A Climate Hero.

[Cardinal Carminative]

I have the ability to explain the earth's climate in an easy to understand way.

It is always easier to explain something if you simply ignore the technical details and focus on your 3 point cartoon version.

That scares you guys.

Trust me, ding, no one is "scared" of an anonymous rando on a discussion forum who has repeatedly demonstrated that geology, oceanography and earth systems science is NOT their area of expertise.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Great. Walk me through it then. Here's the temperature data.

View attachment 652035

I honestly cannot stress this enough, Ding. The earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than 5 million years.

Would you like a citation?

 

[haveatit]

But you believe humans will be gone in 30 years, right?

Not just humans. But most of the life on Earth. Change will come too quickly for most lifeforms to adapt.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your guys use urban temperature station data.

And I've now shown you TWO independent references which show that that doesn't alter the dataset.

I'm curious why temperature ANOMALIES are such a stumbling block for you.

But more importantly I'm curious why you are so wedded to ONE PAPER by Willie Soon to the exclusion of MULTIPLE papers directly opposing your point. Especially in light of the fact that, again, almost no one agrees with YOU.

It's not valid due to the higher concentration of concrete and electricity use.

Incorrect. You've been shown how surface station citing does not result in a skewed data set.

It cannot be found in the data, this error you claim is there. It just can't.

So why do you INSIST on it being there?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This is hilarious. Please tell me you aren't arguing the IPCC doesn't publish model results

DO NOT CHANGE THE GOAL POSTS. You claimed IPCC made models. You are incorrect.

and that their models don't use urban temperature stations which are affected by higher concentrations of concrete and electricity use.

Again, you are incorrect as you have been shown multiple times now.

So just to humor you... I can't show any models used or relied upon by the IPCC. I know they rely on models and that those models use urban temperature station which skews the results.

You must actually work harder on your posts. You are trying to hide your original point which included "IPCC Models". There are no IPCC Models. The IPCC doesn't make models themselves. I don't believe the IPCC itself even USES models.

THE PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH THAT FORMS THE BASIS OF THE IPCC REPORTS RELY ON MODELS.

That's independent (ie NOT controlled by the IPCC or the UN) researchers who make and use the models and publish the data.

Are you at all familiar with the IPCC itself? Shouldn't you be familiar with this before you try to critique it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Life is known to exist thousands of feet below ground. How could we get at it to destroy it. Biological life is extremely resilient. It even exists in thermal vents in the deepest parts of the ocean and has also been found on the reactors of nuclear cores. I don't think we could completely destroy life if we tried.

That's a relief!

Some stupid twat said this.......

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

A Climate Hero.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions...

www.usmessageboard.com

What a fucking moron, right?

 

[Crick]

That's a relief!

Some stupid twat said this.......

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

A Climate Hero.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions...

www.usmessageboard.com

What a fucking moron, right?

I don't know. I don't have the faintest idea what you're trying to say Todd.

 

[Orangecat]

I said that your masters only allow one side of the debate. You can believe it.

My same answer stands:
You think I’m enslaved to liberal social media platforms? Strange conclusion, that.

 

[ding]

Those are what are called "negative forcings" and sometimes they are larger than positive forcings like CO2. The reason YOU know ANYTHING about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that tells you that the CURRENT warming is NOT dominated by natural forcings. I honestly don't know why you think that matters. If you had read ANY of the IPCC you'd note that most of those negative forcings are KNOWN AND DISCUSSED at length. The problem is that they cannot be lined up to explain the warming we see today. You seem to think that because there are negative forcings and they once aligned in such a way as to be larger than a high CO2 content that somehow human activities can NEVER be more than the negative forcings. This is simply mathematically ignorant. OF COURSE they can! And that landmass configuration has changed and impacted climate before. As for the ocean circulation clearly you are not familiar with the TECHNICAL DETAILS of said circulation. So you are of the opinion that this is why human activity cannot warm the globe? Or what, specifically? Because right now most of the earth's experts in this topic say YOU are wrong. I have never denied that. I have EXPLICITLY discussed them. I really am kind of confused how oversimplified you want this all to be. I haven't met many engineers who so easily dismiss complexity of systems that they don't understand very well. Are you honestly of the opinion that YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON TO THINK OF THESE FORCINGS? I must again point you to the literature which has discussed these very things for DECADES. And, again, the earth's experts disagree with you. Either you are the smartest man to walk the earth or you are mistaken. What do YOU believe is the case?

Seems like the IPCC is the one dismissing the complexity of the system because they tune out everything except CO2 in their models. Which is why CO2 dominates FUTURE temperature projections in their model. Not to worry though as time will prove them wrong. The current warming trend is not sustainable precisely because of those negative feedbacks they dismiss in their models.

 

[ding]

Tiiiime is my side. Yes it is.

 

[ding]

It is always easier to explain something if you simply ignore the technical details and focus on your 3 point cartoon version. Trust me, ding, no one is "scared" of an anonymous rando on a discussion forum who has repeatedly demonstrated that geology, oceanography and earth systems science is NOT their area of expertise.

The earth has a 50 million year track record of cooling itself through natural processes. In part due to the fact of the earth's unique landmass configuration that affects ocean circulation. Specifically isolated polar regions.

It's a amazing that the IPCC tunes out the natural dynamic processes which work to cool the earth in their model.

• evaporative cooling, cloud reflection
• decreasing water vapor from cloud formation
• decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere
• increased heat flow into outer space and increased ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean.

 

[ding]

I honestly cannot stress this enough, Ding. The earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than 5 million years.

Would you like a citation?

Why are you dismissing climate data from geologic record?

 

[ding]

Not just humans. But most of the life on Earth. Change will come too quickly for most lifeforms to adapt.

Really? Do you have a hard time adapting to summer temperatures?

 

[ding]

And I've now shown you TWO independent references which show that that doesn't alter the dataset. I'm curious why temperature ANOMALIES are such a stumbling block for you. But more importantly I'm curious why you are so wedded to ONE PAPER by Willie Soon to the exclusion of MULTIPLE papers directly opposing your point. Especially in light of the fact that, again, almost no one agrees with YOU. Incorrect. You've been shown how surface station citing does not result in a skewed data set. It cannot be found in the data, this error you claim is there. It just can't. So why do you INSIST on it being there?

What part of urban temperature station data is invalid due to the higher concentration of concrete and waste heat from electricity use did you not understand?

 

[ding]

DO NOT CHANGE THE GOAL POSTS. You claimed IPCC made models. You are incorrect. Again, you are incorrect as you have been shown multiple times now. You must actually work harder on your posts. You are trying to hide your original point which included "IPCC Models". There are no IPCC Models. The IPCC doesn't make models themselves. I don't believe the IPCC itself even USES models. THE PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH THAT FORMS THE BASIS OF THE IPCC REPORTS RELY ON MODELS. That's independent (ie NOT controlled by the IPCC or the UN) researchers who make and use the models and publish the data. Are you at all familiar with the IPCC itself? Shouldn't you be familiar with this before you try to critique it?

Again... Please tell me you aren't arguing the IPCC doesn't publish model results and that their models don't use urban temperature stations which are affected by higher concentrations of concrete and electricity use.

 

[Crick]

Again... Please tell me you aren't arguing the IPCC doesn't publish model results and that their models don't use urban temperature stations which are affected by higher concentrations of concrete and electricity use.

Models only use an initial, static set of input parameters; a starting position if you will. From that point on, all new iterations of state are generated by the model. And you have an odd idea about urban heat islands. You talk as if they have magic powers and that any process that takes them as input data is doomed to failure. Don't you think it would be best for a model or any sort of study to use the actual conditions? Studies show that the urban heat island effect is nowhere near as significant as you seem to think it is. But whatever it is, those are the actual conditions. If pavement raises the temperature, how is that different from snow lowering temperatures or water increasing humidity or elevation changing humidity levels and a thousand other atmospheric changes brought about by the varying physical parameters of the Earth?

 

[ding]

Don't you think it would be best for a model or any sort of study to use the actual conditions?

Sure, but when investigating the impact of CO2 they shouldn't use urban temperature stations as that has nothing to do with CO2. That's the history matching portion of modeling. Then when they use the model to predict future temperatures due to increasing levels of CO2 the models will accurately predict the effect of CO2.

 

[ding]

Studies show that the urban heat island effect is nowhere near as significant as you seem to think it is.

The average radiative forcing from waste heat from electricity usage in the 123 most populated cities is equal to 11.99 W/m^2.

 

[ding]

But whatever it is, those are the actual conditions.

Correct. For predictive model runs that estimate the incremental change to CO2, absolutely. But for history matching which establishes the radiative forcing of CO2 it is 100% incorrect to attribute the impact of concrete and waste heat in a concentrated area to CO2.

 

[ding]

If pavement raises the temperature, how is that different from snow lowering temperatures or water increasing humidity or elevation changing humidity levels and a thousand other atmospheric changes brought about by the varying physical parameters of the Earth?

For predictive models runs it's fine. For model runs used to history match observed temperatures for the purpose of corroborating the radiative forcing of CO2 it is 100% wrong. Because it lumps concrete and waste heat from electricity in concentrated areas in with CO2.