The global energy crisis - Green fairy tales collide with reality

[Moviefan-2]

What a person who uses and understands science would do is check the theories, the evidence and the past record for these computer models.

You're a total ignoramus when it comes to science and the scientific method.

Checking the theories, the existing evidence and the past record of the computer models allows you to form a hypothesis. But none of that qualifies as observed data for the forecasted predictions.

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

How the scientific method is used to test a hypothesis.

www.khanacademy.org

The scientific method is clear: You determine whether the predictions are supported by evidence by looking at the observed results, not the computer-generated projections.

The only way to have "proof" of the outcomes in 2050 is to have gathered evidence in the year 2050.

Unless the climate researchers have travelled to the future, it is impossible for them to have proof to support to their hypothesis.

Not to mention that their range of forecasted outcomes is so enormous that it is essentially a prediction that anything could happen. It's no wonder NASA is confident in that "prediction."

 

[Frankfooter]

You're a total ignoramus when it comes to science and the scientific method.

...

The scientific method is clear: You determine whether the predictions are supported by evidence by looking at the observed results, not the computer-generated projections.

This is exactly what you demand of the 'scientific method': Checking predictions against observed results from the same type of modelling used in medicine and other sciences.
In this chart you can see 20 years worth of projections from models charted against real world measurements from multiple sources.

But since you are a science denier you will never accept the evidence that you ask for.
Instead you'll try to switch to one of the 4 other science denier tactics, like demanding the science be perfect.

This is the proof you repeatedly ask for but won't accept.

 

[danmand]

Actually, the Electricity prices are right now lowest in Scandinavia, where Nuclear power and Coal power has been replaced with sustainable energy generation.

But - of course - facts means nothing here on Terb.

 

[JohnLarue]

You're a total ignoramus when it comes to science and the scientific method.

Checking the theories, the existing evidence and the past record of the computer models allows you to form a hypothesis. But none of that qualifies as observed data for the forecasted predictions.

The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

How the scientific method is used to test a hypothesis.

www.khanacademy.org

The scientific method is clear: You determine whether the predictions are supported by evidence by looking at the observed results, not the computer-generated projections.

The only way to have "proof" of the outcomes in 2050 is to have gathered evidence in the year 2050.

Unless the climate researchers have travelled to the future, it is impossible for them to have proof to support to their hypothesis.

Not to mention that their range of forecasted outcomes is so enormous that it is essentially a prediction that anything could happen. It's no wonder NASA is confident in that "prediction."

Sadly some see "Climate Change" as the route to backdoor socialism after a century of its rejection via the ballot box
No amount of logic or evidence will fix these peoples view .
Science and scientific integrity and most importantly the truth of the matter are irrelevant to these socialist diehards

 

[Frankfooter]

No amount of logic or evidence will fix these peoples view .

According to the posts in this thread, its you and moviefan who have faith based views that won't change with evidence.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is exactly what you demand of the 'scientific method': Checking predictions against observed results from the same type of modelling used in medicine and other sciences.
In this chart you can see 20 years worth of projections from models charted against real world measurements from multiple sources.

But since you are a science denier you will never accept the evidence that you ask for.
Instead you'll try to switch to one of the 4 other science denier tactics, like demanding the science be perfect.

This is the proof you repeatedly ask for but won't accept.

Without getting into another pointless debate about the graphs and whether life on this planet has gotten better or worse over the past 100-plus years (I say it's better), the question is whether the climate researchers are right about the future.

There is no "proof" that would settle the issue one way or the other. Nothing about the year 2050 can be confirmed through observed data until we are in the year 2050.

That's how the scientific method works.

That's reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

According to the posts in this thread, its you and moviefan who have faith based views that won't change with evidence.

Actually, skepticism is the foundation of good science. There would be almost no scientific discoveries or breakthroughs if every scientist simply accepted what is commonly believed at any given time.

 

[Frankfooter]

Without getting into another pointless debate about the graphs and whether life on this planet has gotten better or worse over the past 100-plus years (I say it's better), the question is whether the climate researchers are right about the future.

There is no "proof" that would settle the issue one way or the other. Nothing about the year 2050 can be confirmed through observed data until we are in the year 2050.

That's how the scientific method works.

That's reality.

See, I give you exactly the evidence you demand for exactly the question you ask but you won't accept it.
You are a science denier who clearly has no clue about science.

The models have a record of accuracy and come with confidence levels and ranges.
They are good science with a proven track record.

 

[JohnLarue]

Actually, the Electricity prices are right now lowest in Scandinavia, where Nuclear power and Coal power has been replaced with sustainable energy generation.

But - of course - facts means nothing here on Terb.

again I will ask
Is that name plate capacity or actual generated power?
Lets be sure which facts you are claiming

on a secondary point
touting Norway as the standard is ridiculous as it has lots of hydro electric power and less people than Ontario

 

[Moviefan-2]

See, I give you exactly the evidence you demand for exactly the question you ask but you won't accept it.
You are a science denier who clearly has no clue about science.

The models have a record of accuracy and come with confidence levels and ranges.
They are good science with a proven track record.

You kept asking me what "proof" I would accept. Computer model projections about the future are not confirmed facts.

But since you insist I'm wrong, let's probe this a little further.

You insist the climate researchers can rely solely on past records to forecast the Earth's temperature in the future.

Fine. So tell me - using your cherised NASA calculations and baseline, what is the Earth's average annual temperature anomaly for the year 2050?

I don't want to hear any blather about ranges. There can only be one average temperature anomaly for any given year. Since you insist this is something climate researchers can determine now, you must believe you know the answer.

I'll go even further. If you can provide credible evidence that supports the number you provide, I'll accept that as "proof."

But I repeat: you must provide a single number, not a broad range of numbers, and I want to see the evidence to support it.

Your evidence must include the breakdown of the global energy supply in 2050 - how much energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear power, renewable energy, etc., and how the climate modellers used that calculation to finalize the temperature anomaly for 2050.

Good luck with your research.

 

[Frankfooter]

You kept asking me what "proof" I would accept. Computer model projections about the future are not confirmed facts.

But since you insist I'm wrong, let's probe this a little further.

You insist the climate researchers can rely solely on past records to forecast the Earth's temperature in the future.

Fine. So tell me - using your cherised NASA calculations and baseline, what is the Earth's average annual temperature anomaly for the year 2050?

I don't want to hear any blather about ranges. There can only be one average temperature anomaly for any given year. Since you insist this is something climate researchers can determine now, you must believe you know the answer.

I'll go even further. If you can provide credible evidence that supports the number you provide, I'll accept that as "proof."

But I repeat: you must provide a single number, not a broad range of numbers, and I want to see the evidence to support it.

Your evidence must include the breakdown of the global energy supply in 2050 - how much energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear power, renewable energy, etc., and how the climate modellers used that calculation to finalize the temperature anomaly for 2050.

Good luck with your research.

You are quite funny.

You're still trolling, trying to conflate scientific projections with fortune tellers. I'm sure that the fortune tellers you visit would be happy to give you one single number after you paid them.
But science doesn't work that way.

The IPCC projections are always given as a range, with confidence levels and different scenarios based on whether we curtail CO2 output.

Of course, as a science denier I'm sure you're going to yell until you're blue in the face to get a single number like your fortune teller would give you.
The IPCC numbers are on page 42 here, have a read and see if you can understand it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC projections are always given as a range, with confidence levels and different scenarios based on whether we curtail CO2 output.

Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points, I'm sure their "confidence levels" are extremely high.

Unless something radical happens and the planet suddenly starts cooling, the temperature in 2050 is almost certainly to be somewhere within that Grand Canyon-like range, even if the temperature change is entirely due to natural causes.

Nonetheless, I'm glad you finally realize it's insane to keep asking what "proof" would convince me climate researchers can predict the future. In your own words, "science doesn't work that way."

Projections with vast ranges and different scenarios don't meet the test for measureable predictions according to the scientific method.

And speculation -- which is the real definition of the IPCC projections -- is not the same thing as established facts.

 

[Frankfooter]

Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points,

Wow, 400% eh?
Why didn't you say 40000%?

Perhaps you'd like to show us your math for these numbers.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow, 400% eh?
Why didn't you say 40000%?

Perhaps you'd like to show us your math for these numbers.

I provided the link from NOAA in a previous post but here it is again, along with a link from Nature.

Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections

It is virtually certain our world will continue to warm over this century and beyond. The exact amount of warming that will occur in the coming century depends largely on the energy choices that we make now and in the next few decades.

www.climate.gov

How hot will Earth get by 2100?

Climate researchers are studying a fresh set of scenarios to model the future of the planet.

www.nature.com

The range by the year 2100 is from about 1C to 5C.

1C x 400% = 4C.

 

[JohnLarue]

Given that the "range" for the projections is over 400 percentage points, I'm sure their "confidence levels" are extremely high.

Unless something radical happens and the planet suddenly starts cooling, the temperature in 2050 is almost certainly to be somewhere within that Grand Canyon-like range, even if the temperature change is entirely due to natural causes.

Nonetheless, I'm glad you finally realize it's insane to keep asking what "proof" would convince me climate researchers can predict the future. In your own words, "science doesn't work that way."

Projections with vast ranges and different scenarios don't meet the test for measureable predictions according to the scientific method.

And speculation -- which is the real definition of the IPCC projections -- is not the same thing as established facts.

Frankie will of course default to Character assignation of Will Happer.
But he will now also have to attack Wyngarden's character

 

[Frankfooter]

The range by the year 2100 is from about 1C to 5C.

1C x 400% = 4C.

This is frigging comedy gold!
So much failure in one post.

Are you going to stand with this claim or do some research and try again?
It really does show how incredibly incompetent you are with math, science and the climate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is frigging comedy gold!
So much failure in one post.

Are you going to stand with this claim or do some research and try again?
It really does show how incredibly incompetent you are with math, science and the climate.

I absolutely stand by it. What number do you get when you multiply 1 x 4?

Let me help you, Franky.

Here's a link to a percentage increase calculator. Put in the starting value of 1 and the final value of 5, and see what percentage increase you get:

Percentage Increase Calculator

Percentage increase calculator finds the increase from one value to another as a percentage of the first value. Shows you how to find percentage increase with percent increase formula.

www.calculatorsoup.com

 

[Frankfooter]

I absolutely stand by it. What number do you get when you multiply 1 x 4?

Let me help you, Franky.

Here's a link to a percentage increase calculator. Put in the starting value of 1 and the final value of 5, and see what percentage increase you get:

Percentage Increase Calculator

Percentage increase calculator finds the increase from one value to another as a percentage of the first value. Shows you how to find percentage increase with percent increase formula.

www.calculatorsoup.com

Lets start with your first errors.
What were the ranges of temperatures in the two articles you posted?

 

[danmand]

Lets start with your fist errors.
What were the ranges of temperatures in the two articles you posted?

Any temperature percentages has to be on absolute temperatures to make any sense.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets start with your fist errors.
What were the ranges of temperatures in the two articles you posted?

The projected range for the increase in the link from NOAA was approx. 1C to 5C by the year 2100. Here is a direct quote from NOAA:

"Results from a wide range of climate model simulations suggest that our planet’s average temperature could be between 2 and 9.7°F (1.1 to 5.4°C) warmer in 2100 than it is today."

Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections

It is virtually certain our world will continue to warm over this century and beyond. The exact amount of warming that will occur in the coming century depends largely on the energy choices that we make now and in the next few decades.

www.climate.gov

NOAA, as we know, is one of the primary sources for the IPCC.

Keep digging, Franky. I have to say, I am getting very tempted to update your "greatest hits" on man-made global warming.

I have a feeling you might even surpass your 2015 claim that the CBC's reference to the "pre-industrial age" referred to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609