Climate Scientists are Laughing at You

[cnm]

"Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.

I also have the impression the last sample is dated 95 years before the 1950 'present'. Funny how ssdd hasn't come back with the data, as invited.

 

[jc456]

POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.

 

[jc456]

So, the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a "bullshit site". You'd be laughable if you weren't so fucking pathetic.

If you want to see the evidence for man made global warming, see "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

well the site is legit, the info in it is bullshit, you bet!!! you like definitions I see, you should look up "observation' because it is clear you have no fking clue what that means.

 

[Crick]

POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.

Here's a little tidbit of information about the English language JC. There is no authority defining what it and is not proper English. No one specified the definition of any word or phrase. Dictionaries simply provide the common usage(s) of words. The definition I posted is simply one of the uses of the word "pollutant".

The evidence for greenhouse warming is overwhelming and accepted by very, very close to 100% of all scientists. Reject it if you like, but to say it is because you believe it has not been "proven" makes you look a fool in several different ways and, as I have concluded on several occasions in the past, makes discussing anything here with you a complete waste of time.

 

[jc456]

POLLUTANT: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

CO2 is an element of the normal mixture of air and supports plant life on this planet. Rapidly elevating levels of CO2 lead to rapid greenhouse warming which is harmful to life on this planet. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

the problem is you can't prove greenhouse warming. when is that going to happen? otherwise that is a made up definition.

Here's a little tidbit of information about the English language JC. There is no authority defining what it and is not proper English. No one specified the definition of any word or phrase. Dictionaries simply provide the common usage(s) of words. The definition I posted is simply one of the uses of the word "pollutant".

The evidence for greenhouse warming is overwhelming and accepted by very, very close to 100% of all scientists. Reject it if you like, but to say it is because you believe it has not been "proven" makes you look a fool in several different ways and, as I have concluded on several occasions in the past, makes discussing anything here with you a complete waste of time.

I reject it because you can't prove it. And what's funny, you still don't know what the word 'observation' means. And you don't know science either, because without observation science wasn't done. so you can post almost 100% until your panties untwist, but until you post one of those almost 100%'ers observed data, all you got are words on a message board. And there are plenty of them. Now, back to the discussion. quote the data from the Ipcc site that shows observed AGW over natural variability? go ahead, you won't, but sure, show us your science skills and back up your hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

Any actual argument to the statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years beyond weaseling about what the present means?

What 'the present' means is the base of your assertion. The ice cap series does not take 'Today' as 'the present', your misrepresentation notwithstanding.

"Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.

Maybe in your nutty world...little wonder that you don't know what "present" means either..

 

[Crick]

Present
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The present is a moment in time discernible as intermediate between past and future.
The present (or here and now) is the time that is associated with the events perceived directly and in the first time, not as a recollection (perceived more than once) or a speculation (predicted, hypothesis, uncertain). It is a period of time between the past and the future, and can vary in meaning from being an instant to a day or longer. In radiocarbon dating, the "present" is defined as AD 1950.

 

[mamooth]

Science? When I hear that word I picture lab work. Can you show us the effect increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm has on temperature?

I've shown you the references before, the HITRAN database with literally thousands of references on the spectral properties of CO2.

So, you know you're lying. Remember Frank, that there's no "It's okay to lie when you want to troll" clause in the Bible.

Also remember that, since you're plainly just a gutless troll, the correct response to such a troll act would be to tell you to STFU.

 

[SSDD]

I've shown you the references before, the HITRAN database with literally thousands of references on the spectral properties of CO2.

You seem to be living under the belief that absorption and emission by a gas equals warming....got any experimental results to bear that out...

Didn't think so.

 

[Crick]

A CO2 molecule having absorbed a photon vibrates. It has no other options. That increased vibration is synonymous with increased temperature. When it emits a photon or loses that energy via collision, it ceases to vibrate - it cools. Your contention is idiotic bullshit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

That guy said everything I have always said.

We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.

NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.

 

[cnm]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

That guy said everything I have always said.
We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.
NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.

Deniers of a feather flock together.

 

[Chuz Life]

Deniers of a feather flock together.

 

[cnm]

The laughter, it rocks.

 

[SandSquid]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

That guy said everything I have always said.

We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.

NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.

Not really. What studies are you saying the study itself was funded with the funding group giving the requirements that the study have a bias?

Also, what about all those countries where global warming isn't a politically divisive topic? Where it's just the scientists devoid of politics and they are something like 99% in agreement that man made global warming is the issue.

Remember 9 of the 10 most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak against it had financial ties to ExxonMobil. Koch brothers is the #1 financer of the non-man made global warming conspiracy theory studies.

 

[SSDD]

A CO2 molecule having absorbed a photon vibrates. It has no other options. That increased vibration is synonymous with increased temperature. When it emits a photon or loses that energy via collision, it ceases to vibrate - it cools. Your contention is idiotic bullshit.

I asked if you have any evidence...clearly you don't. You have a model with no actual evidence to support the claim...that is the MO of climate pseudoscience...ask for some observed, measured, physical evidence...get a mental model...point out that models are not evidence and ask for some observed, measured, physical evidence again, get called a name...point out AGAIN, that models are not physical evidence and ask for some observed, measured, physical evidence again, and the cries go up that you be banned, shut out from the conversation, or perhaps just killed....

 

[SandSquid]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

Interesting. You know like 99% of climatologists disagree with him. Which is why he has to use a website to promote his new idea's rather than a peer reviewed article (his last article he tried to get a peer review had analyzed 14 models, but then plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provided a much different conclusion.)

But yes, all the man made global warming scientists disagree, as well as all the other ones who oppose man made, but have other idea's on what causes it.

His response to his science not proving his theory was "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing".

 

[skookerasbil]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

That guy said everything I have always said.

We don't know. Claiming we do is not scientific. It's bullshit.

NOBODY is looking at potential alternatives because they get paid to look for HUMAN causes and that drives their results.

That is exactly right and every climate crusader knows it too. All fake all the time.

 

[Crick]

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies « Roy Spencer, PhD

Interesting. You know like 99% of climatologists disagree with him. Which is why he has to use a website to promote his new idea's rather than a peer reviewed article (his last article he tried to get a peer review had analyzed 14 models, but then plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provided a much different conclusion.)

But yes, all the man made global warming scientists disagree, as well as all the other ones who oppose man made, but have other idea's on what causes it.

His response to his science not proving his theory was "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing".

Yes, Spencer is a creationist and believes in ID.

 

[jc456]

A CO2 molecule having absorbed a photon vibrates. It has no other options. That increased vibration is synonymous with increased temperature. When it emits a photon or loses that energy via collision, it ceases to vibrate - it cools. Your contention is idiotic bullshit.

what does it do as it vibrates and how long does it vibrate? does it get warmer than it is as it vibrates? Does it collide or emit most often?