Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

[ReinyDays]

Agree with you strongly, but I think he is too far gone, since his writing style indicate that he is a science illiterate in the extreme, and lacks debating skills as well.
He will never answer those two questions, because it zooms over his head, you are dealing with a stubborn climate IDEOLOGIST.

I say we get the doughnuts ... we gave alpine the answer to the first and he still doesn't understand ... I'm sure I'm not the only one who's explain the second question to him ... it's like some manner of Learning Disability ... gimme my damn doughnuts RIGHT NOW ....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Agree with you strongly, but I think he is too far gone, since his writing style indicate that he is a science illiterate in the extreme, and lacks debating skills as well.
He will never answer those two questions, because it zooms over his head, you are dealing with a stubborn climate IDEOLOGIST.

I say we get the doughnuts ... we gave alpine the answer to the first and he still doesn't understand ... I'm sure I'm not the only one who's explain the second question to him ... it's like some manner of Learning Disability ... gimme my damn doughnuts RIGHT NOW ....

I say he is better off getting Doughnut holes, the donut store just a mile from my place actually sell them. For every rational reply, he gets one, until every hole is filled, then he is cured.....

 

[ding]

Farts are funnier.

You'll start high school soon enough ... then you'll notice girls ... and that's the end to any fun you've been having ...

Only if my wife catches me.

 

[ding]

When did methane become attributed to man?

Thru domestic cattle -- LITERALLY "thru domestic cattle".. HOWEVER, what flourished in N. America that farted LONG BEFORE big farms? Buffalo as dense as the plains grass. Deer, Elk, Beaver and Antelope. And no one doing the accounting EVER accounts for the trade-off..

View attachment 434906

Just one of John Kerry's first acheivements as Climate Czar.. Also takes the weight off their hooves and makes them more lively..

Sounds like man was methane neutral.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sounds like man was methane neutral.

How leaky is the natural gas delivery system? ... well heads and pipelines spew the stuff out ... it might not be much, I don't know, but it's above zero ... and there's market pressure to get these leaks sealed, that's profit escaping out the fittings ... so there's good reasons to have the companies look into this problem other than carbon pollution ...

Methane is a very powerful GHG, but there's only a trivial amount in our atmosphere at any given moment ... it oxidizes into carbon dioxide relatively quickly, half-life of 15 years I believe, so in of itself not a component of global warming ...

The bigger problem is houses blowing up ... those working in the field should be ashamed of themselves ... little children in burn units ashamed ... the government is trying to kill us all by letting that crap be pumped into our homes ... a massive conspiracy to destroy all we hold dear ... starting with doughnuts ...

 

[ding]

Sounds like man was methane neutral.

How leaky is the natural gas delivery system? ... well heads and pipelines spew the stuff out ... it might not be much, I don't know, but it's above zero ... and there's market pressure to get these leaks sealed, that's profit escaping out the fittings ... so there's good reasons to have the companies look into this problem other than carbon pollution ...

Methane is a very powerful GHG, but there's only a trivial amount in our atmosphere at any given moment ... it oxidizes into carbon dioxide relatively quickly, half-life of 15 years I believe, so in of itself not a component of global warming ...

The bigger problem is houses blowing up ... those working in the field should be ashamed of themselves ... little children in burn units ashamed ... the government is trying to kill us all by letting that crap be pumped into our homes ... a massive conspiracy to destroy all we hold dear ... starting with doughnuts ...

It's not zero and some stripper wells probably are venting their backsides. The whole blowing up thing is more confined to pipelines and plants. We have an aging infrastructure so I am mildly surprised you don't hear about more. Then again the pipeline guys are sticklers for details and are picky about what they will let you put in their pipes so maybe I shouldn't be mildly surprised after all. Plants are whole different kettle of fish. Lots of processes and valves and heat exchangers. Lot's of places for human errors especially during start ups and shut downs.

 

[flacaltenn]

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

We're done.. You're being more combative than neccessary for a science discussion.. And making it about my volunteer postition for USMB rather than doing any good winning any points..

LOOK at the chart again.. It's got about 40 different pretty colored dots on it.. For EACH dot, There's a NAME and the date. That's the way scientists reference papers.. You can take any one of those and in 6 minutes on the web, find at LEAST the abstract which is NOT behind a paywall.,. Here -- lemme demonstrate.. I've checked several of the papers. TWO are from principle author Gillette.. Search "climate sensitivity Gillette paper 2011" You'll find the FULL NAME which is N.P. Gillette and you've mined a source.. Here's the link..

Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations - Gillett - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Not doing this "confrontational" thing anymore.. YOUR source was ECS estimates only.. Mine had BOTH TCR and ECS curves over time.. MORE IMPORTANT than the decline in both of them -- IS THE WAY THEY ARE NARROWING the gap between the two very different things over time.. Aint gonna waste the time to explain, but the take-away is -- LIKE I SAID IN THE BEGINNING here -- That the early predictions of runaway warming, accelerated warming, trigger points and 12 years until all the 5th graders are dead --- is not where GWarming is headed..

I think you "blew away" the diff between the 2 parameters ECS/TCR in an early whining post.. But its the diff between those 2 numbers that describes any longer lasting PERMANENT damage to the planet.. Would be wise NOT to "blow them away"...

All that said.. Having ONE parameter for Climate Sensitivity is bogus.. (Or just 2 for the whole globe spatially differentiated by time constants).. Because the Earth does NOT have just "one climate zone" and the CS. numbers are maybe 3 times higher in the Arctic than they are at the equator.. But a lot of stuff in GW gets reduced to "singular global" numbers because the science is not yet matured..

 

[ReinyDays]

We're done..

Doughnut time !!! ...

 

[alpine]

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

We're done.. You're being more combative than neccessary for a science discussion.. And making it about my volunteer postition for USMB rather than doing any good winning any points..

LOOK at the chart again.. It's got about 40 different pretty colored dots on it.. For EACH dot, There's a NAME and the date. That's the way scientists reference papers.. You can take any one of those and in 6 minutes on the web, find at LEAST the abstract which is NOT behind a paywall.,. Here -- lemme demonstrate.. I've checked several of the papers. TWO are from principle author Gillette.. Search "climate sensitivity Gillette paper 2011" You'll find the FULL NAME which is N.P. Gillette and you've mined a source.. Here's the link..

Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations - Gillett - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Not doing this "confrontational" thing anymore.. YOUR source was ECS estimates only.. Mine had BOTH TCR and ECS curves over time.. MORE IMPORTANT than the decline in both of them -- IS THE WAY THEY ARE NARROWING the gap between the two very different things over time.. Aint gonna waste the time to explain, but the take-away is -- LIKE I SAID IN THE BEGINNING here -- That the early predictions of runaway warming, accelerated warming, trigger points and 12 years until all the 5th graders are dead --- is not where GWarming is headed..

I think you "blew away" the diff between the 2 parameters ECS/TCR in an early whining post.. But its the diff between those 2 numbers that describes any longer lasting PERMANENT damage to the planet.. Would be wise NOT to "blow them away"...

All that said.. Having ONE parameter for Climate Sensitivity is bogus.. (Or just 2 for the whole globe spatially differentiated by time constants).. Because the Earth does NOT have just "one climate zone" and the CS. numbers are maybe 3 times higher in the Arctic than they are at the equator.. But a lot of stuff in GW gets reduced to "singular global" numbers because the science is not yet matured..

so you go in, pick the ones you like, burn the rest, and then draw your convenient conclusions...
how cute...

thank you for demonstrating us the meaning of "anti-science"...

the whole "scientific method" is designed to do exactly opposite of what you (and your source in tucson arizona) are trying to do...

you are trying to assert your convenient bias while "science" is about eliminating that bias so one can reach the ultimate truth regardless of the inconvenience of it...

just like how right wing loons on this board dream themselves as pious folks, while in reality acting like bunch of "anti-christ" fanatics,
you folks dream yourselves having any science credibility, while in reality being the ultimate representation of "anti-science" itself...

 

[wamose]

People are mostly guessing about global warming. They may be right. They may be wrong. But the rich people who built on the coast are hedging their bet by backing the theory and assuming the taxpayer will bail them out. Building on the water was their choice therefore it's their problem. I didn't see them inviting the taxpayers to use their private beaches so don't send us the bill. And that Paris accord is another taxpayer ripoff. Why the hell should the US taxpayer pay to clean up China and India after they stole our jobs partially by allowing their companies to pollute our world without limit. China and India should be held to the same standards as we are, at their expense.

 

[Sunsettommy]

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

We're done.. You're being more combative than neccessary for a science discussion.. And making it about my volunteer postition for USMB rather than doing any good winning any points..

LOOK at the chart again.. It's got about 40 different pretty colored dots on it.. For EACH dot, There's a NAME and the date. That's the way scientists reference papers.. You can take any one of those and in 6 minutes on the web, find at LEAST the abstract which is NOT behind a paywall.,. Here -- lemme demonstrate.. I've checked several of the papers. TWO are from principle author Gillette.. Search "climate sensitivity Gillette paper 2011" You'll find the FULL NAME which is N.P. Gillette and you've mined a source.. Here's the link..

Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations - Gillett - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Not doing this "confrontational" thing anymore.. YOUR source was ECS estimates only.. Mine had BOTH TCR and ECS curves over time.. MORE IMPORTANT than the decline in both of them -- IS THE WAY THEY ARE NARROWING the gap between the two very different things over time.. Aint gonna waste the time to explain, but the take-away is -- LIKE I SAID IN THE BEGINNING here -- That the early predictions of runaway warming, accelerated warming, trigger points and 12 years until all the 5th graders are dead --- is not where GWarming is headed..

I think you "blew away" the diff between the 2 parameters ECS/TCR in an early whining post.. But its the diff between those 2 numbers that describes any longer lasting PERMANENT damage to the planet.. Would be wise NOT to "blow them away"...

All that said.. Having ONE parameter for Climate Sensitivity is bogus.. (Or just 2 for the whole globe spatially differentiated by time constants).. Because the Earth does NOT have just "one climate zone" and the CS. numbers are maybe 3 times higher in the Arctic than they are at the equator.. But a lot of stuff in GW gets reduced to "singular global" numbers because the science is not yet matured..

so you go in, pick the ones you like, burn the rest, and then draw your convenient conclusions...
how cute...

thank you for demonstrating us the meaning of "anti-science"...

the whole "scientific method" is designed to do exactly opposite of what you (and your source in tucson arizona) are trying to do...

you are trying to assert your convenient bias while "science" is about eliminating that bias so one can reach the ultimate truth regardless of the inconvenience of it...

just like how right wing loons on this board dream themselves as pious folks, while in reality acting like bunch of "anti-christ" fanatics,
you folks dream yourselves having any science credibility, while in reality being the ultimate representation of "anti-science" itself...

You are now the worst warmist/alarmist in the forum, exceeding Abu Afax.

Congratulations!

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

Better check the new bill in the house that says climate change exoeditures dont need to clear the budget restraints at all. They are totally unfettered and unrestrained

 

[ReinyDays]

Better check the new bill in the house that says climate change exoeditures dont need to clear the budget restraints at all. They are totally unfettered and unrestrained

$5 per gallon carbon tax on gasoline at the pump ... so it'll just be the Middle Class paying, so no harm done ...

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

Better check the new bill in the house that says climate change exoeditures dont need to clear the budget restraints at all. They are totally unfettered and unrestrained

$5 per gallon carbon tax on gasoline at the pump ... so it'll just be the Middle Class paying, so no harm done ...

Nope nothing to do with a gas tax. More like a blank check on "climate change" spending along with covid.

• #1

In the bill before the house of reps.
To change the current rules of the house.

in the bill. . .
(1) exempt the budgetary effects of measures to prevent, prepare for, or respond to economic or public health consequences resulting from the COVID–19 pandemic; and
(2) exempt the budgetary effects of measures to prevent, prepare for, or respond to economic, environmental, or public health consequences resulting from climate change

 

[alpine]

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

We're done.. You're being more combative than neccessary for a science discussion.. And making it about my volunteer postition for USMB rather than doing any good winning any points..

LOOK at the chart again.. It's got about 40 different pretty colored dots on it.. For EACH dot, There's a NAME and the date. That's the way scientists reference papers.. You can take any one of those and in 6 minutes on the web, find at LEAST the abstract which is NOT behind a paywall.,. Here -- lemme demonstrate.. I've checked several of the papers. TWO are from principle author Gillette.. Search "climate sensitivity Gillette paper 2011" You'll find the FULL NAME which is N.P. Gillette and you've mined a source.. Here's the link..

Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations - Gillett - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Not doing this "confrontational" thing anymore.. YOUR source was ECS estimates only.. Mine had BOTH TCR and ECS curves over time.. MORE IMPORTANT than the decline in both of them -- IS THE WAY THEY ARE NARROWING the gap between the two very different things over time.. Aint gonna waste the time to explain, but the take-away is -- LIKE I SAID IN THE BEGINNING here -- That the early predictions of runaway warming, accelerated warming, trigger points and 12 years until all the 5th graders are dead --- is not where GWarming is headed..

I think you "blew away" the diff between the 2 parameters ECS/TCR in an early whining post.. But its the diff between those 2 numbers that describes any longer lasting PERMANENT damage to the planet.. Would be wise NOT to "blow them away"...

All that said.. Having ONE parameter for Climate Sensitivity is bogus.. (Or just 2 for the whole globe spatially differentiated by time constants).. Because the Earth does NOT have just "one climate zone" and the CS. numbers are maybe 3 times higher in the Arctic than they are at the equator.. But a lot of stuff in GW gets reduced to "singular global" numbers because the science is not yet matured..

so you go in, pick the ones you like, burn the rest, and then draw your convenient conclusions...
how cute...

thank you for demonstrating us the meaning of "anti-science"...

the whole "scientific method" is designed to do exactly opposite of what you (and your source in tucson arizona) are trying to do...

you are trying to assert your convenient bias while "science" is about eliminating that bias so one can reach the ultimate truth regardless of the inconvenience of it...

just like how right wing loons on this board dream themselves as pious folks, while in reality acting like bunch of "anti-christ" fanatics,
you folks dream yourselves having any science credibility, while in reality being the ultimate representation of "anti-science" itself...

You are now the worst warmist/alarmist in the forum, exceeding Abu Afax.

Congratulations!

and owning a long telescope doesnt make you a scientist either tommy...
you are just as anti-science as any convenient conservative on this board...

 

[ReinyDays]

you are just as anti-science as any convenient conservative on this board...

How would you know? ... you don't strike me as being very knowledgeable ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

We're done.. You're being more combative than neccessary for a science discussion.. And making it about my volunteer postition for USMB rather than doing any good winning any points..

LOOK at the chart again.. It's got about 40 different pretty colored dots on it.. For EACH dot, There's a NAME and the date. That's the way scientists reference papers.. You can take any one of those and in 6 minutes on the web, find at LEAST the abstract which is NOT behind a paywall.,. Here -- lemme demonstrate.. I've checked several of the papers. TWO are from principle author Gillette.. Search "climate sensitivity Gillette paper 2011" You'll find the FULL NAME which is N.P. Gillette and you've mined a source.. Here's the link..

Improved constraints on 21st‐century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations - Gillett - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Not doing this "confrontational" thing anymore.. YOUR source was ECS estimates only.. Mine had BOTH TCR and ECS curves over time.. MORE IMPORTANT than the decline in both of them -- IS THE WAY THEY ARE NARROWING the gap between the two very different things over time.. Aint gonna waste the time to explain, but the take-away is -- LIKE I SAID IN THE BEGINNING here -- That the early predictions of runaway warming, accelerated warming, trigger points and 12 years until all the 5th graders are dead --- is not where GWarming is headed..

I think you "blew away" the diff between the 2 parameters ECS/TCR in an early whining post.. But its the diff between those 2 numbers that describes any longer lasting PERMANENT damage to the planet.. Would be wise NOT to "blow them away"...

All that said.. Having ONE parameter for Climate Sensitivity is bogus.. (Or just 2 for the whole globe spatially differentiated by time constants).. Because the Earth does NOT have just "one climate zone" and the CS. numbers are maybe 3 times higher in the Arctic than they are at the equator.. But a lot of stuff in GW gets reduced to "singular global" numbers because the science is not yet matured..

so you go in, pick the ones you like, burn the rest, and then draw your convenient conclusions...
how cute...

thank you for demonstrating us the meaning of "anti-science"...

the whole "scientific method" is designed to do exactly opposite of what you (and your source in tucson arizona) are trying to do...

you are trying to assert your convenient bias while "science" is about eliminating that bias so one can reach the ultimate truth regardless of the inconvenience of it...

just like how right wing loons on this board dream themselves as pious folks, while in reality acting like bunch of "anti-christ" fanatics,
you folks dream yourselves having any science credibility, while in reality being the ultimate representation of "anti-science" itself...

You are now the worst warmist/alarmist in the forum, exceeding Abu Afax.

Congratulations!

and owning a long telescope doesnt make you a scientist either tommy...
you are just as anti-science as any convenient conservative on this board...

Your jealousy is noted.

I have met or communicated with a number of famous people, such as Richard Berry, John Dobson, James Hogan, Dr. Spencer, John Daly, Anthony Watts, John Cook, and more over the years.

Cheers

 

[flacaltenn]

you are just as anti-science as any convenient conservative on this board...

How would you know? ... you don't strike me as being very knowledgeable ...

He's really more interested in personal combat than anything science. Less discipline and intellectual investment required.

 

[alpine]

you are just as anti-science as any convenient conservative on this board...

How would you know? ... you don't strike me as being very knowledgeable ...

He's really more interested in personal combat than anything science. Less discipline and intellectual investment required.

why, because i didnt bite his water vapor and cloud bait...
so be it...

none of you here are interested in science either...

otherwise you wouldnt start by wrongfully mocking an extreme scenario from a 30 year old study to begin with...

 

[Sunsettommy]

To wrap it up, post one article remains unchallenged, it must that good that warmist/alarmists avoid it like holy water.