Another Nail In The Warmist's Coffin

[Billy_Bob]

"warmists" ?

Am I wrong in my perception that you nip around the edges without ever actually posting a direct contradiction to posts?

Left wits avoid facts... they like being told what to do, where to live, what to eat, etc.... Thy are low information types who do what they are told because it requires no thinking or a cognitive thought process..

And when it comes to Climate alarmism they are even stupider than that.. they swallow obvious lies, hook, line and sinker... They dont feel good unless they are getting hand outs which were stolen from real people who work. they are giddy about giving up your freedoms because their to lazy to keep their own..

you have a lot of nerve saying people who aren't science deniers are the ones who are fact averse.

you guys are wacko... and repeating garbage over and over doesn't make it any less garbage.

Why do some need the old school approach of learning?

You repeat the alarmist drivel over and over again but you fail to listen or look for yourself and evaluate the data. Shill? Drone? or simply willfully ignorant?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's actually based off of a lack of evidence. Funny how you don't understand that the only folks screaming anything are the ones stating doom and gloom and to date they, have not provided any evidence.

The evidence is CLEARLY there.....what you fail to acknowledge is that you REFUSE to recognize it; but that's fine, we need ignorant people as the gauge for needed improvement in our educational system.

Supply empirical evidence that has not been adjusted to meet expectations... Your models ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wouldn't question our ability to ESTIMATE current CO2 levels at all.. They have risen. But now -- we have satellites up that can look at seasonal and regional variations that we've never seen before. It's actually fascinating to see what amounts to 20ppm changes move around the globe.

When the claims are made however, that CO2 levels have not BEEN this high in (take your pick) 2000, 10,000 years --- there really is NOT ample evidence for that statement. Because when you use proxy records for the entire globe -- you get diff results than looking at some of the more accurate SINGLE studies. THOSE studies are the ones capable retaining the temporal resolution to even SEE the natural variance in the historical levels of CO2.

Bottom line is ---- we've yet to reach the first Doubling of CO2 conc. since Indust. Era began. Would hit that at 560ppm or so. Probably not there til 2040 or so. . And from basic atmos physics, we get about 1.1degC/ Doubling. That IS about the observed amount of warming !!! Far below the estimates involving the "magic multipliers" of climate sensitivity numbers and speculated "positive feedbacks".. And the NEXT doubling -- to get the NEXT degree due to whatever cause would be at 1160ppm. When do you think we'd likely hit that mark??

You missed the point.. You are reading way too much into my post. I was not claiming what doubling might do or that there are not seasonal or positional dependencies, nor "magic multipliers"

I was just puzzled why there is such a large rise in CO2 from 1750 levels when man's contribution is presumably 2.5% per year. Do you have an explanation?

Your problem is the temporal resolution of the proxies. Most cant see changes in under 150 years. Our current rise in the last 50 years is to small to see if we use the average of the 150 year span. Several studies have shown there have been rises and falls in CO2 of 75ppm to 125 ppm in short spans of just 75 years. Again to short a span to be seen in proxies and reconstructions, but they do exist and indicate that our current rise is not outside of normal cyclical variations.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The evidence for WHAT? That we've had a tiny 0.5DegC blip in temperature in your lifetime? WE ALL agree to that. It happened. The scientific debate is whether this is unusual (it is not) and what fraction of that warming MIGHT be due to man's emissions, and how hot it MIGHT get in the next 50 years.

Want to tackle those REAL issues? Or are you stuck on what the questions actually are?

Since we ALL (well, maybe not all given the imbecility of some) AGREE that regardless of the "level" we ARE poisoning our planet's atmosphere, then the real argument is at what level is the poisoning lethal and irreversible?

Well --- I suddenly like you better.. THOSE are the issues that are NOT settled. And the only relevent evidence would be directed to THOSE questions. Am I denier because I believe that man's emissions have been severely OVER rated and the general ignorance of climate system as a whole has caused an UNDER estimation of natural effects and cycles.??

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

For instance -- man gets charged for domestic cattle (a big source) when actually the number of deer and buffalo roaming the planet was MUCH higher before domesticated farming. We also get charged for forest fires, land use, and host of other questionable book-keeping. I dont' deny that CO2 is rising. But increasing temps by themselves cause CO2 to naturally rise. So -- if ya calm down -- look at the simple ass assertions that are being made in GW theory -- it would be a better investment in understanding the questions --- rather than turning this into an Inquisition where NOBODY is allowed to voice an opinion because a whole colony of propaganda knumbed drones is claiming the settled and the debate is over.

Academics are being investigated McCarthy style. French weathermasters are being disciplined by their employer for writing a book, Colleagues are being black-balled and banned from publications --- And i get up every morning and hear 2 armies of droids arguing about everything but the FACTS and the SCIENCE?

Not funny -- GW movement is the biggest perversion of independent science since the birth of nuclear science and all the secrecy and political motives associated with that. Wake up...

We NEED DEBATE.. We need open communications and less threats and political involvement.. There's a HUGE mountain of propaganda that has been generated to support this farce. Time to cut it down..

Good point I remember reading their was so much Damn buffalo a Damn heard would cover an entire state..let me see if I can find it....

The great American bison | Need to Know | PBS

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are you aware that the oceans and land emit 20 TIMES MORE CO2 every year than man does? It's all a natural cycle of CO2.. Of the 5% charged to man --- this carbon cycle SINKS about 1/2 of man's emissions of CO2 into the oceans and forests.. Leaving about 2.5% of the CO2 to be even CHARGED to mankind. And a lot of that is BS.

There are still two flaws in the "denier's" argument.....

First, we can't simply state that since the ocean emits a larger amount than man, then we simply throw our hands up and give up....It is tantamount to my NOT picking up for recycling an empty plastic bottle, surmising that China or India is a much bigger polluter.

Second, there is a HUGE industry just waiting to be exploited in reversing the percentage of man's pollution to more than mitigate what we've done since the industrial revolution.

I see your problem you want to equate pollution = man made climate change.

What does eroision of top soil have to do with climate change? Or deforestation?

You have an alarmist agenda and using natural climate change as a crutch to fear monger... That's your ideology.

 

[Old Rocks]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

 

[Billy_Bob]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

When the empirical evidence says your wrong you appeal to failed authority figures and political whores.. Never a dull moment in warmist'a fantasy land...

 

[flacaltenn]

Among your problems is the fact that it isn't Sean Hannity....

...it's Freeman Dyson

Freeman John Dyson...]theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work inquantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."
Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always found interesting that GW deniers are, for the most part, basing their "belief" MORE on political leanings and LESS on the available science.

Like a drowning person, GW deniers will cling to ANYTHING (such as one out of thousands of other scientists) that supports their mantra,

In a recent Dyson interview on his GW skepticism, the interviewer stated: "Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as [Dyson himself acknowledged] he could be dead wrong."

OK retard...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

SO tell us how you ascertained that CO2 was was causing warming, catastrophic warming... The empirical evidence calls you a liar who has no empirical facts.

The "20 Year Temperature Changes" effectively REMOVES any linear trend from the data.. Only thing it's good for is for highlight any HIGHER ORDER (acceleration, jerk, = 2nd derivative, 3rd derivative terms) . So it's purpose in life was to look at ACCELERATED warming. It is interesting tho -- that when you remove the linear trend -- there's a good 0.3 to 0.5deg of fluctuations and "noise" on the actual signature for a warming trend of about 0.8degC..

 

[flacaltenn]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

That's because they never ASKED their members for opinions.. And in the cases where they HAVE --- there's been A LOT of debate and lack of consensus. Austr. Geophysical Soc. and the AMS --- look it up..

Those are NOT the opinions of their membership. They are a socio-political policy statement intended to please the sponsors of their members' work..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Among your problems is the fact that it isn't Sean Hannity....

...it's Freeman Dyson

Freeman John Dyson...]theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work inquantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists."
Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always found interesting that GW deniers are, for the most part, basing their "belief" MORE on political leanings and LESS on the available science.

Like a drowning person, GW deniers will cling to ANYTHING (such as one out of thousands of other scientists) that supports their mantra,

In a recent Dyson interview on his GW skepticism, the interviewer stated: "Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as [Dyson himself acknowledged] he could be dead wrong."

OK retard...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

SO tell us how you ascertained that CO2 was was causing warming, catastrophic warming... The empirical evidence calls you a liar who has no empirical facts.

The "20 Year Temperature Changes" effectively REMOVES any linear trend from the data.. Only thing it's good for is for highlight any HIGHER ORDER (acceleration, jerk, = 2nd derivative, 3rd derivative terms) . So it's purpose in life was to look at ACCELERATED warming. It is interesting tho -- that when you remove the linear trend -- there's a good 0.3 to 0.5deg of fluctuations and "noise" on the actual signature for a warming trend of about 0.8degC..

What I find mildly amusing is when I give out hard empirically observed evidence like this, they dont have an answer or they can't refute the evidence and never return. Simply using very basic science (7th grade science) skills, easily demonstrates AGW, or more precisely, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as a theory, false.

What scares me is how many still believe that it is true. Proof that our school systems, in teaching basic science, that is not politicized is a failure

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy, there is no evidence in any of your posts that you have even taken basic coursed in high school, let alone university level courses.

 

[Old Rocks]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

That's because they never ASKED their members for opinions.. And in the cases where they HAVE --- there's been A LOT of debate and lack of consensus. Austr. Geophysical Soc. and the AMS --- look it up..

Those are NOT the opinions of their membership. They are a socio-political policy statement intended to please the sponsors of their members' work..

Now Flacaltenn, that is truly humorous, you see, some of the primary supporters of the Geological Society of America are the oil companies. Yet the GSA statement on global warming is unequivocal in stating that it is happening, and that we are the primary cause.

 

[flacaltenn]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

That's because they never ASKED their members for opinions.. And in the cases where they HAVE --- there's been A LOT of debate and lack of consensus. Austr. Geophysical Soc. and the AMS --- look it up..

Those are NOT the opinions of their membership. They are a socio-political policy statement intended to please the sponsors of their members' work..

Now Flacaltenn, that is truly humorous, you see, some of the primary supporters of the Geological Society of America are the oil companies. Yet the GSA statement on global warming is unequivocal in stating that it is happening, and that we are the primary cause.

So what are saying here? That the front office endorsement is tainted and you shouldn't be using it because many members end up working in fossil companies? Or that you'll take the endorsement even if it's tainted by oil employees? Or that all geologists who have EVER worked for an oil company are BAD scientists?

How the **** did they get a job?

 

[jc456]

All that flap-yap to say absolutely nothing. Bear.

There is not one Scientific Society, not one Academy of Science, not one major University that has a policy statement denying AGW. You silly deniers just keep getting more shrill as each year passes and the evidence mounts that we are creating some real problems for ourselves.

That's because they never ASKED their members for opinions.. And in the cases where they HAVE --- there's been A LOT of debate and lack of consensus. Austr. Geophysical Soc. and the AMS --- look it up..

Those are NOT the opinions of their membership. They are a socio-political policy statement intended to please the sponsors of their members' work..

Now Flacaltenn, that is truly humorous, you see, some of the primary supporters of the Geological Society of America are the oil companies. Yet the GSA statement on global warming is unequivocal in stating that it is happening, and that we are the primary cause.

so then I don't get your hatred at the oil companies? Sounds contradictory.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, there is no evidence in any of your posts that you have even taken basic coursed in high school, let alone university level courses.

There is no evidence in your posts that you have any education whatsoever.. How was kindergarten today?