Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Billy_Bob]

Slandering Sue's ...

I saw the treatment you got for being a trolling imbecile. It was hilarious. You're permanently displayed in the hall of stupid, to be laughed at for all eternity. Good to know that outside of denier SafeSpaces, there's still a price to be paid for trolling and dishonesty.

And then they use the same model that I demonstrated how they moved the convergence point forward 20 years, hind cast away the divergence, and then hope that no one would notice the slight of hand...

Even Hansen's 1988 estimate was very close to his scenario B. Since then, the models have only gotten better.

Models « Open Mind

Sucks to be a denier. You devote your lives to faking and fudging everything, yet it has no effect at all. Everyone still laughs at you. You'll be laughed at for the rest of your life, and possibly longer.

LOL... love that made up bull shit... You see there are these things called empirical facts, you just don't get to make shit up and say its true... You alarmists love to make shit up.. Your choice of made up crap from a far lefty wacko site is telling.

The desperation is priceless..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL

 

[SSDD]

LOL Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL

Rocks....can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?....of course you can't..because there are none, which leads to the question of what exactly those scientific societies are basing their positions on? The only thing that I can think of that could create such consensus is money...can you think of anything else?...and don't say good science because it seems that climate science is the only branch of science where such a claimed consensus exists.

 

[jc456]

transform America,,.....they want you to hand over control of everything and have your life radically altered for this BS
Scientists Urge ‘System Change’ to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Change
Step 1: Change the whole system, not just its parts

so the main question is change what?

 

[SSDD]

Whats the matter rocks...got nothing? Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is the kind of lies the alarmists are doing. Snageltooth above used a hind cast model that has no predictive phase shown. Hind Cast is "trained" or adjusted to meet known data. The whole of the graph is a deception... LOL...

I am in awe that an idiot would use an easily disproved false graph all while claiming to be pure... lying little puke!

 

[Old Rocks]

Whats the matter rocks...got nothing? Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...

Damn, but you are a stupid little twit.


Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas


Here's a sampling of the Galileo Movement's facts and an assessment of how they stack up against the body of Earth and atmospheric science, based on an investigation by DailyClimate.org of several science sources.

Claim: CO2 is Nature's colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential for all life on Earth. It's not toxic. It doesn't make land, water or air dirty or unsafe to use. It does not cause disease.

Claim: CO2 comprises less than 0.04 percent of the air.

Assessment: True but irrelevant in the global warming debate.

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature.

But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.

So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won't impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.

The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans' chemistry and heat capacity.

Source: Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming: Man or Myth, the Science of Climate Change
Claim: CO2 stays in the air only five to seven years, possibly less than 12 months before Nature cycles it into plants, animals and oceans.

Claim: Of Earth's annual production of CO2, humans produce just 3 percent.

Assessment: True but misleading.

In this case, the claim confuses residence time of individual molecules in the air with the much longer perturbation to the whole system.

Carbon dioxide is continuously cycling among the earth, plants and animals, the atmosphere and the ocean's surface, with the deep ocean serving as a gigantic long-term reservoir.

Up until the last two centuries, this carbon cycle had been in close balance for the last 10,000 years. But society has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 278 parts per million at the start of the industrial revolution to 392 parts per million today, a 40 percent increase.

What's more, the bulk – some 57 percent – of carbon emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks is not even in the atmosphere. It has cycled into the ocean, and scientists generally agree that most of our carbon emissions will ultimately come to a rest in its deepest depths. But that will take centuries. In the meantime, those extra CO2 molecules will slosh around from earth to atmosphere to upper ocean and back, absorbing energy, acidifying the seas and changing the planet in profound and potentially unwelcome ways. In other words, CO2 emitted today will still be impacting the planet for hundreds of years.

Source: Fortunat Joos, University of Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/publications_html/joos_eps_96/joos_eps_96.html

Claim: Measurements reveal that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not the cause. Temperature drives CO2 levels.

Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.

Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.

It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.

It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.

With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.

And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.

 

[westwall]

Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.

Why? It is factual unlike your nonsense.

 

[westwall]

Whats the matter rocks...got nothing? Of course you don't....I wouldn't have asked if I thought there was the slightest chance you could show an actual measurement that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no such measurement exists...the relationship between CO2 and temperature only exists in failed hypotheses and the models based on those same failed hypotheses...

Damn, but you are a stupid little twit.


Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas


Here's a sampling of the Galileo Movement's facts and an assessment of how they stack up against the body of Earth and atmospheric science, based on an investigation by DailyClimate.org of several science sources.

Claim: CO2 is Nature's colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential for all life on Earth. It's not toxic. It doesn't make land, water or air dirty or unsafe to use. It does not cause disease.

Claim: CO2 comprises less than 0.04 percent of the air.

Assessment: True but irrelevant in the global warming debate.

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature.

But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.

So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

Similarly, toxicity is not an issue in the climate change debate. Yes, crops need CO2. Breathing a little more of it while out on the links won't impair your golf game. But earlier findings that suggested higher CO2 levels could increase crop yields have been disproved by recent research showing that other nutrients are more often the limiting factor.

The relevant questions for climate science are how CO2 changes atmospheric temperatures and circulation and alters the oceans' chemistry and heat capacity.

Source: Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming: Man or Myth, the Science of Climate Change
Claim: CO2 stays in the air only five to seven years, possibly less than 12 months before Nature cycles it into plants, animals and oceans.

Claim: Of Earth's annual production of CO2, humans produce just 3 percent.

Assessment: True but misleading.

In this case, the claim confuses residence time of individual molecules in the air with the much longer perturbation to the whole system.

Carbon dioxide is continuously cycling among the earth, plants and animals, the atmosphere and the ocean's surface, with the deep ocean serving as a gigantic long-term reservoir.

Up until the last two centuries, this carbon cycle had been in close balance for the last 10,000 years. But society has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 278 parts per million at the start of the industrial revolution to 392 parts per million today, a 40 percent increase.

What's more, the bulk – some 57 percent – of carbon emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks is not even in the atmosphere. It has cycled into the ocean, and scientists generally agree that most of our carbon emissions will ultimately come to a rest in its deepest depths. But that will take centuries. In the meantime, those extra CO2 molecules will slosh around from earth to atmosphere to upper ocean and back, absorbing energy, acidifying the seas and changing the planet in profound and potentially unwelcome ways. In other words, CO2 emitted today will still be impacting the planet for hundreds of years.

Source: Fortunat Joos, University of Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/publications_html/joos_eps_96/joos_eps_96.html

Claim: Measurements reveal that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not the cause. Temperature drives CO2 levels.

Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.

Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.

It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.

It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.

With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.

And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.

"True before 1800 but false today" Provide proof of that statement. Show your work.

 

[SSDD]

Damn, but you are a stupid little twit..

You don't seem to be able to get anything right rocks...including your "little" comment. Little is the last word any rational human being would use to describe me...but hey...being wrong is just the way you roll....right?

What I asked you for was a single measurement made by an instrument at ambient temperature that shows a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. What do you give me?...nothing. More models...more poor thinking...more of the same...What didn't you give me?...a single shred of actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR and warming in the atmosphere....now, do you care to know why you had to dodge rather than simply provide what I asked for?....well, its because there is not a single piece of actual evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR and warming in the atmosphere YOU STUPID TWIT...

And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet

No rocks...what frightens scientists is the slowly dawning realization that the temperature is never going to catch up because CO2 has no coherent relationship with warming in the atmosphere...what frightens them is having the curtain torn down to reveal the abject fraud behind the curtain...what frightens them is having their political cause exposed and marginalized for 3 generations....

 

[SSDD]

"True before 1800 but false today" Provide proof of that statement. Show your work.

You don't expect anything like actual evidence from these wackos do you?...and showing work..what a joke...they are handed talking points by pseudoscientists who also don't do the work.

 

[westwall]

"True before 1800 but false today" Provide proof of that statement. Show your work.

You don't expect anything like actual evidence from these wackos do you?...and showing work..what a joke...they are handed talking points by pseudoscientists who also don't do the work.

I know, but i want to see what sort of nonsense he tosses out.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

LOL Ol' Silly Billy, the purveyor of stinky facts freshly pulled from his ass is accusing others of making things up. LOL When all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the Major Universities say that AGW is real, and we have an internet ignoramus that states it is not, then who should we believe? LOL

could create such consensus is money...can you think of anything else?...and don't say good science because it seems that climate science is the only branch of science where such a claimed consensus exists.

Eco-Eunuchs

These nerds are also driven by their defective personalities. Since social life humiliates them, they have a desperate need to fantasize about being superheroes out to save the world. They are bitter and vindictive against a society that rejects cowardly inhibited weaklings like themselves. Their mental-illness category is that of the Unabomber.

Another defect is that they indulge in so much escapist and lonely conformity to their father-figure professors that their mental growth gets stunted. That makes them B students jealous of creative A students.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a wonderful week..

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990. HE ran it again and it ran hot on 10 different runs exiting 2 standard deviations within 3 years.

I asked him why his model could not predict the last 27 years and why it failed without exception. He refused to answer. By moving the convergence (training point) point forward they erase the massive divergence giving them cover for 30 more years..

And they wonder why no one trusts them..

 

[mamooth]

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.

Stop lying. You're not a scientist of any sort. You're just a crazy guy making up stories on the internet.

The models have been very good. Only the most desperate and dishonest liars still try to pretend otherwise. That would be you, along with your other Stalinist cult pals here.

It's must be rough for deniers. As they've devoted their lives to pushing party propaganda, support for global warming theory has only continued to grow. They've failed as hard as a person can fail. All those years of effort, totally wasted. No wonder they're always so grumpy.

For example ....

Most now see climate change as responsible for hurricane severity

 

[Billy_Bob]

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.

Stop lying. You're not a scientist of any sort. You're just a crazy guy making up stories on the internet.

The models have been very good. Only the most desperate and dishonest liars still try to pretend otherwise. That would be you, along with your other Stalinist cult pals here.

It's must be rough for deniers. As they've devoted their lives to pushing party propaganda, support for global warming theory has only continued to grow. They've failed as hard as a person can fail. All those years of effort, totally wasted. No wonder they're always so grumpy.

For example ....

Most now see climate change as responsible for hurricane severity

Says the Crazy Cat lady who only knows how to cut and paste... You have a serious credibility problem...

I called a scientist colleague out to prove his model was credible. it wasn't... That's the kind of thing that ends careers and why they defend their positions at all costs. Admitting failure would be the end..

 

[SSDD]

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.

Stop lying. You're not a scientist of any sort. You're just a crazy guy making up stories on the internet.

The models have been very good. Only the most desperate and dishonest liars still try to pretend otherwise. That would be you, along with your other Stalinist cult pals here.

It's must be rough for deniers. As they've devoted their lives to pushing party propaganda, support for global warming theory has only continued to grow. They've failed as hard as a person can fail. All those years of effort, totally wasted. No wonder they're always so grumpy.

For example ....

Most now see climate change as responsible for hurricane severity

Are you kidding? Is this really the best you can do?....a poll? I guess when you have no actual data, a poll is about as good as you could expect to have....but damn, it is funny to watch...f'ing polls to support your pseudoscience...about as good as fake consensus I guess.

Here is a bit of actual data for you...it would seem that your poll is, as usual, exactly, dead wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I asked one of the boys, down in the Boulder Co AP lab, to move his convergence training point back twenty years as he had sufficient data to train his model prior to 1990.

Stop lying. You're not a scientist of any sort. You're just a crazy guy making up stories on the internet.

The models have been very good. Only the most desperate and dishonest liars still try to pretend otherwise. That would be you, along with your other Stalinist cult pals here.

It's must be rough for deniers. As they've devoted their lives to pushing party propaganda, support for global warming theory has only continued to grow. They've failed as hard as a person can fail. All those years of effort, totally wasted. No wonder they're always so grumpy.

For example ....

Most now see climate change as responsible for hurricane severity

Are you kidding? Is this really the best you can do?....a poll? I guess when you have no actual data, a poll is about as good as you could expect to have....but damn, it is funny to watch...f'ing polls to support your pseudoscience...about as good as fake consensus I guess.

manufactured too... If you dig into their polling they have targeted specific groups who believe their crap to get a desired outcome..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meshing issues on global temperatures – warming data where there isn’t any

Excellent article showing why grid modeling is such a failure.. Read through the comments as well. It will give you insight to why ALL current modeling fails..

 

[Billy_Bob]

data extrapolation and homogenization always create a false positive bias.....ALWAYS!!

When you do it globally you make areas that are cool warm, like the oceans or Africa. There are no devices measuring temp in the grey areas.. So how do we know if the extrapolations are correct or even near the actual temperatures?