10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
625
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
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!
Without an 8th grade education in math ... how would you know whether my claims stack up against scientific research? ... I know how to solve the triple integrals that come up all the time, I also know how to degenerate these into double integrals ...

My point is you're grossly uninformed in all this subject material ... even the most basic of knowledge (F=ma) is clearly beyond your comprehension ... you just repeat what you can cherry-pick ... what experts say is just dogma to you, belief without understanding ... let the experts speak for themselves, you do them a disservice by trying ...

8th grade math my friend ... you've failed ... I'm trying to be kind, the alternative is you're a liar, I won't go that far, you're just uneducated ... for the record, I took a class is all, maybe something you should look into ...
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
It always frustrates me when I deal with people like him,
Getting your ass handed to you every time must be frustrating. However, that's not my problem. If you post idiot propaganda from WUWT -- and that's literally all you're capable of, aside from asskissing -- expect to see it ripped apart. I have little patience with your kind of belligerent stupidity.

I can see why your constant failure is so frustrating to you. You hang out at the WUWT conspiracy blog, where dissenting voices are banned, and where you're constantly told what a special snowflake you are. Then you try to come here to spread the GoodWord of your cult, and you get humiliated. It just doesn't compute in your mind. Your cult is always right, so why is it their crap always gets ripped apart? The cognitive dissonance you feel must be very disconcerting.

By the way no one here is on ignore at this time, I have learned to deal with their empty bullcrap much better.
By power-weeping at me? Go on, cry at me harder. It's not like you've ever been capable of anything else.
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
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? ...
Let's see you do it. If it's so easy, you have no reason to run squealing from your own question.

Like Fort said, don't play weasel question games with us. Act like us, and have the guts to state a point clearly and directly. The fact that you go to such pains to avoid stating a point seems to indicate that you don't have any actual point, and that you're just trolling.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
STRIKE 9 -- You're out of here..
Yep, that was expected.

Whenever Flac gets humiliated -- and he always gets humiliated, because he sucks hard at the science -- he just pretends it didn't happen, tosses out an insult and runs, declaring himself to be too good to continue the conversation with the lower life forms who had the gall to question his supremacy of his big brain.

Is it gutless? Of course it is. But what else can he do? It's not like he can do the adult thing and admit he was wrong.

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...
And this is a model, as it relies on many modeled inputs, and models the output.


Oops, looks like I'm hitting a bug that prevents posting any images from Skeptical Science. At least I hope it's bug. I wouldn't want to think it was deliberate. Here, hit it from this link.

Which is a more reliable measure of global temperature: thermometers or satellites?

This is kind of hilarious. Deniers actually think that flowchart is more direct and honest than just taking the freakin' temperature at the surface. They don't seem quite sane.

Think you're on "virtual" ignore again.. You're too fixated on me personally and MISSING everything you pitch at me...
What I read from that is you're scared to face me in honest debate. I think most others read it that way as well. Ah, life is good.

Take heart in the fact that I'm not that bright, and you're not that dumb. The reason that I can always spank you is that I stand on the shoulders of giants. You deniers can't see anything because you squat down in a pit of conspiracy stupidity.
 
Last edited:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
[Wow genius a FUTURE PROJECTION ALL THE WAY to 2020...
And as the topic was how good the models are, then yes, it makes sense to use such a graph.

Why does such a simple logic escape you? If you want to look at how good models have _been_, you don't look at the future.

The funny thing is how so many deniers thanked you for your stupidity there. If one denier says something retarded, all the deniers jump in and praise the retardation. Deniers are never allowed to tell the emperor that he has no clothes, so the emperor keeps prancing around naked.
 

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
625
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
Like Fort said, don't play weasel question games with us. Act like us, and have the guts to state a point clearly and directly. The fact that you go to such pains to avoid stating a point seems to indicate that you don't have any actual point, and that you're just trolling.
33 Gigatons ÷ 5 Petatons ÷ 1.5 = 4.4 ppmv ... we measured 2.2 ppmv ...
Math is brutal ...
The other thread had a citation that claimed humans emitted only 33 Gigatons CO2 ... but the math structure is the same ... something we expect 8th graders to be able to do ...

The next point I'd like to make is to ridicule your 4th grade reading abilities ... from the top ... do you see how terribly wrong you are about solar output? ... or are you still clinging to idiocy in the OP? ... were the words I use to big for you to understand? ... mommy and daddy won't buy you a dictionary? ... there should be one at the Middle School Library, the place you hide every lunch hour ... try using it ... the librarian would be glad to show you how ...
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,652
Reaction score
3,663
Points
1,855
Without an 8th grade education in math ... how would you know whether my claims stack up against scientific research? .
Because you have done no research, and because, if any of the madeup horseshit you claim were actually true, scientists would be accounting for it.

Got any other softball questions?
 

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
625
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
Without an 8th grade education in math ... how would you know whether my claims stack up against scientific research? .
Because you have done no research, and because, if any of the madeup horseshit you claim were actually true, scientists would be accounting for it. Got any other softball questions?
You've done no research either ... but I can read research papers with comprehension ... the crap you read in the National Enquirer is the made up bullshit ...

Of course scientists account for this, how did you think I learned of it? ... when one reads enough scientific papers that are based on the large scale circulation slowing down ... I can claim the large scale circulation is slowing down ... duh ... it's called "reading with comprehension" ... I know, not required from your 8th grade sources ...

Explain my math in post #146 just above ... where did each of these factors come from? ... ha ha ha ha ...
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
33 Gigatons ÷ 5 Petatons ÷ 1.5 = 4.4 ppmv ... we measured 2.2 ppmv ...
Yep. The oceans are a big CO2 sink. And you didn't know such a basic thing. You don't seem to be qualified to be in a discussion with the grownups.

Math is brutal ...
It's more correct to say that for you, science is brutal. You do the math right, but you set up the problem wrong, so you come to the wrong conclusion.

The other thread had a citation that claimed humans emitted only 33 Gigatons CO2 ... but the math structure is the same ... something we expect 8th graders to be able to do ...
I asked you to state your point clearly and directly. You still haven't. You're still deflecting.

The next point I'd like to make is to ridicule your 4th grade reading abilities ... from the top ... do you see how terribly wrong you are about solar output? ... or are you still clinging to idiocy in the OP? ... were the words I use to big for you to understand? ... mommy and daddy won't buy you a dictionary? ... there should be one at the Middle School Library, the place you hide every lunch hour ... try using it ... the librarian would be glad to show you how ...
My point is that if you didn't stink so badly at the science, you could discuss the science. You can't discuss the science, so you deflect by raging mindlessly at your intellectual betters.

See? that's how you make a simple point. Now you try it.

Oh, I was wrong about forcing being at the surface instead of the top of the atmosphere. You and Flac were more wrong, however, about the magnitude. You pooched it by not dividing the incoming solar radiation by four. So, your estimates were off by a factor of four (instead of by eight, as I had said). So the solar forcing is still insignificant, and I'm still right.

Do you understand the source your error, or would you like me to explain it in more detail?
 

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
625
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
33 Gigatons ÷ 5 Petatons ÷ 1.5 = 4.4 ppmv ... we measured 2.2 ppmv ...
Yep. The oceans are a big CO2 sink. And you didn't know such a basic thing. You don't seem to be qualified to be in a discussion with the grownups.
The ocean surface can only hold the CO2 that is in equilibrium with the concentration in the atmosphere ... and not one microgram more ... and you didn't know such a basic thing ... how does the CO2 migrate down the water column? ... keep in mind, we don't have any convection in the oceans ... so we only have the top 100 meters or so of the ocean to absorb CO2 ...

The sad part is that if you're right ... then human CO2 emissions are meaningless, it will get absorbed by the oceans and never change the climate ... maybe you shouldn't be saying two different things out of each side of your mouth when you speak with grown-ups ...

Oh, I was wrong about forcing being at the surface instead of the top of the atmosphere. You and Flac were more wrong, however, about the magnitude. You pooched it by not dividing the incoming solar radiation by four. So, your estimates were off by a factor of four (instead of by eight, as I had said). So the solar forcing is still insignificant, and I'm still right.

Do you understand the source your error, or would you like me to explain it in more detail?
It's a vector thing ... attended if you can:

Incoming solar energy arrives in parallel ... so when we say 1,360 W/m^2, these square meters are the Earth in cross section ... shine a flashlight on a baseball, notice only half is illuminated? ... outgoing energy leaves radially ... call it 238 W/m^2, these square meters are the surface area of the Earth ... also, and strictly by convention, we give climate forcing values using these radial vectors ... +1.8W/m^2 is using surface area square meters ...

It's not my fault astronomers do things this way ... they have excellent reasons to do so ... vector math is very difficult for the average peon ... 1,360 w/m^2 is measured at the top-of-atmosphere ... albedo is ≈ 0.3, so we have 950 W/m^2 at the surface as measured in cross section ... NOW we divide by 4 to find the out going energy as measured in surface area ...

See Stefan, J. (1879) and Boltzmann, L. (1884) ...
 

Muhammed

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
17,631
Reaction score
3,449
Points
290
Location
North Coast, USA
#

#2 is our basic theory, demonstrating this theory is correct doesn't seemed to have happened yet ... (anyone with a citation is welcome to post it) ... the antithesis of the above, correlation never equals causation ... there's also a very serious break in the math; and in physics, the math has to be right or it ain't so ... theories without a rigid mathematical basis is generally called conjecture ...
The global warming fraudsters actually commit a reversal of causation fallacy in their efforts to prove that CO2 is the control knob on the Earth's thermostat. In accordance with Henry's law, when the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere occurs AFTER the warming occurs.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The ocean surface can only hold the CO2 that is in equilibrium with the concentration in the atmosphere ... and not one microgram more ... and you didn't know such a basic thing ...
So you're agreeing the oceans are absorbing CO2. Next time, just say "You're right. Thank you for educating me."

how does the CO2 migrate down the water column? ... keep in mind, we don't have any convection in the oceans ... so we only have the top 100 meters or so of the ocean to absorb CO2 ...
And that's plenty in the short term. The oceans already hold 39,000 GT of CO2, while the atmosphere holds 750 GT. There's plenty more room in that top 100m. In the longer term, thermohaline circuluation takes the CO2 down deep.

The sad part is that if you're right ... then human CO2 emissions are meaningless, it will get absorbed by the oceans and never change the climate
No, it doesn't mean that. Not even close. You've got a problem with time scales. CO2 being absorbed after a few thousand years is not helpful in the present.

It's a vector thing ... attended if you can:
A better explanation would be to say it's the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the area of a disc with the same radius. Your explanation was muddled due to all the extraneous garbage. It illustrates the general case of clear thought by the rational people, and muddled thoughts by deniers.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
21,738
Reaction score
3,921
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
The global warming fraudsters actually commit a reversal of causation fallacy in their efforts to prove that CO2 is the control knob on the Earth's thermostat. In accordance with Henry's law, when the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere occurs AFTER the warming occurs.
Major fallacy on your part. You assume that since CO2 can be a feedback, it can't be a forcing.

Why did you make such a dumb assumption?

So, you called us frauds based entirely on your inability to reason. But that's expected. If you could reason correctly, you wouldn't have gotten sucked into your liars' cult. Those who can reason instantly see through denier propaganda.
 

Muhammed

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
17,631
Reaction score
3,449
Points
290
Location
North Coast, USA
The global warming fraudsters actually commit a reversal of causation fallacy in their efforts to prove that CO2 is the control knob on the Earth's thermostat. In accordance with Henry's law, when the oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere occurs AFTER the warming occurs.
Major fallacy on your part. You assume that since CO2 can be a feedback, it can't be a forcing.

Why did you make such a dumb assumption?

So, you called us frauds based entirely on your inability to reason. But that's expected. If you could reason correctly, you wouldn't have gotten sucked into your liars' cult. Those who can reason instantly see through denier propaganda.
You are assuming that I assumed something that I didn't assume, you easily brainwashed doomsday cult loon.
 

Silver Cat

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
552
Reaction score
80
Points
45
Location
Absaroka
The ocean surface can only hold the CO2 that is in equilibrium with the concentration in the atmosphere ... and not one microgram more ... and you didn't know such a basic thing ...
So you're agreeing the oceans are absorbing CO2. Next time, just say "You're right. Thank you for educating me."

how does the CO2 migrate down the water column? ... keep in mind, we don't have any convection in the oceans ... so we only have the top 100 meters or so of the ocean to absorb CO2 ...
And that's plenty in the short term. The oceans already hold 39,000 GT of CO2, while the atmosphere holds 750 GT. There's plenty more room in that top 100m. In the longer term, thermohaline circuluation takes the CO2 down deep.

The sad part is that if you're right ... then human CO2 emissions are meaningless, it will get absorbed by the oceans and never change the climate
No, it doesn't mean that. Not even close. You've got a problem with time scales. CO2 being absorbed after a few thousand years is not helpful in the present.

It's a vector thing ... attended if you can:
A better explanation would be to say it's the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the area of a disc with the same radius. Your explanation was muddled due to all the extraneous garbage. It illustrates the general case of clear thought by the rational people, and muddled thoughts by deniers.
He-he-he... And what your "rational people" say about chalk formation? Do you remember the formula of Calcium Carbonate?
 

ReinyDays

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,505
Reaction score
625
Points
90
Location
State of Jefferson
how does the CO2 migrate down the water column?
It do "migrate" in many ways, most fast and important - in CaC0_3.
Where does the Calcium come from? ... for each mole of CO2, you need a mole of Ca ... so to sequester 15 Gigatons of CO2 per year, we'll need around 12 Gigatons of Calcium every year ...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top