potholer destroys SO in "discussion"

daftcunt's picture

Discussion with Suspicious Observers

No, he doesn't. Just chose the title to fire up the usual subjects, LOL Forgive me.  Or don't, I don't give a fuck either way.

Haven't watched myself yet. You guessed it, the weather improved and I am sitting all day on the mini-tractor I bought last week cutting weeds. Thanks to the shit weather there are loads.....

3.57143
Average: 3.6 (7 votes)

Comments

backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Listened to this last night. Nothing really happened but was still interesting talk.

Potholer was actually very likable in this, but still had his debunking mode on and wasn't really interested in talking about climate science in general. (which I was really hoping for). 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

"...and wasn't really interested in talking about climate science in general. (which I was really hoping for). "

 

Why would he?

 

If you want to listen to him about this in general you would have to go to his video channel and reserve a few hours for it, it is ALREADY THERE, you simply refuse to watch it.

 

This chat was to clarify what is wrong and right in his "debunking" video regarding SO.

I'll come back to this once I listened to it.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

"Why would he?"

 

Because it would be interesting and educational for the audience and possibly for both of them too.  For example, Ben mentioned how some of the newest papers still use an older model for solar forcing. Would have like to hear his thoughts on it, but he didn't want to go there. Potholer doesn't really dedicate time on his channel to the newest science out there unless of course, if it's to debunk someone.

 

But yeah I get it. The point was to just discuss the one SO video. Still, I think these two could have a really interesting talk if they chose a couple of climate topics of their interest and hear their ideas on them. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Oh boy.

"For example, Ben mentioned how some of the newest papers still use an older model for solar forcing."

 

If this would have a "theory changing" impact AND the "newer model" actually is more accurate "they" suely would use it. 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Who said anything about "theory changing"? I'm just curious as to why they aren't using the newer model.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

And I explained to you why they probably don't (yet?).

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

All you did was assume that they weren't using it because it wasn't accurate. 

 

Could be, but why publish a new model in the first place if it's worse than the one you previously had. Most likely it's just that a large field of science is slow to react. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

You really should start trying to understand what I said before.

  • There is a process involved, hence it is NOT "look there's a newer model, let's use that right away", just because it is new does not automatically mean it is better, it needs testing out
  • Even if a new model has been proven to work more accurately, incorporating it into complex calculations and simulations will take time. 
  • Depending on impact on current research this will be incorporated with more or less urgency. Hence "ground breaking" or "theory changing" developments would find their way into the models quicker than those with a minor impact.

And, no, in contrary to the typical "climate critics" belief the topic is way too open and too many scientists are involved that "disproving" evidence could easily be swept under the rug.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

"You really should start trying to understand what I said before"

 

Yes, I'm really trying to but all I see from you is speculations with no sources to back it up. 

As potholer would say, opinions are meaningless in science, show the data.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

This is a bit rich coing from the person who loves unfounded shit like this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Most of those are direct quotes from scientists or meteorologists, who should know what they are talking about. I don't know what the problem is with that.

 

OTOH, I don't know what you are but I'm pretty sure none of the above, so I'd like some sources. I'll even settle for "I don't know" which most likely is the case.

 

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Well they are not (or not traceable or taken straight out of context), I explained this to you in the original post but of course you did not check yourself, as for you it is good enough that someone is criticising source check unnecessary if it feeds the bias.

I -AGAIN- only explained the process and of course  gave my opinion on why the models are not (yet?) incorporated. I am not a researcher myself but unlike others I trust the scientific process. These "models" were developed by scientists, after all, weren't they. Just because these models are currently seemingly ignored (and I am sure they are not), doesn't mean they will be swept under the rug.

 

We are talking science here, not current white house politics.

 

And AGAIN if it would be ground breaking, theory changing or simply hinting at negating or changing the CO2 portion of the warming, the press that feeds headline huggers like you and the biastoid would be filled with the headlines you so much love - as they do even when there is no reason for it.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Ok. I only said that it would have been interesting to hear Potholers thought on this, nothing more. It doesn't mean there is some big conspiracy behind it. He just might have had some insight on the subject.

 

If your interested here's an article on the new model. It does have some cooling effect compared to the older one, like dropping the total solar irradiance by 1.3W per square meter.   

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-representation-solar-variability-climate.html

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Thanks for posting this, here is what Dr Funke says in conclusion (taken straight from the article):
 

"What do scientists expect from the new data set? "In our future scenario for CMIP6, we provide a more sophisticated estimate of the future development of solar activity after 2015," explains Dr. Bernd Funke, co-author of the study. "By 2070, a decrease of the sun's mean activity to a smaller solar minimum is expected. This counteracts the anthropogenic global warming signal, but will not have a significant influence on the development of global average surface temperatures," Dr. Funke continues. However, regional effects should not be negligible. In addition, for the first time, a quantification of solar irradiance and particle effects will be possible.

 

 

The new data set is the outcome of a large, interdisciplinary team effort, from solar physicists and energetic particle experts to climate modelers. This work has been carried out as part of an international project of the World Climate Research Programme. Under the leadership of Katja Matthes and Bernd Funke, the worldwide expertise on this topic was combined to create the best possible assessment of past, present and future solar variability.

"The  will help to further improve our understanding of natural decadal  variability and to distinguish natural more clearly from anthropogenic processes," Prof. Matthes concludes."

 

 

This is why I THINK there is no great urgency in incorporating this everywhere quickly.

 

I can only imagine what the press would have headlined if the 1.3W/m2  would have been an increase.



 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

"I can only imagine what the press would have headlined if the 1.3W/m2  would have been an increase."

 

Uhm, if the press were to jump on this shouldn't this be it? The old model was running slightly hotter.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

The old model was running hotter because the influence of the sun was OVERestimated, so it has less influence on global surface temperatures.

A "climate denier" would have said "Oh my god it's only because of the sun, CO2 has way less influence than experts thought" if they found it was the other way round. As they like to do, even if the preamble to the study says it does not negate current climate science.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

I guess it depends which way you wanna spin it. Very rarely do I see people blaming the sun for the warming. I think most of the deniers/critics agree that the sun's output is actually dropping.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Not according to some on here.......

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Damnit Backdraft, DaftCunt already explained to you "why they probably don't use it." Case closed - stop asking questions and just cowtow to an assumption blended with a fallacious appeal to authority. For fuck's sake.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

PS: there is an "interview" with a guy called the academic agent in which, I believe, the climate change topic "as such" is discussed.

Listen to that if you can bear it.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Yeah I did listen to that a couple of days ago. It was a good talk.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Yes nothing happens until 24:00 when Ben DESTROYS Potholer54 when he gets him to admit what motivated his video. He was concerned about current and potential members of the climate change political movement watching one SO video out of context, never watching another one, and forever being misled about the nature of climate change science? It's like a priest warning his "flock" about the dangers of heavy metal, "Look what it says when I play the song backwards," LMAO.

 

Continuing.....

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

LOL, this is what you find interesting?

  • NOT that the only MAJOR difference between the two compared cycles is about double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
  • NOT that one video in part of a series can be allegedly taken so far out of context (or that it appears the description or video does not even contain reference to the other parts of the "series")?
  • NOT the missing question mark at the end of a statement which makes this statement look like a fact rather than a (maybe even legitimate) question?
  • NOT that SO can't even give the source for the claims the whole topic is built up on?

 

Yep, figures.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Point 1. No one, including Ben, has disputed or currently disputes that there is double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as compared to previous cycles. Ben makes this crystal clear. Ben's position is simply that this is NOT the only factor we should be exploring in developing our understanding of how the climate will change in the short and long term, and why.

 

Point 2. Only an autistically obtuse moron would stumble blindly into a 1 hour lecture on day 4 of a 7 day seminar and not expect to be confused.

 

Point 3. Are you joking? Why is it that whenever the discussion gets close to parsing the real issues with climate change suddenly all you and Potholer54 want to talk about are semantics like why Potholer didn't understand what Ben meant in one line in a video he has already admitted he completely misunderstood?

 

Point 4. If I were you here I would have put the only thing that was an interesting strike against - Ben may have misunderstood one paragraph in one paper. He then may have generatlized an argument based on that misunderstanding blended with a discussion he remembers between Mann and another scientist.

 

I hope they actually contue discussing if Ben misunderstood and then misused the concepts conveyed in a climate change paper. But what I really hope is that they discuss climate change in general, and whether or not Potholer54 uses your hilarious reason for why the new solar models aren't being used. 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

What a shame. Just listened to the first part.

 

If you want to have a scientific discussion you better remember where you "heard" that this, that, or the other was responsible for shit you base your 8 video yt series on (or at least part thereof). There is no taking the fifth involved, sorry.

 

Don't complain about people wanting to know and PLEASE don't fucking leave question marks out when you are (supposedly) asking a question.

 

Oh, and do go all "SJW safe space" when you are told in not a very amicable fashion where to stick your opinion (wasn't me btw)  that is just pathetic, yt gives you the option to delete comments and also to block people, I assume.

 

I think the "problem" with SO is that he is only interested in a tiny part of the overall issue and thus his focus is on that. He also appears to have interpretations of findings that differ from those of actual experts in the field.

 

He also has a bias toward data "fidgeting" by agencies.

 

Guess we'll have to wait a little more for the final conclusion.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down