants emit about 1,000 pounds of CO2 every second!

How many people know how much CO2 is produced for every ton of coal that's burned? If you don't know and you don't have a basic understanding of chemistry the answer could come as a surprise. The answer depends on the quality of the coal, but on average for every ton of coal that's burned more than two (actually closer to three) tons of CO2 is produced.

How do I see Climate Change or Global Warming? To me the evidence for them is overwhelming. Is it caused by humans? That's a more complicated question to answer. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's undisputed. CO2 contributes to global warming. That also is beyond dispute. Regardless of where one places the “cause� for Climate Change, it's clear that a reduction of CO2 emissions is a step in the right direction for combatting it. In my opinion we need to stop digging up and burning coal – at least we need to stop burning it in the destructive manner in which it is currently burned.

Then there's astronomy. If you check out the Wikipedia article on the Powder River Basin you'll see a statement that says: excepting three major cities, the area is “very sparsely populated�. So, despite various hardships and inconveniences (There were years that I had to drive 40 miles to the nearest gas station.) I've stayed in my own little part of the Powder River Basin for one reason and one reason only: access to a DARK sky!

Sketcher,
Facts are facts.
Science is science
From 'Ground Zero' of the Fossil Fuel Debate