AGWCult finally self destructs

[ScienceRocks]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

 

[G.T.]

So interesting in the study of human minds is it that 'belief' in a scientific phenomena is ALSO an issue that happens down partisan lines.

Oh what a coinkidink

Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!

You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth

I think its clear that any data manipulating is you goofballs not understanding or even wanting to understand how science works.

Further....i think you even know that.

I am a PhD geologist so you're wrong on all counts. The problem is the AGW supporters abandoned the scientific method over a decade ago. What is one of the foundational aspects of the SM? Repeatability. That means you, as a scientist are REQUIRED to hand over your data and methods to anyone so they can check your work.

Care to guess who refuses to do that?




University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims Environment The Guardian

So youre a geologist and should respect the edication it takes to.become proficient within a given scientific field and should be giggling at internet lames thinking they're privy to that education, minus the work.

I respect good science and despise politicized science. Any who argues from "consensus" is not talking about science. They are talking about politics. Science is about facts. If I tell you that the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. That's what it IS. It doesn't matter who you are talking to the speed of light is a fact.

When one talks about climatology you are talking about a subjective as opposed to an objective science. A good comparison is found in sport. Look at a hard science (also known as an EXACT science), such as geology, or physics, or chemistry, as track and field. The only thing that matters is the order of finish.

Now imagine climatology which is a soft science (also called an INEXACT science) as gymnastics. In gymnastics the winners are whoever made the judges happier. It is subjective, it is OPINION. It is not however a hard or exact science.

That's the difference.

Id much sooner listen to a climatologist's opinion of climatology - than a geologist's.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!

You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth

I think its clear that any data manipulating is you goofballs not understanding or even wanting to understand how science works.

Further....i think you even know that.

I am a PhD geologist so you're wrong on all counts. The problem is the AGW supporters abandoned the scientific method over a decade ago. What is one of the foundational aspects of the SM? Repeatability. That means you, as a scientist are REQUIRED to hand over your data and methods to anyone so they can check your work.

Care to guess who refuses to do that?




University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims Environment The Guardian

So youre a geologist and should respect the edication it takes to.become proficient within a given scientific field and should be giggling at internet lames thinking they're privy to that education, minus the work.

I respect good science and despise politicized science. Any who argues from "consensus" is not talking about science. They are talking about politics. Science is about facts. If I tell you that the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. That's what it IS. It doesn't matter who you are talking to the speed of light is a fact.

When one talks about climatology you are talking about a subjective as opposed to an objective science. A good comparison is found in sport. Look at a hard science (also known as an EXACT science), such as geology, or physics, or chemistry, as track and field. The only thing that matters is the order of finish.

Now imagine climatology which is a soft science (also called an INEXACT science) as gymnastics. In gymnastics the winners are whoever made the judges happier. It is subjective, it is OPINION. It is not however a hard or exact science.

That's the difference.

Id much sooner listen to a climatologist's opinion of climatology - than a geologist's.

Really? Why? As a PhD geologist I can teach any climatology class. A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first and second year geology but after that he's toast. A third year geology student knows more about the Earth Sciences than a PhD climatologist. Quite literally the third year student would be teaching the PhD climatologist.

You might want to reconsider your position.

 

[SSDD]

Id much sooner listen to a climatologist's opinion of climatology - than a geologist's.

Have you ever looked at the curriculum for climate science? There is a reason it is called a soft science. You would be far better to listen to a meteorologist with a BS than a Phd climatologist. At least meterology is a hard science.

 

[jc456]

And I'm the King of Siam.

Thousands of scientists in published, peer reviewed work have clearly demonstrated the validity of AGW. Your side has demonstrated NOTHING.

you crickster, still waiting on that list that shows thousands. Got it yet?

 

[jc456]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

Again with the shutting off of coal. Dude, give it up.

 

[jc456]

Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!

You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth

I think its clear that any data manipulating is you goofballs not understanding or even wanting to understand how science works.

Further....i think you even know that.

I am a PhD geologist so you're wrong on all counts. The problem is the AGW supporters abandoned the scientific method over a decade ago. What is one of the foundational aspects of the SM? Repeatability. That means you, as a scientist are REQUIRED to hand over your data and methods to anyone so they can check your work.

Care to guess who refuses to do that?




University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims Environment The Guardian

So youre a geologist and should respect the edication it takes to.become proficient within a given scientific field and should be giggling at internet lames thinking they're privy to that education, minus the work.

I respect good science and despise politicized science. Any who argues from "consensus" is not talking about science. They are talking about politics. Science is about facts. If I tell you that the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. That's what it IS. It doesn't matter who you are talking to the speed of light is a fact.

When one talks about climatology you are talking about a subjective as opposed to an objective science. A good comparison is found in sport. Look at a hard science (also known as an EXACT science), such as geology, or physics, or chemistry, as track and field. The only thing that matters is the order of finish.

Now imagine climatology which is a soft science (also called an INEXACT science) as gymnastics. In gymnastics the winners are whoever made the judges happier. It is subjective, it is OPINION. It is not however a hard or exact science.

That's the difference.

Id much sooner listen to a climatologist's opinion of climatology - than a geologist's.

why?

 

[IanC]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

Is that wishful thinking? I believe China and India are putting up new coal fired plants every month. China may be making solar panels but most are going elsewhere.

 

[jc456]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

Is that wishful thinking? I believe China and India are putting up new coal fired plants every month. China may be making solar panels but most are going elsewhere.

they all got their new orders to start posting on message boards that coal is dead. It's been amazing how they all started spouting that at about the same day and time. Cracks me up!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did the IPCC determine that 90% was the right number for assigning the amount of energy absorbed by the oceans

 

[Crick]

I just answered this in the other thread Frank. Posting the same material in multiple threads is spamming and against the rules Frank.

 

[Crick]

Here is the answer I posted over there:

Here is the first paragraph in section 3.1 of WGI (The Physical Science Basis) of the IPCC's AR5:
Chapter 3 - Observations: Ocean
3.1 Introduction
The ocean influences climate by storing and transporting large amounts of heat, freshwater, and carbon, and by exchanging these properties with the atmosphere. About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012). The ability of the ocean to store vast amounts of heat reflects the large mass and heat capacity of seawater relative to air and the fact that ocean circulation connects the surface and interior ocean. More than three quarters of the total exchange of water between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface through evaporation and precipitation takes place over the oceans (Schmitt, 2008). The ocean contains 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere (Sabine et al., 2004) and is at present acting to slow the rate of climate change by absorbing about 30% of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning, cement production, deforestation and other land use change (Mikaloff-Fletcher et al., 2006; Le Quéré et al., 2010). Changes in the ocean may result in climate feedbacks that either increase or reduce the rate of climate change. Climate variability and change on time scales from seasons to millennia is therefore closely linked to the ocean and its interactions with the atmosphere and cryosphere. The large inertia of the oceans means that they naturally integrate over short-term variability and often provide a clearer signal of longer-term change than other components of the climate system. Observations of ocean change therefore provide a means to track the evolution of climate change, and a relevant benchmark for climate models

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is the answer I posted over there:

Here is the first paragraph in section 3.1 of WGI (The Physical Science Basis) of the IPCC's AR5:
Chapter 3 - Observations: Ocean
3.1 Introduction
The ocean influences climate by storing and transporting large amounts of heat, freshwater, and carbon, and by exchanging these properties with the atmosphere. About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012). The ability of the ocean to store vast amounts of heat reflects the large mass and heat capacity of seawater relative to air and the fact that ocean circulation connects the surface and interior ocean. More than three quarters of the total exchange of water between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface through evaporation and precipitation takes place over the oceans (Schmitt, 2008). The ocean contains 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere (Sabine et al., 2004) and is at present acting to slow the rate of climate change by absorbing about 30% of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning, cement production, deforestation and other land use change (Mikaloff-Fletcher et al., 2006; Le Quéré et al., 2010). Changes in the ocean may result in climate feedbacks that either increase or reduce the rate of climate change. Climate variability and change on time scales from seasons to millennia is therefore closely linked to the ocean and its interactions with the atmosphere and cryosphere. The large inertia of the oceans means that they naturally integrate over short-term variability and often provide a clearer signal of longer-term change than other components of the climate system. Observations of ocean change therefore provide a means to track the evolution of climate change, and a relevant benchmark for climate models

Crick are you spamming?

Check the other thread for my response, I'd rather you didn't run to the mods because I ask you twice

 

[IanC]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

Is that wishful thinking? I believe China and India are putting up new coal fired plants every month. China may be making solar panels but most are going elsewhere.

they all got their new orders to start posting on message boards that coal is dead. It's been amazing how they all started spouting that at about the same day and time. Cracks me up!!!

Yup. Like Venema's talking point about TOTAL adjustments being positive even though the criticisms are about the numerous small land based adjustments that are being constantly made. Until Cowtan put it into a video no one talked about it.

 

[Crick]

Their latest attempt to "hide the decline" will be their last. They morphed from global warming to climate change and now, quadrupling down on a losing bet, they're totally done with atmospheric CO2 altogether. They are now telling us that "the ocean ate my global warming"

It's their swan song. It's getting delisted from NYSE and moving to the pink sheets. The records for ocean temperatures more readily lend themselves to manipulation and with the NOAA already altering data its easy to see why they made this losing bet.

No warming for 2 decades so they decide to toss all their previous data and theories aside and say that the oceans, which take far more energy to warm, are the repository of the missing warming.

Frank, that the ocean absorbs ~90% of the greenhouse warming has been a fact since we first had an ocean and at atmosphere. It is not a new claim. It is not a current comment that anyone is making - except you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Their latest attempt to "hide the decline" will be their last. They morphed from global warming to climate change and now, quadrupling down on a losing bet, they're totally done with atmospheric CO2 altogether. They are now telling us that "the ocean ate my global warming"

It's their swan song. It's getting delisted from NYSE and moving to the pink sheets. The records for ocean temperatures more readily lend themselves to manipulation and with the NOAA already altering data its easy to see why they made this losing bet.

No warming for 2 decades so they decide to toss all their previous data and theories aside and say that the oceans, which take far more energy to warm, are the repository of the missing warming.

Frank, that the ocean absorbs ~90% of the greenhouse warming has been a fact since we first had an ocean and at atmosphere. It is not a new claim. It is not a current comment that anyone is making - except you.

So can you show us in a lab how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will cause water temp to rise by .9 degree?

Even more astounding they claiming that 700-2000 M absorbs 1/3 of the warming... Just cray cray

They make the most absurd claims because this is their swan song. There's no place else on planet Earth they can claim is warming

 

[Old Rocks]

So interesting in the study of human minds is it that 'belief' in a scientific phenomena is ALSO an issue that happens down partisan lines.

Oh what a coinkidink

Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!

You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth

hey Frank, I concluded after several discussions lately about the CO2 in the oceans, the manipulation likely occurring is the adding of heat due to back radiation temperatures. In one of the posts over the weekend, one of the lefties stated something about using a spectrometer and reading back radiation. Seems logical since that is there biggest belief is that added back radiation is heating the water right?

Who cares what they say, seriously. If their experts can't get it right (read my last post) why should we believe that these armchair experts have a clue!

dude, I don't. I take my daily beating in here because I know more than the experts. You know, those money hungry scientists who know nothing about what science actually is?

Mr. jc, you know nothing at all concerning science. It is evidenced in all your posting. However, you people do have a real problem. You see, reality is kicking your teeth in.

2014 right up there with 1998, 2005, and 2010. Now 2015 looking to establish a new bar for heat. And you people just keep yapping about a cooling. Your continued denial of the present El Nino is a wonderful example of the idiocy of your positions. And your lack integrity in your denial of reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

So interesting in the study of human minds is it that 'belief' in a scientific phenomena is ALSO an issue that happens down partisan lines.

Oh what a coinkidink

Yeah, they can't show us in a lab how 120PPM of additional can warm air, now they have a bigger problem because they're claiming that the CO2, that can't warm air, is warming a far greater volume of water that takes far more energy to warm!

You just have to have faith that the data manipulators are telling us the truth

I think its clear that any data manipulating is you goofballs not understanding or even wanting to understand how science works.

Further....i think you even know that.

I am a PhD geologist so you're wrong on all counts. The problem is the AGW supporters abandoned the scientific method over a decade ago. What is one of the foundational aspects of the SM? Repeatability. That means you, as a scientist are REQUIRED to hand over your data and methods to anyone so they can check your work.

Care to guess who refuses to do that?




University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims Environment The Guardian

Well, Mr. Westwall, that is your claim. Yet not a single Geological Scientific Society agrees with your position. Not a single instructor where I go to school, most Phd Geologists, agree with your position. In fact, not a single instructor I know in any science agrees with your position.

Given you repeat, constantly, the lies from the 'Conservative' bleat machine, I really believe your claim to those credentials to be a fraud. And there is the matter of your predictions, not repeated recently, from five years ago concerning the immanent cooling. How is that working out for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is China shutting off coal and going solar and wind if they're so useless!!! China is fucking rocking.

Is that wishful thinking? I believe China and India are putting up new coal fired plants every month. China may be making solar panels but most are going elsewhere.

Do you really believe that now, Ian? But you did not bother to check the numbers on it? Shall I do that for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Id much sooner listen to a climatologist's opinion of climatology - than a geologist's.

Have you ever looked at the curriculum for climate science? There is a reason it is called a soft science. You would be far better to listen to a meteorologist with a BS than a Phd climatologist. At least meterology is a hard science.

Mr. SSDD, that statement simply demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. A Climatologist has to have a very good grasp of atmospheric physics, in far more depth than a meteorologist or a geologist.