2017 Wildfires

[ding]

Reason #10 why I don't buy into their pseudo-science bullshit.

The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.
The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.
The misuse of the greenhouse gas effect to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change.
The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.
The overestimation of feedback in their climate models.
Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires.
The overestimation of temperature and sea level in their models.
The overestimation of the impact on life and property of climate change.
The overdramatization of climate change.
The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings of climate change.

So you're trying to say that humans aren't impacting climate in any way?

I am saying that if you study the geologic record, you will find that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.

The geologic record never had to contend with what humans are doing today, so the jury is still out on what CO2 might do now.

So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?

You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?

I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.

Do you want me to send it to you?

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

 

[Taz]

So you're trying to say that humans aren't impacting climate in any way?

I am saying that if you study the geologic record, you will find that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.

The geologic record never had to contend with what humans are doing today, so the jury is still out on what CO2 might do now.

So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?

You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?

I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.

Do you want me to send it to you?

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

 

[ding]

I am saying that if you study the geologic record, you will find that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.

The geologic record never had to contend with what humans are doing today, so the jury is still out on what CO2 might do now.

So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?

You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?

I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.

Do you want me to send it to you?

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Ding, you are a fucking liar....

The Age of Western Wildfires

Reason #10 why I don't buy into their pseudo-science bullshit.

The inability to represent the earth's climate with a single temperature.
The inability to accurately estimate a single temperature for the planet for each of the last 2000 years.
The misuse of the greenhouse gas effect to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change.
The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record.
The overestimation of feedback in their climate models.
Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires.
The overestimation of temperature and sea level in their models.
The overestimation of the impact on life and property of climate change.
The overdramatization of climate change.
The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings of climate change.

So you're trying to say that humans aren't impacting climate in any way?

I am saying that if you study the geologic record, you will find that CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change.

What a fucking ignoramus you are, Dingleberry.
co2, the biggest control knob, youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results

 

[Taz]

The geologic record never had to contend with what humans are doing today, so the jury is still out on what CO2 might do now.

So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?

You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?

I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.

Do you want me to send it to you?

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

 

[ding]

So you are saying that the physical processes somehow changed? That they are somehow different today?

You do realize the calculation for associated temperature from CO2 is just a formula, right?

I can show you the formula they use and no where in it does the rate of change enter into the calculation, bro.

Do you want me to send it to you?

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

 

[Taz]

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

 

[ding]

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

 

[Taz]

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

 

[Old Rocks]

We're talking about 2 different things. Carry on.

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

Dumb fuck, as part of my job I measure some elements in ppb. And, yes, for some things, a difference in ppb, is important.

 

[Old Rocks]

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

What the hell do you mean, 'material balance'? You really sound like an ignoramus, just throwing around made up terms that are meaningless.

 

[Old Rocks]

California firefighters are now battling the third largest fire in state history.

The Thomas Fire has burned a total of 259,000 acres and was contained by 40 percent as of Saturday morning. The blaze has the potential to become the biggest fire in state history, as it is not expected to reach full containment until January 2018.

The top two fires in California's history each burned more than 270,000 acres; one occurred in August 2012, the other in October 2003. The current record is held by the 2003 Cedar Fire, which killed 15 people and charred just over 273,000 acres in San Diego

Counties like Santa Barbara and Ventura are currently facing the blaze and is now threatening Montecito county, the wealthiest county in the state, USA Today reports.

The December blazes have already surpassed California’s October fires, which burned through 245,000 acres and killed 43 people near Napa Valley. The Thomas fire has already cost the state $74 million to fight, burned more than 1,000 buildings and over 750 homes, according to authorities. Additional evacuations were ordered Friday morning as the fires swept through Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

The Thomas Fire is on its way to becoming the biggest fire in California history

The cost of extreme weather events, floods, hurricanes, drought related fires, will have cost hundreds of billions in property damage just in the US in 2017. In California alone, how many hundreds of thousands have been evacuated from their homes because of the fires? Throw in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and the other Western States, and we are approaching half a million people directly affected by these wild fires. How many millions in Texas, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and Florida directly affected by the extreme weather events on the East Coast? But the 'Conservatives, and their orange leader insist on denying what is increasingly obvious to all.

 

[ding]

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

What the hell do you mean, 'material balance'? You really sound like an ignoramus, just throwing around made up terms that are meaningless.

You don't know what a material balance is?

 

[ding]

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

How much CO2 is in the ocean, Einstein?

 

[ding]

Actually we are not. The rate of change does not affect the associated temperature from GHG.

Human produced GHGs are affecting change.

No, it is not. We are in an interglacial cycle and our current temperature is still well below the peak temperature of the past interglacial cycles, Taz.

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

Dumb fuck, as part of my job I measure some elements in ppb. And, yes, for some things, a difference in ppb, is important.

I'm a dumb fuck who knows what a material balance. So you must be dumber than a dumb fuck because you don't have a clue.

 

[Taz]

GHGs have been increasing fairly rapidly since the industrial revolution. Eventually, this will have an effect on the earth. Ex: Fill your house with smoke and keep going. Eventually, everyone in the house will die. Pretty simple concept really.

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

How much CO2 is in the ocean, Einstein?

This is you getting a clue, you pulling out some random question? Please try again.

 

[ding]

Do you even know what ppm means?

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

How much CO2 is in the ocean, Einstein?

This is you getting a clue, you pulling out some random question? Please try again.

Nothing random about it, Einstein. I'm trying to help you construct a material balance.

So basically, you don't know anything for yourself, do you?

Let me ask you this question, do you know anything about the season variation of atmospheric CO2?

 

[IanC]

Seems like California is doing much better for rain than the last time it was this warm.

 

[Taz]

It means you lose, dingbat.

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

How much CO2 is in the ocean, Einstein?

This is you getting a clue, you pulling out some random question? Please try again.

Nothing random about it, Einstein. I'm trying to help you construct a material balance.

So basically, you don't know anything for yourself, do you?

Let me ask you this question, do you know anything about the season variation of atmospheric CO2?

More random stuff.

 

[IanC]

No. It means that you have no concept of material balances.

You already lost. Now go get a clue.

How much CO2 is in the ocean, Einstein?

This is you getting a clue, you pulling out some random question? Please try again.

Nothing random about it, Einstein. I'm trying to help you construct a material balance.

So basically, you don't know anything for yourself, do you?

Let me ask you this question, do you know anything about the season variation of atmospheric CO2?

More random stuff.

Why is your random stuff better than someone else's random stuff?