The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I down loaded the oceans and cryosphere report the day it came out, so I have a copy.
I told you probably at least 5 times now that the "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper has been retracted in nature, which means it's junk science.
That was the major paper for the oceans and cryosphere ipcc report. How is that not specific enough for you?

It was on here Greta referenced some old ipcc report that made it sound like a 3 degree temperature increase was certain. It sounded kind of dire. She gave the report name and page number. I was able to find the report and read the entire context and it's not as bad as she says it is.

You got me on the LNG. I don't see how they can liquify and transport it that far and have it be economical. Must to keep up with winter demand. Hey as long as it's not coming from the middle east.

Retracting ocean quantification doesn't tell us anything.Was it superceded by more current,more accurate information? There's a liklihood that the data was 2-years obsolete when it came out in the IPCC report.Do they provide some magnitude of error? The oceans have a 100-year lag-time with respect to atmospheric CO2 concentration.Have new models refined this value?
As to temperature increase,the range is as high as 11-degrees F climate sensitivity to a doubling of greenhouse gases.
As to the Middle East,and other foreign imports,gasoline in American tanks may be sourced from: Bahrain,Iran,Iraq,Kuwait,Qatar,Saudi Arabia,United Arab Emirates,Neutral Zone,Algeria,Angola,Nigeria,and Canada,at a rate of 1,362,180,000 barrels a year,as of 2017.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

He plagerized fake science,without fact-checking, lying under oath, during testimony before Congress.I'm glad he's dead.

Lying requires 2 things; the facts to be incorrect, and the intention to mislead. Do you think Crichton's intention was to mislead? If so, what do you posit as a motive considering he was already a very wealthy person independent of any oil ties, or any other apparent interests that would motivate deception?

Occam's Razor suggests that the testimony given was given in good faith, since any other conclusion requires extra theories as to why he would mislead.

It wasn't Crichton's idea to testify before congress, but was instead asked by politicians to do so. If any mistake was made, it was having a non-climate scientist appear to testify. If I were brought before congress to testify, I'd give my understanding of things from my perspective too.

So, it seems unlikely that Crichton's intention was to mislead, which still leaves the question of the facts. I'd ask what specifically did he state as fact that has been proven to be incorrect? If you're going to call someone a liar, it's on you to be specific about what the lie was, or we can ignore the accusation and be suspect of any future accusations.

Ultimately, Crichton wasn't even accused of lying under oath, and no charges were ever leveled against him. Googling the subject returns zero results.

Should we apply the same rules of condemnation to Gore for the many untruths told in "An Inconvenient Truth"? He gave specific facts and timelines which we now know to be false. False prophecy if you will.

BTW- I'm not willing to call Gore a liar and I wouldn't delight in his demise. Being wrong isn't sufficient justification for hatred. Nothing is.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Nope...




They can't.

This is where we import from other than Canada 🇨🇦.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nd-exports.php




The last I remember reading was the USA had about 250 years of natural gas in current known reserves with more coming online.





>

National oil companies can sell fossil-fuels at prices below those of joint-stock corporations.After extracting,liquifying,and transporting the product,it can remain competitive.In the early 1970's,West Texas intermediate crude was $3 at the wellhead.Saudi Arabia was selling at 25-cents/barrel.

The EIA gave Trinidad&Tobago's share,at 86%,not volunteering where the remaining 14% came from.
As to the 250-years figure,as long as we're discussing climate change,then that gas will have to be reserved for everything but combustion.And that's predicated upon the rogue methane leaks from fracking being brought under control.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

I don’t have the original article that said 200-250 years of natural gas anymore as it was in a file on the computer that crashed. But I did find this from Exxon (Dated Aug. 28, 2019).

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Ene...ply#naturalGas

Energy supply





(lots of info, charts and graphs at the link)



I said USA supply...

I should have said Global supply...

My bad...






>

Methane hydrates in Russia's Siberian permafrost is estimated at 30,000-years supply,at 1.7-million-trillion cubic feet.That's just Russia.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

This is why I find it odd that the ipcc cherry picked 1850 to 1900 as their control for "pre industrial climate".

The beginning of commercial-scale,coal-fired steam power,is,by definition,the beginning of the industrial revolution.From the proxy data,we know the atmospheric CO2 level and average global temperature,from 11,000 years ago,leading up to 1850,when things began to 'show.' It's a perfect reference datum.Rational.Scientific.All data leads to it.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Retracting ocean quantification doesn't tell us anything.Was it superceded by more current,more accurate information? There's a liklihood that the data was 2-years obsolete when it came out in the IPCC report.Do they provide some magnitude of error? The oceans have a 100-year lag-time with respect to atmospheric CO2 concentration.Have new models refined this value?
As to temperature increase,the range is as high as 11-degrees F climate sensitivity to a doubling of greenhouse gases.
As to the Middle East,and other foreign imports,gasoline in American tanks may be sourced from: Bahrain,Iran,Iraq,Kuwait,Qatar,Saudi Arabia,United Arab Emirates,Neutral Zone,Algeria,Angola,Nigeria,and Canada,at a rate of 1,362,180,000 barrels a year,as of 2017.

It was retracted in nature, it wasn't made obsolete or superceded. So it was at least junk science and incompetence, at worse possibly fraud. It was described as systemic errors in data collection and inconsistencies in testing methods.
Retracted in nature is bad. You are not going to spin this one into less than what it is.

So the study is going to have to be completely redone. Which means the results would be completely different.
To assign an order of magnitude to the error would be pure speculation.

If man made global warming is settled science then how come these reports get made obsolete and replaced?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The beginning of commercial-scale,coal-fired steam power,is,by definition,the beginning of the industrial revolution.From the proxy data,we know the atmospheric CO2 level and average global temperature,from 11,000 years ago,leading up to 1850,when things began to 'show.' It's a perfect reference datum.Rational.Scientific.All data leads to it.

You said from 11,000 years ago till 1850.
The report clearly says 1850 to 1900.
If it already started changing by 1850 why use 1850 to 1900 as base line for preindustrial climate?

If the climate didnt change from from 9,000bc to 1850 why not use 1,200ad to 1,800ad?
Or any date from 1850 as far back as the data will allow?

[freebeard]

Nine posts in 22 minutes. Is that a record?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oceans Are Getting Hotter And Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster, New IPCC Report Reveals

That report was based on junk science that was retraced in nature.
But the believers still cling to it. Sad.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Nine posts in 22 minutes. Is that a record?

Some one got triggered lol.
Just need to figure out what it was and do more of it.