Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

And what were the CO2 levels 550 million years ago? Low estimates are 6500 ppm, high nearly 8000.

And the sun was 5% dimmer. By your theory, which says there's no CO2 greenhouse effect, Earth at that time should been frozen snowball. It wasn't.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. Our theory is backed up by the observed data, therefore our theory is the accepted theory. You're not ignored because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You're ignored because the nonsense you babble is flatly contradicted by observed reality.

You speak of "my science", PROVE your point or your science is theory. There's nothing wrong with theory, but it's just that, theory. Instead of going back 550 million years ago tell me about the little ice age. CO2? Milankovitch cycles? The bottom line is you and no one else at this point can honestly say what drives climate, we just don't know, period. Admit it.

Flat-Earthers tell me that as well, that I should admit that I don't really know if the world is round. It's a standard cult song-and-dance.

The question is, is it the primary driver?

"Primary driver" is your vague handwaving term. You need to define that term exactly for it to be of any use.

There is zero evidence of this. If there was you would have provided it.

I just did. Paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2. After all, I asked you to explain it, and you ran away screaming "WE JUST DON'T KNOW!". You have admitted that your nutty conspiracy theory can't explain anything. In contrast, our theory explains it perfectly.

Great, explain to us what stopped the feedback.

Heat leads to more CO2, CO2 leads to more heat. What stops the feedback? Unless, of course they are not as married as you think.

Mathematics, the same thing that now "stops" any tiny increase in water vapor from initiating runaway positive feedback.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + .... = 2

That's unending positive feedback, but it's bounded. Like I keep saying, positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

I've read that every ARGO reading has .12 C added to it to make up for a bias of engine intake readings in the past.

And I've read Donald Trump is a space alien. What conspiracy blog told you such a bizarre thing?

Back in reality, by making the _past_ (and not the present) look warmer, the ocean temperature adjustments make the current warming look _smaller_. That fact is not debatable, and that fact destroys your fundamental; conspiracy theory.

I showed you that fact in post #62. You ignored it completely. Just like the rest of your religious cult, you automaticallly ignore all data that contradicts your religious beliefs. You've built a fortress in an alternate reality and retreated into it, so it's not possible to reach you with reason.

The actual observed data is discarded. How can I not be disturbed by this?

You're disturbed about a conspiracy theory that your leaders spoon-fed you, in order to make you hysterical and compliant. Once you grasp that your political cult has been lying to you about every single thing, everything will become clear to you. You'll no longer be disturbed over such imaginary bogeymen, and you'll display the same sort of serene calm possessed by those of us on the rational side.

And you are so arrogant that you believe that you know all. The scientific method demands that you prove what you are saying. You cannot even come close. You will not even try.

Just as it's not arrogant to point out how a toddler couldn't understand the necessary concepts here, it's not arrogant to point out you can't understand them either. You don't possess the necessary knowledge or temperament. That would take the equivalent of a Statistics 201 class, and a willingness to buck cult dogma.

Stop and think of something. No matter what anyone says, the 1930s were beyond doubt the hottest decade in the US.

See?. The data contradicts your religious beliefs, so you're denying the data. I clearly won't be able to reach you.

Actually, in the real world, the AGW folks are routinely referred to as "a religion". Nobody refers to skeptics as a religion except the uber radicals so......:2up:
 
Translation?

Obviously, that you're an ass-sucking beta. You can't debate yourself, so you just play the sidekick of whoever you think is an alpha.

Sadly for you, your alpha pal has turned tail as well, making you into a beta's idea of a beta. That is, you're a gamma at best, or possible even a delta or epsilon.
 
And the sun was 5% dimmer. By your theory, which says there's no CO2 greenhouse effect, Earth at that time should been frozen snowball. It wasn't.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. Our theory is backed up by the observed data, therefore our theory is the accepted theory. You're not ignored because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You're ignored because the nonsense you babble is flatly contradicted by observed reality.

And who is saying the Earth should have been a frozen snowball? And what is my theory? I'm merely pointing out that the AGW community is making claims about climate change that they can't support. The bottom line is that the science isn't settled, not even close. Ans again "observed reality" that is based on data that is suspect at best.

Flat-Earthers tell me that as well, that I should admit that I don't really know if the world is round. It's a standard cult song-and-dance.

Spare me the childish flat earth crap. Let me know when your evidence of AGW rises to the level of that opposing flat earth nonsense. You have along, long way to go.

"Primary driver" is your vague handwaving term. You need to define that term exactly for it to be of any use.

Your the one claiming that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. I'm saying, prove it.

I just did. Paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2. After all, I asked you to explain it, and you ran away screaming "WE JUST DON'T KNOW!". You have admitted that your nutty conspiracy theory can't explain anything. In contrast, our theory explains it perfectly.

"Paleoclimate" can't be explained period. CO2 is one factor, there are potentially hundreds more. Anyone claiming otherwise is talking out of their butts.

Mathematics, the same thing that now "stops" any tiny increase in water vapor from initiating runaway positive feedback.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + .... = 2

That's unending positive feedback, but it's bounded. Like I keep saying, positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

Again what stopped it? If CO2 is so powerful, what could possibly stop the warming, unless of course there are other factors at play? The fact IS we don't know.

And I've read Donald Trump is a space alien. What conspiracy blog told you such a bizarre thing?

Back in reality, by making the _past_ (and not the present) look warmer, the ocean temperature adjustments make the current warming look _smaller_. That fact is not debatable, and that fact destroys your fundamental; conspiracy theory.

I showed you that fact in post #62. You ignored it completely. Just like the rest of your religious cult, you automaticallly ignore all data that contradicts your religious beliefs. You've built a fortress in an alternate reality and retreated into it, so it's not possible to reach you with reason.

So shipborne readings using a bucket have a bias to the cooler, engine intake to the warmer. And these ares definable? And when comparing them to today's buoy based data we get an apples to apples comparison? It shows the point I've been trying to make, we're taking today's data trying to compare it to past data. When the obvious problems arise the past data is adjusted. And I'm supposed to blindly buy it.

And exactly what conspiracy are we talking about?

You're disturbed about a conspiracy theory that your leaders spoon-fed you, in order to make you hysterical and compliant. Once you grasp that your political cult has been lying to you about every single thing, everything will become clear to you. You'll no longer be disturbed over such imaginary bogeymen, and you'll display the same sort of serene calm possessed by those of us on the rational side.

Hysterical and compliant? I'm not the one screaming about gloom and doom and we're all going to die if we don't follow AOC's social engineering project. And what political cult are we talking about?

I stand by the single issue at hand, you have absolutely no verifiable evidence that human released GHGs are the main culprit in variations of climate. None. Period.
 
Whimpering?

What else would anybody call your constant pout-stalking?

You don't see any of the rational people here pout-stalking people. Just you, plus JC and SSDD. If that's how you choose to spend your days, you're clearly miserable and lacking a life.

I imagine that all the rational people here making you their beeyatch for 10 years running has something to do with that. 10 years of humiliation must really wear you down. No wonder you're so butthurt.
It's an honor to be thought of like Fox news. Providing the other side of the story to those who wish to read it. Surely blows the mind of the warmer. Amazing and thanks!!
 
The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

So, why do you think that's a problem? Natural variability in the past does not prevent humans from influencing climate now.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

That's conspiracy nonsense.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

That major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That's a net effect of +39%.

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

The oceans take along time to react to temp swings.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

Incorrect. Your propaganda is badly out of date.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Random rambling.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so. It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong.
back radiation!!!

giphy.gif
 
QUOTE="mamooth, post: 21975563, member: 39072"]
Translation?

Obviously, that you're an ass-sucking beta. You can't debate yourself, so you just play the sidekick of whoever you think is an alpha.

Sadly for you, your alpha pal has turned tail as well, making you into a beta's idea of a beta. That is, you're a gamma at best, or possible even a delta or epsilon.[/QUOTE]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^when one has lost the debate!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
giphy.gif
 
And the sun was 5% dimmer. By your theory, which says there's no CO2 greenhouse effect, Earth at that time should been frozen snowball. It wasn't.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. Our theory is backed up by the observed data, therefore our theory is the accepted theory. You're not ignored because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You're ignored because the nonsense you babble is flatly contradicted by observed reality.

And who is saying the Earth should have been a frozen snowball? And what is my theory? I'm merely pointing out that the AGW community is making claims about climate change that they can't support. The bottom line is that the science isn't settled, not even close. Ans again "observed reality" that is based on data that is suspect at best.

Flat-Earthers tell me that as well, that I should admit that I don't really know if the world is round. It's a standard cult song-and-dance.

Spare me the childish flat earth crap. Let me know when your evidence of AGW rises to the level of that opposing flat earth nonsense. You have along, long way to go.

"Primary driver" is your vague handwaving term. You need to define that term exactly for it to be of any use.

Your the one claiming that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. I'm saying, prove it.

I just did. Paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2. After all, I asked you to explain it, and you ran away screaming "WE JUST DON'T KNOW!". You have admitted that your nutty conspiracy theory can't explain anything. In contrast, our theory explains it perfectly.

"Paleoclimate" can't be explained period. CO2 is one factor, there are potentially hundreds more. Anyone claiming otherwise is talking out of their butts.

Mathematics, the same thing that now "stops" any tiny increase in water vapor from initiating runaway positive feedback.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + .... = 2

That's unending positive feedback, but it's bounded. Like I keep saying, positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

Again what stopped it? If CO2 is so powerful, what could possibly stop the warming, unless of course there are other factors at play? The fact IS we don't know.

And I've read Donald Trump is a space alien. What conspiracy blog told you such a bizarre thing?

Back in reality, by making the _past_ (and not the present) look warmer, the ocean temperature adjustments make the current warming look _smaller_. That fact is not debatable, and that fact destroys your fundamental; conspiracy theory.

I showed you that fact in post #62. You ignored it completely. Just like the rest of your religious cult, you automaticallly ignore all data that contradicts your religious beliefs. You've built a fortress in an alternate reality and retreated into it, so it's not possible to reach you with reason.

So shipborne readings using a bucket have a bias to the cooler, engine intake to the warmer. And these ares definable? And when comparing them to today's buoy based data we get an apples to apples comparison? It shows the point I've been trying to make, we're taking today's data trying to compare it to past data. When the obvious problems arise the past data is adjusted. And I'm supposed to blindly buy it.

And exactly what conspiracy are we talking about?

You're disturbed about a conspiracy theory that your leaders spoon-fed you, in order to make you hysterical and compliant. Once you grasp that your political cult has been lying to you about every single thing, everything will become clear to you. You'll no longer be disturbed over such imaginary bogeymen, and you'll display the same sort of serene calm possessed by those of us on the rational side.

Hysterical and compliant? I'm not the one screaming about gloom and doom and we're all going to die if we don't follow AOC's social engineering project. And what political cult are we talking about?

I stand by the single issue at hand, you have absolutely no verifiable evidence that human released GHGs are the main culprit in variations of climate. None. Period.
Now we're supposed to take direction from a twenty year old bartender about our climate? We took ole Al for many a year and the left denounce him today. They call it the Al Gore posting. Can't make up who the warmers really are. they are a cult. a big fking cult that follow a 20 year old bartender now.
 
And who is saying the Earth should have been a frozen snowball?

The fact that earth _was_ a frozen snowball for much of that era. It only stopped being a frozen snowball when CO2 levels rose.

Spare me the childish flat earth crap. Let me know when your evidence of AGW rises to the level of that opposing flat earth nonsense. You have along, long way to go

As I'm not the one declaring the whole planet is conspiring against me, I'm clearly not the cultist. You're the one rejecting mainstream science, so the burden of proof is entirely on you. Obviously, you are free to not meet that burden of proof, but the world will continue to be free to ignore you.

Your the one claiming that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. I'm saying, prove it.

That's been done, as no other theory explains the current climate change. AGW theory explains all of the observed data, so it is the accepted theory. If you want that changed, you need to come up with a theory that explains the observed data better. Being how "It's a natural cycle!" is contradicted by the observed data, that would not be such a theory. And "I don't know! Nobody knows!" is an evasion, not a theory.

Again what stopped it? If CO2 is so powerful,

As "all-powerful CO2!" is your strawman, you're the only one who needs to explain it.

So shipborne readings using a bucket have a bias to the cooler, engine intake to the warmer.

Yes. The old buckets were too cold, so the past was redefined as warmer, making the current warming look smaller.

And these ares definable?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf

And when comparing them to today's buoy based data we get an apples to apples comparison?

Yes. Comparing temperature to temperature is definitely apples to apples.

It shows the point I've been trying to make, we're taking today's data trying to compare it to past data. When the obvious problems arise the past data is adjusted. And I'm supposed to blindly buy it.

You fail to understand the process, so you assume it's fraudulent. That's not rational.

And exactly what conspiracy are we talking about?

The one saying data is faked to make the warming look bigger. As the adjustments make the warming look smaller, that conspiracy theory is conclusively debunked.

Hysterical and compliant? I'm not the one screaming about gloom and doom and we're all going to die if we don't follow AOC's social engineering project.

Says the one who just screamed gloom and doom over a minor politician. We're calm and reason-based, while you're hysterical and emotion-based.

I stand by the single issue at hand, you have absolutely no verifiable evidence that human released GHGs are the main culprit in variations of climate. None. Period.

Yes, you stand by your conspiracy theory. That's expected. To authoritarian-follower personalities, group identity is everything. You'll do anything to remain in good standing with the group. Your group requires that you repeat that conspiracy theory, so you repeat it.

Every denier is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish, being that it's entirely politics.

In stark contrast, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all over the world. If left-wing politics vanished, AGW science wouldn't change a bit, because it's actual science.
 
And who is saying the Earth should have been a frozen snowball?

The fact that earth _was_ a frozen snowball for much of that era. It only stopped being a frozen snowball when CO2 levels rose.

Spare me the childish flat earth crap. Let me know when your evidence of AGW rises to the level of that opposing flat earth nonsense. You have along, long way to go

As I'm not the one declaring the whole planet is conspiring against me, I'm clearly not the cultist. You're the one rejecting mainstream science, so the burden of proof is entirely on you. Obviously, you are free to not meet that burden of proof, but the world will continue to be free to ignore you.

Your the one claiming that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. I'm saying, prove it.

That's been done, as no other theory explains the current climate change. AGW theory explains all of the observed data, so it is the accepted theory. If you want that changed, you need to come up with a theory that explains the observed data better. Being how "It's a natural cycle!" is contradicted by the observed data, that would not be such a theory. And "I don't know! Nobody knows!" is an evasion, not a theory.

Again what stopped it? If CO2 is so powerful,

As that's "all-powerful CO2!" is entirely your strawman, you're the only one who needs to explain it.

So shipborne readings using a bucket have a bias to the cooler, engine intake to the warmer.

Yes. The old buckets were too cold, so the past was redefined as warmer, making the current warming look smaller.

And these ares definable?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf

And when comparing them to today's buoy based data we get an apples to apples comparison?

Yes. Comparing temperature to temperature is definitely apples to apples.

It shows the point I've been trying to make, we're taking today's data trying to compare it to past data. When the obvious problems arise the past data is adjusted. And I'm supposed to blindly buy it.

You fail to understand the process, so you assume it's fraudulent. That's not rational.

And exactly what conspiracy are we talking about?

The one saying data is faked to make the warming look bigger. As the adjustments make the warming look smaller, that conspiracy theory is conclusively debunked.

Hysterical and compliant? I'm not the one screaming about gloom and doom and we're all going to die if we don't follow AOC's social engineering project.

Says the one who just screamed gloom and doom over a minor politician. We're calm and reason-based, while you're hysterical and emotion-based.

I stand by the single issue at hand, you have absolutely no verifiable evidence that human released GHGs are the main culprit in variations of climate. None. Period.

Yes, you stand by your conspiracy theory. That's expected. To authoritarian-follower personalities, group identity is everything. You'll do anything to remain in good standing with the group. Your group requires that you repeat that conspiracy theory, so you repeat it.

Every denier is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish, being that it's entirely politics.

In stark contrast, AGW science crosses all political boundaries all over the world. If left-wing politics vanished, AGW science wouldn't change a bit, because it's actual science.
The fact that earth _was_ a frozen snowball for much of that era. It only stopped being a frozen snowball when CO2 levels rose.

The sun didn't play a role? huh. go figure. exactly what did CO2 do? explain the step by step of it. Like where did it magically come from?

I think you're smoking too much CO2.
 
The sun didn't play a role?

Try to keep up. The topic there was that the sun did play a role, because it was putting out 5% less energy, leading to Snowball Earth.

huh. go figure. exactly what did CO2 do? explain the step by step of it.

Earth was frozen.

Volcanoes slowly emitted CO2.

As the CO2 sinks were all frozen, that CO2 built up in the atmosphere over millions of years.

That eventually raised temperatures enough to exit the snowball phase.
 
The sun didn't play a role?

Try to keep up. The topic there was that the sun did play a role, because it was putting out 5% less energy, leading to Snowball Earth.

huh. go figure. exactly what did CO2 do? explain the step by step of it.

Earth was frozen.

Volcanoes slowly emitted CO2.

As the CO2 sinks were all frozen, that CO2 built up in the atmosphere over millions of years.

That eventually raised temperatures enough to exit the snowball phase.
so you're saying the ice covered the volcanoes too? wow, how did it do that exactly? dudette, you are truly a lost kitty.

All you are doing is reinforcing that CO2 follows temperature. most of us know that already. What you can't prove is why the snow melted except that the earth got warmer. that flat earth thingy you like to wear so well.

You can't be saying that CO2 melted the snow are you?
 
The fact that earth _was_ a frozen snowball for much of that era. It only stopped being a frozen snowball when CO2 levels rose.

And yet the evidence says the warming came first.

That's been done, as no other theory explains the current climate change. AGW theory explains all of the observed data, so it is the accepted theory. If you want that changed, you need to come up with a theory that explains the observed data better. Being how "It's a natural cycle!" is contradicted by the observed data, that would not be such a theory. And "I don't know! Nobody knows!" is an evasion, not a theory.

At least you acknowledge that this is a theory not settled science.


Did you read these papers? The prominent word used is "estimated".

You fail to understand the process, so you assume it's fraudulent. That's not rational.

It's not about fraudulent, it's about accuracy. The uncertainties involved are huge.

Every denier is a member of the right-wing-fringe extremist political cult.

Prove it.
 
so you're saying the ice covered the volcanoes too?

No, I didn't say anything like that.

edited-meister
All you are doing is reinforcing that CO2 follows temperature.

No, you just made an idiot story up. It's all you ever do.

You can't be saying that CO2 melted the snow are you?

Anyone who isn't a piss-chugging retard says that, as it's what the hard data says. You can keep denying the hard data, but it only makes you look dumber.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet the evidence says the warming came first.

No, there's no evidence saying that. That theory makes no sense. How could warming cause the oceans to release CO2 when the oceans were frozen?

The CO2, which came from volcanoes over millions of years, led the warming 500 million years ago.

And you haven't answered. How does your "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" theory explain why earth came out of the snowball earth phase? You pseudoscience has no explanation for that, hence it's wrong.

Prove it.

Can you show us denier here who doesn't embrace right wing politics?
 
In the natural sciences you will always find words like "estimate", "could", "might" and "possibly" because there are no proofs in the natural sciences. If you want to demand one, you only identify yourself as someone unfamiliar with real science.

Warming produces CO2 because it decreases the gas solubility of liquids and thus CO2 comes out of solution in the ocean.

CO2 produces warming through an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

There is no paradox in the gas working in both ways as the two processes are completely independent of each other.

Through Earth's history, there have been few occasions when a process produced amounts of CO2 in quantities similar to what we have via fossil fuel combustion. So there are few examples to parallel our current experience. However, there are a few and there are a larger number of incidences in which the feedback effect of warming-produced CO2 increased ongoing warming.

The former - in which CO2 warms the planet - may be seen in the eruption of the Deccan Traps a little over 66 million years ago. Those eruptions lasted over 30,000 years and covered over 500,000 square kilometers more than a mile deep in volcanic flood basalt.

The latter may be seen in its entirety in the work of Jeremy Shakun Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation at https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun et al., 2012, Nature.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top