Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

[Jack Frost]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

 

No, the reference to the collective "we're" is not creepy. As I tried to explain to you last time, there's a couple dozen of "us" that have been on this forum for 10 years. "We" all know and respect each other. "We've" seen deniers like you come and go. I've spent hundreds of hours refuting the exact same denier nonsense you are spewing in this thread. Collectively, "we've" spent thousands of hours. "We've" can also refer to the scientific consensus in this area.

Honestly, I haven't seen a denier claim so obviously wrong in at least a few years on this forum. Even most deniers don't dispute the very obvious fact that humans have increased CO2 concentration. They'd rather expend their energy in more easily obfusticatable areas. 

""We've" can also refer to the scientific consensus in this area."  Good grammar.

"They'd rather expend their energy in more easily obfusticatable areas."  You've obfuscated me on that one. 

 

I do sometimes get the feeling that I'm dealing with a groupthink mentality, but I had no idea there were a couple of dozen of you.  How impressive!

If I convert and become a religious zealot, can I become a member of your really cool gang?

As for Dr. Berry's paper and the conclusions therein, I find it quite revealing that you never address the substance in any way whatsoever but instead resort to the typical and oh so boring name calling.

Sorry, my money is still on the PhD in Atmospheric Science on this one. 

Do you find it at all ironic to be an unapologetic AGW zealot with your chosen screen name?  

 

[Jack Frost]

2 hours ago, FloridaJohn said:

Which predictions turned out to be false? I haven't gone back and re-watched the movie to catalog all the predictions, but since it appears you have, I am curious about which ones were wrong.

Also, please do not accuse people of calling others names when you are doing the same thing. Try to rise above. Thank you.

Well, for one, if you are in the Sunshine State, you should be reading this underwater according to the dire predictions of A Convenient (and Quite Lucrative) Lie.

Seriously, if you have a chance, please re-watch it with the benefit of 11 years of hindsight.  Comedy at its best!

And, FloridaJohn, I agree 100% with your sentiment of "try to rise above."  But sometimes, you have to give as good as you get.  Some in this forum like to disparage anyone who does not participate in the groupthink mentality.  If you ever catch me starting a thread or otherwise belittling someone who has not attacked first, please don't hesitate to call me out.  Thanks!

 

[skierinvermont]

6 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Sorry, my money is still on the PhD in Atmospheric Science on this one. 

Sorry, my money is on the other 10,000 PhDs and logic. I don't have the time or energy to personally debunk the same denier arguments over and over again every time some troll discovers the internet.

[FloridaJohn]

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

Well, for one, if you are in the Sunshine State, you should be reading this underwater according to the dire predictions of A Convenient (and Quite Lucrative) Lie.

What, specifically, was this prediction? I can't seem to find any reference to it.

[Jack Frost]

8 hours ago, FloridaJohn said:

What, specifically, was this prediction? I can't seem to find any reference to it.

 FloridaJohn,

Re-watch the movie.  With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot.  Beyond comedy!

 

[WidreMann]

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

 FloridaJohn,

Re-watch the movie.  With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot.  Beyond comedy!

 

Just tell us the particular thing you took issue with so we don't have to watch a multi-hour movie to refute your BS on a weather forum.

As with all predictions, especially those presented to the general public, there will be a few that are wrong, and some that are close, but not exactly right. That doesn't mean the whole model or theory is wrong. Otherwise, why are even here on these forums at all?

[whamby]

why is Florida in the spotlight? It's pretty obvious the Arctic is exceeding climate change model predictions... thanks polar amplification. 

[FloridaJohn]

22 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 FloridaJohn,

Re-watch the movie.  With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot.  Beyond comedy!

 

I have reviewed the movie and could not find any specific prediction that corresponds to your comments. Could you elaborate on the prediction you are referring to?  Thanks.

[Snow_Miser]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:53 PM, Jack Frost said:

 FloridaJohn,

Re-watch the movie.  With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot.  Beyond comedy!

 

Sea Levels have generally been rising faster than expected.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=7F624C54CF9903E1B980AEB5B6CE3F81.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

[Jack Frost]

9 hours ago, Snow_Miser said:

Sea Levels have generally been rising faster than expected.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=7F624C54CF9903E1B980AEB5B6CE3F81.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

The article you linked to is entitled:  "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011"

Rather dated, but putting that aside, presume it's premise is true.  "Sea levels are rising faster than anticipated by the authors".  Doesn't that make the authors' anticipations suspect and less credible?

Let me answer  - YES, if you have an open mind!  NO, if you are an AGW Religious Zealot.

Skierinvermont and others participating in the GROUPTHINK, please report this post.

SAFESPACES must be protected.  The scientific method be damned....

 

[Snow_Miser]

18 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

The article you linked to is entitled:  "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011"

Rather dated, but putting that aside, presume it's premise is true.  "Sea levels are rising faster than anticipated by the authors".  Doesn't that make the authors' anticipations suspect and less credible?

Let me answer  - YES, if you have an open mind!  NO, if you are an AGW Religious Zealot.

Skierinvermont and others participating in the GROUPTHINK, please report this post.

SAFESPACES must be protected.  The scientific method be damned....

 

It means that past estimates of climate trends related to sea level were too conservative, which is diametrically opposed to what you are trying to argue here.  

[WidreMann]

On 4/19/2017 at 7:53 PM, Jack Frost said:

The article you linked to is entitled:  "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011"

Rather dated, but putting that aside, presume it's premise is true.  "Sea levels are rising faster than anticipated by the authors".  Doesn't that make the authors' anticipations suspect and less credible?

Let me answer  - YES, if you have an open mind!  NO, if you are an AGW Religious Zealot.

Skierinvermont and others participating in the GROUPTHINK, please report this post.

SAFESPACES must be protected.  The scientific method be damned....

 

So if I were doing math homework and I got a problem wrong, went back and did it until it was right, by reconsidering my steps and reminding myself of mathematical laws, my new answer would be "suspect"? How does that make any sense? You are basically saying climate science is wrong because it's getting better understanding the climate. That is, if they don't get it right the first time, they have no chance to ever get it right before you think it is "suspect"? Again, how does this make sense? What is "suspect" about it? Do you think they intentionally were too conservative in their estimates of sea-level rise just to mess with people like you? How would that work in their favor?

[Jack Frost]

22 hours ago, WidreMann said:

So if I were doing math homework and I got a problem wrong, went back and did it until it was right, by reconsidering my steps and reminding myself of mathematical laws, my new answer would be "suspect"? How does that make any sense? You are basically saying climate science is wrong because it's getting better understanding the climate. That is, if they don't get it right the first time, they have no chance to ever get it right before you think it is "suspect"? Again, how does this make sense? What is "suspect" about it? Do you think they intentionally were too conservative in their estimates of sea-level rise just to mess with people like you? How would that work in their favor?

WidreMann,

Thank you for your thoughtful response that doesn't resort to mindless name calling.  I appreciate your questions and have an answer.  Whether you agree or disagree, maybe we both can benefit from the discussion.

While some reading this forum are too far gone to get it, my posts do have a purpose.  "1000 PPM" is a good example.  The point of that post is to remind folks that C02 is part of the "cycle of life".  How many people have no idea that we exhale CO2, plants use it for photosynthesis and then provide food and oxygen to sustain life?  Not having conducted a credible poll, I don't know exactly but my suspicion is a great many.

Your analogy to water in that thread is a good one and I agree that too much of anything, even a good thing, can cause problems.  I grew up being taught that moderation in everything is key.  And the water analogy highlights the point of that thread.  CO2 should not be classified by the US EPA as a pollutant no more tham water should be classified as a pollutant.  That is utterly ridiculous but plays perfectly into the propaganda and lies seen in a great many articles about AGW that feature ugly black or white gasses belching from smokestacks - an obvious deceit to make the public think C02 is a dangerous pollutant when we both know that it is a colorless odorless gas that we exhale with every breath and that is essential to the cycle of life.

So, having digressed, what is my point in highlighting the numerous inaccurate predictions made about the consequences of additional CO2 in the atmosphere - which all assume that the ecosystem has no mechanisms to constantly strive toward whatever balance is required to maintain itself?  Very simple.  Just as CO2 is not a "pollutant", climate science is not "settled".  I am not saying climate science is "wrong", although you can see that I am very suspect.  And perhaps part of my suspicion is based upon the strident assertion that it is settled, move along, nothing to see here folks.  Combine that with the obvious lies, data manipulation and propaganda and I find it truly amazing that anyone could be "all in" and not have questions.

But the fact that some in this forum have called a PhD in Atmospheric Science derogatory names without ever having addressed the assertions made in a well-reasoned paper only increases my suspicion that there are more than valid reasons to conclude that the science is no where close to settled.

And I say that with the full realization that the college professor from Texas may be horrified and request the I be banned from this forum - LOLOLOLOLOL. 

Sorry, could't resist.