10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

[ReinyDays]

... but when did we get to see Greta and Naomi wrestle in bikinis? ...

 

[flacaltenn]

... but when did we get to see Greta and Naomi wrestle in bikinis? ...

I think Greta could probably wrestle herself most days.. But that's just a guess...

 

[mamooth]

What causes a different "heat outfow" -- weakened GHouse gases or something??

A bigger delta-T, caused by more energy coming in increasing temperature, without any changes in "insulation".

NO. THere will be a build up of heat energy (barring increased CONVECTION losses thru more storms and such) and the RETARDATION of heat to space from GHouse will remain what it is..

Everyone agrees heat builds up initially. Science just points out that the buildup stops after a certain point.

That looks to have happened after solar output increased. Temperature reached equilibrium at a new higher level. Your theory can't explain why temperature took off again after reaching equilibrium, so your theory is wrong.

Kinda like the "tipping point" adjunct theory of GW... If you TREAT the sun forcing as a CONSTANT -- everything is great... But if you EXCEED the ability to shed excess heat (ENERGY not POWER as a forcing) -- the temperature will rise even IF the forcing power feeding the energy storage is a constant.. (or new HIGHER constant) than it was...

No, that's not at all what tipping point means. Tipping point refers to creating positive feedbacks, which is a totally different thing.

Read your statement again... Not picking on you.. But ask yourself WHY that doesn't apply to the "excess heat" from GW induced "back radiation"..

Apples and oranges. Backradiation doesn't affect the energy balance at the edge of space. It's internal to the system.

The difference is, the "back rad" is the INSULATION in the house.. And the sun is your furnace... One is a power source, the other just RETARDS the power loss...

And if I turn the furnace up a little higher, my house won't keep heating up until it spontaneously combusts. It will reach a new equilibrium at a slightly higher temperature.

So why doesn't the heat OUTFLOW increase for CO2 induced surface temp rises???? Hmmmmmm???

Because there's no increase in heat going into the system. At equilibrium, energy-in = energy-out. Energy-in is the same, as solar input hasn't changed, so energy-out will be the same.

 

[mamooth]

Those damn radiosonds balloons we've been using for over 100 years are so inaccurate....

They're quite accurate.

And they show the warming.

Did your cult not tell you that, or are you deliberately lying?

Remember, your idiot propaganda only works on your fellow idiots. You can't BS smart and well-informed people with it. We know the actual science, so we know with 100% certainty that you're lying.

 

[mamooth]

Once again, you forgot to post your facts.

No, I quoted Blackrook saying he didn't care if millions died, with no deniers calling him out on it. I proved my point quite well.

Or can we just say you are an asshole (simply because we think you are an asshole) with no proof ?

Eventually you'll learn that crying at me is counter-productive. It just demonstrates to me which of my tactics is most effective, and so it results in me using those tactics more.

 

[mamooth]

It's in the same ballpark as the forcing for GW at the surface... 3watts/m2 for GW.. 1.3Watts for the sun...

Nope, off by a factor of about 8.

Forcing is measured at the surface, not a the top of the atmosphere.

A quick glance at the Trenberth diagram show the solar radiation hitting the surface as 161 W/M^2. 0.1% of that is 0.16 W/M^2, which is insignificant compared to 3W/M^2.

To use the TOTAL POWER of the sun at the surface and DISMISS 0.1% of it as TOO SMALL to have an effect ----------------------------------- is Fraud...

As we so often see, the fact that you were stupid does not make anyone else a fraud.
.

The calculation is roughly 0.1% of 1375 watts AVG on the planet surface (for 8 to 10 hours a day)

These folks might flunk HS math and science with boo boos in understanding like that..

If we keep pointing out your ongoing faceplants, you might obtain self-awareness concerning just how ignorant of the science you are. But I'm not hopeful. You're just too emotionally invested in being wrong.

 

[mamooth]

That's why I asked Crick to compare Dr. Spencer's example to the old IPCC runs that set everyone's hair on fire..

You're asking Crick to prove your claim?

If you can't prove your wild assertion, just admit it. Don't demand that someone else prove it.

But he didn't and won't... And since Dr. Spencer used ACTUAL data from the satellite fleet for temperature,

Er, no. Satellite data is a _model_. It's hilarious, watching you claim that models are measurements and measurements are models.

NOT MODELED "reanalysis" data that literally FOLLOWS THE FUCKING MODELS they are trying to match -

And yes, you don't understand temperature averages. We knew that.

 

[mamooth]

They completely left out the IPCC's own much larger slate of climate models...., that have been horrid failures.

And yet you can't show us these failures.

That's because your cult just made it all up.

This presentation addressed some of the nonsense by Hausfather et al paper.

Actually, it didn't. It just pretended it did, and you fell for it. It mostly just raved mindlessly on various disconnected topics, getting most of it totally wrong. That is, it was propaganda designed to spin up the faithful. And it worked.

 

[mamooth]

I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source

Climate model projections compared to observations

Please proceed with insulting the authors instead of addressing the topic.

And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....

How do you think your reliance on ad homs and conspiracy theories makes you look to others?

Oh, you might want to read this too.

NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’

 

[ReinyDays]

It's in the same ballpark as the forcing for GW at the surface... 3watts/m2 for GW.. 1.3Watts for the sun...

Nope, off by a factor of about 8.

Forcing is measured at the surface, not a the top of the atmosphere.

A quick glance at the Trenberth diagram show the solar radiation hitting the surface as 161 W/M^2. 0.1% of that is 0.16 W/M^2, which is insignificant compared to 3W/M^2.

To use the TOTAL POWER of the sun at the surface and DISMISS 0.1% of it as TOO SMALL to have an effect ----------------------------------- is Fraud...

As we so often see, the fact that you were stupid does not make anyone else a fraud.
.

The calculation is roughly 0.1% of 1375 watts AVG on the planet surface (for 8 to 10 hours a day)

These folks might flunk HS math and science with boo boos in understanding like that..

If we keep pointing out your ongoing faceplants, you might obtain self-awareness concerning just how ignorant of the science you are. But I'm not hopeful. You're just too emotionally invested in being wrong.

Forcing is measured at the surface, not a the top of the atmosphere.
A quick glance at the Trenberth diagram show the solar radiation hitting the surface as 161 W/M^2. 0.1% of that is 0.16 W/M^2, which is insignificant compared to 3W/M^2.

Climate forcing is defined as input radiation + output radiation ... the IPCC uses the value +1.8 W/m^2 ... meaning every second, 1.8 more joules are entering the Earth than are leaving, per sq meter of the Earth's surface ... thus global warming ... as you can see from the Trenberth diagram, output is indeed measure at top-of-atmosphere ... or better in low Earth orbit ...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Once again, you forgot to post your facts.

No, I quoted Blackrook saying he didn't care if millions died, with no deniers calling him out on it. I proved my point quite well.

Or can we just say you are an asshole (simply because we think you are an asshole) with no proof ?

Eventually you'll learn that crying at me is counter-productive. It just demonstrates to me which of my tactics is most effective, and so it results in me using those tactics more.

If behaving like a moron is one of your tactics, you are overusing it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source

Climate model projections compared to observations

Please proceed with insulting the authors instead of addressing the topic.

And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....

How do you think your reliance on ad homs and conspiracy theories makes you look to others?

Oh, you might want to read this too.

NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’

Wow genius a FUTURE PROJECTION ALL THE WAY to 2020... Congratulations are in order... Funny thing about modeling.. If you run it NEXT decade --- you can get COMPLETELY DIFFERENT results by jiggering with OPEN parameters on the model...

If you don't KNOW that, and can't see that they've projected NOTHING and that when we say the models have failed from 30 or even 25 yrs ago --- then I'm not wasting time on your inability to independently think or expertise to analyze...

 

[flacaltenn]

Er, no. Satellite data is a _model_. It's hilarious, watching you claim that models are measurements and measurements are models.

STRIKE 9 -- You're out of here.. ALGORITHM or MODEL.. Seems you don't know the diff... Algorithms are CLOSED FORMS ways of processing REAL data.. Models are mathematical descriptions to estimate or project where NO DATA EXIST...

BOTH UAH and RSS are algorithms.. BOTH are completely different but give essentially the SAME results...

Think you're on "virtual" ignore again.. You're too fixated on me personally and MISSING everything you pitch at me...

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe have a new signature from Mamooth.. "Measurements are models"....



Hey westwall -- ya wanna bid on who gets to use that for a sigline????

Its either that or the Joe Biden "We believe in TRUTH, not FACTS" LOL

 

[westwall]

Maybe have a new signature from Mamooth.. "Measurements are models"....



Hey westwall -- ya wanna bid on who gets to use that for a sigline????

Its either that or the Joe Biden "We believe in TRUTH, not FACTS" LOL

Oh, you can use it. I would be embarrassed to use it even if I didn't write it!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Er, no. Satellite data is a _model_. It's hilarious, watching you claim that models are measurements and measurements are models.

STRIKE 9 -- You're out of here.. ALGORITHM or MODEL.. Seems you don't know the diff... Algorithms are CLOSED FORMS ways of processing REAL data.. Models are mathematical descriptions to estimate or project where NO DATA EXIST...

BOTH UAH and RSS are algorithms.. BOTH are completely different but give essentially the SAME results...

Think you're on "virtual" ignore again.. You're too fixated on me personally and MISSING everything you pitch at me...

It always frustrates me when I deal with people like him, who are so amazingly ignorant, with obvious science illiteracy dripping in every post the person makes, that there is no possible rational debate to exist, not with the barrage of name calling hostility and pseudoscience replies spread around.

Anyone who thinks far into the future modeling scenarios (all 500) are a part of valid science research is a perfect proof the person embraces PSEUDOSCIENCE, no falsification is needed, no Scientific Method is desired and no way to properly test it, heck most science illiterates never heard of the NULL HYPOTHESIS at all!

I face this is other forums as well, where their overweening fallacious prejudice against websites, makes them unable to post any form of rational debate, they are so busy attacking people and sources, to be able discuss the published science papers, and the reasoned articles that are found in the websites.

I have been able to swing a few in a forum recently against a serial troller, who openly refuse to post the evidence that he claimed he posted eearlier in a thread, he was lying his asses off, but the idiot continues to play games over it, then several other people push him on it, he does the same to others, thus making him look stupid in the process. He is now being called a Troll to his face, by people who doesn't normally do that, thus his credibility (what little there ever was) is evaporating, I have put that jerk on ignore, he is the second one on my ignore list. Yes they are actually worse than mamooth, hard to believe, I know but true.

When I first came here, I was amazed at the totally empty statements Fort Fun Indiana was posting, he was trolling and insulting, completely avoiding the science part. Now I generally ignore him as he is an empty vessel of baloney, not worth replying. He is rarely on topic, so what is there to reply to but trolling bullcrap anyway?

BY the way no one here is on ignore at this time, I have learned to deal with their empty bullcrap much better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.

 

[ReinyDays]

Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.

Let's see how well you can do with 8th grade math ... 40 gigatons of CO2 emission per year gives use how much increase in atmospheric concentration? ...

Letting the crickets answer for you is an answer in of itself ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.

Let's see how well you can do with 8th grade math ... 40 gigatons of CO2 emission per year gives use how much increase in atmospheric concentration? ...

Letting the crickets answer for you is an answer in of itself ...

I am not your assistant. Make your point, and we can see how it stacks up against the research of people who actually know what they are talking about, versus uneducated slobs like you who have politicized a scientific topic.

And...go!

 

[Sunsettommy]

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half

Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.

You haven't debated anything in the thread., thus you have nothing to crow about.

Still batting zero, proud of your achievement?