biggest factor in climate uncertainty

[SSDD]

It's happening, but you can't understand the word insignificant. If you are adding gases to an atmosphere, then the pressure has to increase, but what makes you think it's a measurable increase or not happening when you were told it was insignificant?

I understand fine. You are claiming that T is going through the roof, and an immeasurably insignifigant change in P will balance the equation. I understand what you are saying just fine which is how I know that you must have a mainline IV installed so you can consume vast quantities of the kool aid.

 

[Dubya]

It's happening, but you can't understand the word insignificant. If you are adding gases to an atmosphere, then the pressure has to increase, but what makes you think it's a measurable increase or not happening when you were told it was insignificant?

I understand fine. You are claiming that T is going through the roof, and an immeasurably insignifigant change in P will balance the equation. I understand what you are saying just fine which is how I know that you must have a mainline IV installed so you can consume vast quantities of the kool aid.

T is based on degrees Kelvin, so how is it going through the roof and quote where I said that? If you don't know degrees K are, read and then calculate the change in degrees K. You'll have to use Centigrade to do that.

You brought this up, so why don't you study something before making an idiot out of yourself?

What you are is an ignorant person who just runs his mouth without even knowing what he is talking about. I told your dumbass from the beginning the change is insignificant. I spent three quarters of my life knowing that equation. You don't even know it now.

 

[Trakar]

So don't worry about being a victim of the greatest hoax of all time...

Again you seem to be projecting, but you still have the opportunity to shed your politically inspired pseudoscience beliefs and join the rational and reasoned discussion of the policies and practices that will be essential to dealing with the climate change issues, if you have no desire in doing this you can go back to revel in your world conspiracy, black helicopter delusions, the choice is yours.

 

[SSDD]

T is based on degrees Kelvin, so how is it going through the roof and quote where I said that? If you don't know degrees K are, read and then calculate the change in degrees K. You'll have to use Centigrade to do that.

So you are saying that ther is no change in T that is signifigant when converted to C or F?

Interesting because you have been warning us all of impending catastropic rises in temperature.

 

[SSDD]

So don't worry about being a victim of the greatest hoax of all time...

Again you seem to be projecting, but you still have the opportunity to shed your politically inspired pseudoscience beliefs and join the rational and reasoned discussion of the policies and practices that will be essential to dealing with the climate change issues, if you have no desire in doing this you can go back to revel in your world conspiracy, black helicopter delusions, the choice is yours.

You remain the one who can provide no actual proof to support your belief.

Tell me trakkar, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you? What does climate science itself say will falsify the hypothesis?

And you believe you haven't been hoaxed.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- did you read that article at Tallbloke's talking about how the constant in PV=nRT may not be quite as constant as we assume? I will also reiterate that you should read 'the pot lid hypothesis', as it is right in your wheelhouse and cannot fail to help you get a clearer picture of atmospheric conditions.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- did you read that article at Tallbloke's talking about how the constant in PV=nRT may not be quite as constant as we assume? I will also reiterate that you should read 'the pot lid hypothesis', as it is right in your wheelhouse and cannot fail to help you get a clearer picture of atmospheric conditions.

I still haven't been able to get that one to come up on either my PC or my Mac.

Yes, I read the article at Tallbloke's but that isn't the first article along those lines I have read. There is a whole lot of that sort of thing bubbling right under the surface and I don't thing it will be very much longer before a real shift in thinking towards actual experimentation vs modelling starts. Experiments are showing the models to be quite wrong.

 

[IanC]

SSDD- did you read that article at Tallbloke's talking about how the constant in PV=nRT may not be quite as constant as we assume? I will also reiterate that you should read 'the pot lid hypothesis', as it is right in your wheelhouse and cannot fail to help you get a clearer picture of atmospheric conditions.

I still haven't been able to get that one to come up on either my PC or my Mac.

Yes, I read the article at Tallbloke's but that isn't the first article along those lines I have read. There is a whole lot of that sort of thing bubbling right under the surface and I don't thing it will be very much longer before a real shift in thinking towards actual experimentation vs modelling starts. Experiments are showing the models to be quite wrong.

really? you have googled and the page wont come up? even my phone loads it.

 

[Trakar]

Tell me trakkar, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you? What does climate science itself say will falsify the hypothesis?

Climate science relies upon many theories, most of which are foundational throughout a variety of science fields, the primary proposal that marries the overall set of theories under the banner of "A"GW, however, is the anthropogenic component. Therefore, if it could be compellingly demonstrated that the land use changes and the GHG emissions which are directly linkable to human activities are not responsible for the currently warming climate then I would consider the "A" falsified.

 

[SSDD]

Climate science relies upon many theories, most of which are foundational throughout a variety of science fields, the primary proposal that marries the overall set of theories under the banner of "A"GW, however, is the anthropogenic component. Therefore, if it could be compellingly demonstrated that the land use changes and the GHG emissions which are directly linkable to human activities are not responsible for the currently warming climate then I would consider the "A" falsified.

Nice dodge. The question was WHAT WOULD FALSIFY THE HYPOTHESIS? You said that it could be falsified, I am asking what would falsify it. What does climate science say would falsify it?

 

[IanC]

Tell me trakkar, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis for you? What does climate science itself say will falsify the hypothesis?

Climate science relies upon many theories, most of which are foundational throughout a variety of science fields, the primary proposal that marries the overall set of theories under the banner of "A"GW, however, is the anthropogenic component. Therefore, if it could be compellingly demonstrated that the land use changes and the GHG emissions which are directly linkable to human activities are not responsible for the currently warming climate then I would consider the "A" falsified.

please note how land use changes has been carelessly lumped into the basket of things that 'deniers' deny.

if anything, it is the warmists who deny land use change by refusing to acknowledge UHI and irrigation as a significant factor in changing both temperature and the shape of temperature changes (eg. higher minimum temperatures are driving the average temperatures up more than higher maximum temps)

 

[boedicca]

The biggest factor affecting climate is the sun. Period.

 

[Trakar]

please note how land use changes has been carelessly lumped into the basket of things that 'deniers' deny.

if anything, it is the warmists who deny land use change by refusing to acknowledge UHI and irrigation as a significant factor in changing both temperature and the shape of temperature changes (eg. higher minimum temperatures are driving the average temperatures up more than higher maximum temps)

This is simply incorrect, in that I, and all climate science studies that I am aware of have always included and considered such issues as a significant factor in AGW. Such considerations have always played a significant factor in calculating the dynamics of Man's impact on climate. In fact, land-use changes probably began impacting climate as long as 8000 or so years ago when large scale forest clearing and agricululture began in earnest.

The 8,000-year-old climate puzzle
The 8,000-year-old climate puzzle : Nature News

 

[IanC]

The biggest factor affecting climate is the sun. Period.

as I have pointed out before....solar activity has a robust correlation with temperatures over the last thousand(s) of years. we are being told that because the Sun was not increasing over 3/4 of the last century, only stuck on 'high', that it can be safely ignored as a major factor of increased temperatures. not only that, but the solar correlation is rolled into CO2 driven climate models which leads to inappropriately larger CO2 correlation and certainty.

 

[IanC]

please note how land use changes has been carelessly lumped into the basket of things that 'deniers' deny.

if anything, it is the warmists who deny land use change by refusing to acknowledge UHI and irrigation as a significant factor in changing both temperature and the shape of temperature changes (eg. higher minimum temperatures are driving the average temperatures up more than higher maximum temps)

This is simply incorrect, in that I, and all climate science studies that I am aware of have always included and considered such issues as a significant factor in AGW. Such considerations have always played a significant factor in calculating the dynamics of Man's impact on climate. In fact, land-use changes probably began impacting climate as long as 8000 or so years ago when large scale forest clearing and agricululture began in earnest.

The 8,000-year-old climate puzzle
The 8,000-year-old climate puzzle : Nature News

perhaps you can tell the class what Muller's BEST paper said about UHI and its negative affect on temperatures. Muller is so smart that he actually talked himself into believing that taking temperatures in cities and at airports actually leads to finding lower readings!