Nye's Quadrant

[Crick]

Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work. What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.

Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.

Bill Nye the lyin' guy.

Nye is not retarded, but he is willing to lie for the 'Noble Cause' of global warming activism.

His fraudulent CO2 experiment on Gore's telethon a few years back is proof of that.

Does whatever he did support the contentions of any of the deniers here regarding the actual behavior of the Earth's climate?

 

[IanC]

Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work. What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.

Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.

Bill Nye the lyin' guy.

Nye is not retarded, but he is willing to lie for the 'Noble Cause' of global warming activism.

His fraudulent CO2 experiment on Gore's telethon a few years back is proof of that.

Does whatever he did support the contentions of any of the deniers here regarding the actual behavior of the Earth's climate?

Yes.

Nye lied and exaggerated.

Are you OK with that? Are you willing to admit he lied? Or do you think lying for a Noble Cause is acceptable?

I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.

 

[SSDD]

You obviously believe your ends justify your constant lies.

Do you think a bald faced congenital liar calling me a liar makes an impression on anyone other than other liars?...Prove me wrong skid mark...post a single...just one...that is a SINGLE piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Step on up skid mark...show everyone how you are the honest one and I am a liar...show everyone that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or don't and show everyone what a liar you are.

 

[SSDD]

I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.

Crickham....ethics? Are you kidding?

 

[IanC]

I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.

Crickham....ethics? Are you kidding?

Almost everyone thinks they are a little smarter, a little more honest, a little more kind or ethical than the average of the other people in the environment they are surrounded in. It's all relative. That's how criminals and politicians can live with themselves. Or climate scientists.

 

[IanC]

To the uninformed, or the zealots from either side, the climate science debate is an all or nothing position.

I believe that the globe has warmed since the LIA, that CO2 causes some warming influence, and that mankind has increased the portion of CO2. That puts me solidly in the 97% consensus.

But I disagree that the feedbacks will triple the 1C per 2xCO2 influence, so that makes me a denier.

All or nothing just doesn't fit most people'sposition, or even the scientists' positions.

The models are wrong, the catastrophic conclusions drawn from them are improbable. We need a reset and do over of the CO2 hypothesis with more realistic assumptions. The precautionary principle has been projected as likely, the proposed solutions are foolish and expensive all out of proportion to the effect they will have with our present technology. The money being wasted cannot be used in more fruitful areas.

 

[SSDD]

Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.

 

[IanC]

Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.

Link please

 

[SSDD]

Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.

Link please

Link to what? The fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere respond to the climate? Look at the ice core data...

Or that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...that would be answered by the fact that after all these years and all those billions upon billions upon billions of dollars flushed down the toilet by climate pseudoscience there still is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...not one. Your lukewarm claims of "some" sensitivity to CO2 are just as fanciful as rock's claims of greater sensitivity...the are both based on magic which no amount of instrumentation, experimentation, or observation can seem to detect. You are the one who believes in the magic...you show me some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your AGW fantasy over natural variability.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

 

[westwall]

I am loving what I am watching so far! Taking it to you fags!

I always knew you were racist but you're a homophobe too? Pretty sad matthew. Pretty sad. As far as nye go's he's a great example of the lowest common denominator of science.

 

[IanC]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

Talk to the folks who devised the international standard atmosphere...it is correct and has remained correct even though so called greenhouse gas concentrations have increased...the increased amount of GHG has not prompted the first change in the standard atmosphere because they have no effect on lapse rates...

Been through the atmospheric thermal effect already...and the fact remains that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

 

[IanC]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

Talk to the folks who devised the international standard atmosphere...it is correct and has remained correct even though so called greenhouse gas concentrations have increased...the increased amount of GHG has not prompted the first change in the standard atmosphere because they have no effect on lapse rates...

Been through the atmospheric thermal effect already...and the fact remains that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

Yes. We have been through it before. You ran away then too.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

Talk to the folks who devised the international standard atmosphere...it is correct and has remained correct even though so called greenhouse gas concentrations have increased...the increased amount of GHG has not prompted the first change in the standard atmosphere because they have no effect on lapse rates...

Been through the atmospheric thermal effect already...and the fact remains that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

Yes. We have been through it before. You ran away then too.

No Ian...as always, you left because you could not prove a point...in the end, all you had was belief and models...no actual measured observation to support your position...SSDD

 

[IanC]

At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.

On the other hand, you make declarative statements that are often absurd. And then refuse to provide the reasoning or evidence to back it up.

In this case it is atmospheric mass controlling surface temperature. You say it accurately predicts all the planets with atmospheres. Then you refuse to show the predictions, or even give the basic physics behind them.

You say greenhouse theory doesn't predict Earth temps without a fudge factor. You don't identify the fudge factor.

Then you claim the Standard Atmosphere model is based on principles alone, yet if you actually read it you find it is derived by observation and only then are physical principles invoked to cautiously describe why the findings are there.


Crick scoffed at you when you stated that without GHGs the only way to lose heat would be conv(i)ction and conduction, obviously impossible to space. You did not defend yourself or clarify your statement.

I have been one of the few that have agreed, at least in part, with your garbled position. And the only one to actually explain it.

I know how gas planets lose heat. I doubt either you or crick actually do. That is why I asked both of you to put down a simple paragraph answer. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Old Rocks]

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..

Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.

 

[flacaltenn]

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..

Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.

Not if they are cut from grants, harassed by the Univ, and can't get papers published because they are blacklisted.

 

[anotherlife]

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..

Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.

Not if they are cut from grants, harassed by the Univ, and can't get papers published because they are blacklisted.

A leftist will never admit to that. Once I was trying to explain this exact same thing and the liberal scum was even an old person, yet had no integrity or wisdom enough to see this. The other 3 quadrants are a fairy tale. Hehe.