Climate Change Deniers Debunked

[jc456]

Nope, nothing to worry about, everything is just fine.

too funny, dude really, that really makes me laugh. hahhahahahahahahhaa just in case your naive brain didn't capture the jest of you making up floods and Antarctic shelf and all.

BTW, when did that flood occur this year?

Limited mentalities are often easily amused.

when will you get there?

 

[Liminal]

Deniers hate context.

 

[jc456]

Deniers hate context.

andy from Mayberry!

 

[Liminal]

Maybe we should see what an actual scientist has to say about it.

 

[jc456]

Maybe we should see what an actual scientist has to say about it.

still waiting for a real scientist.

 

[Liminal]

I wonder how many real scientists we can find to debunk climate change denial.

 

[jc456]

I wonder how many real scientists we can find to debunk climate change denial.

garbage, don't you have a can you can throw your pretend scientists crap in?

 

[jc456]

what a non scientist can do to one:

Thank you Joanne Nova:
Great Debate Part III IV Glikson accidentally vindicates the skeptics JoNova

Depending on flawed models

by Joanne Nova

May 11, 2010

For a sentence, I almost think Dr Glikson gets it. Yes, it’s a quantitative question: Will we warm by half a measly degree or 3.5 degrees? It’s not about the direct CO2 effect (all of one paltry degree by itself), it’s the feedbacks—the humidity, clouds, lapse rates and other factors that amplify (or not) the initial minor effect of carbon.

Decades ago, the catastrophe-crowd made guesses about the feedbacks—but they were wrong. Instead of amplifying carbon’s effect two-fold (or more!) the feedbacks dampen it.

Dr Glikson has no reply. He makes no comment at all about Lindzen [1], Spencer[2] or Douglass[3] and their three peer reviewed, independent, empirical papers showing that the climate models are exaggerating the warming by a factor of six. (Six!) He’s probably unaware that the assumptions about positive feedback are wrong, and all the portents of disaster were built upon those guesses. Everything else is just an error cascade flowing from a base assumption that is implicit and essential (and wrong). Don’t expect the IPCC to explain it in an easy-to-read brochure though.

 

[Liminal]

So many scientists and so little time.....

 

[Liminal]

To debunk, or not to debunk? That is the question.....

 

[jc456]

To debunk, or not to debunk? That is the question.....

which you can't isn't that obvious? Oh no not for you, you are guy with no evidence and plenty of faith. Antarctic isn't growing ice, and I showed you it is. hmmmm not very reliable in your OP none the less, and then you wish to continue the antics and continue to barrel roll. Pilots bail out by now pal!!!! Open your chute

BTW, maybe you can find Barney after you land.

 

[Liminal]

We can learn so much from science.

 

[mamooth]

More to the point in your recent postings- your claim that sea surface temps have been adjusted up is a none starter. We have practically no information on ocean temps in the past, especially far past. Replacing one guess for another doesn't mean much.

More to the point is that you keep using that red herring to evade the issue about how your conspiracy theory makes no sense.

From the POV of evaluating your conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter if the past sea temperature adjustments are valid or not. It just matters that they are the adjustments that get used to calculate a global average, and that they make the warming look smaller.

Your conspiracy theory says scientists are deliberately adjusting the data for nefarious purposes. So can you explain why scientists would be adjusting the data to make the warming look smaller?

I imagine you can't. Or, more correctly, you won't. Without your conspiracy theory, you have nothing to talk about, so you're not going to admit it makes no sense.

 

[Liminal]

To debunk, or not to debunk? That is the question.....

which you can't isn't that obvious? Oh no not for you, you are guy with no evidence and plenty of faith. Antarctic isn't growing ice, and I showed you it is. hmmmm not very reliable in your OP none the less, and then you wish to continue the antics and continue to barrel roll. Pilots bail out by now pal!!!! Open your chute

BTW, maybe you can find Barney after you land.

 

[edthecynic]

Land only temps are massively adjusted to increase the trend. Lowering past readings may not seem like adding to the increase but it does.

Now hold on just a minute there Slick!
You keep saying the land temps are high due to the UHI effect and they should be removed from the past data as the poorly sited stations are found, but now you are claiming foul when removing the high UHI data lowers the past data, and worse yet you are making false accusations or at least implying a conspiracy is afoot!!!

 

[PredFan]

24 pages and the OP still fails to debunk anything.

 

[eagle1462010]

If Ian doesn't don't like some data -- which would be nearly all the data now, being nearly all the data contradicts him -- he simply declares it's part of the conspiracy. He devolution to conspiracy cultist is complete.

As far as satellite temperature data goes, Carl Mears, the lead scientist for the RSS data set (the one so beloved by deniers), says that the surface data sets are more accurate,

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures Remote Sensing Systems

---
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).
---

and that satellite data sets shouldn't be used to discuss climate.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

The surface data is better. It measures surface temperature directly instead of upper troposphere temperature, and it's far less twiddled and adjusted than satellite data. If you see someone using satellite data instead of surface data, you know you're looking at a fraud. Naturally, every denier relies solely on the satellite data.

Global Temperature Report UAHuntsville
In cooperation with NASA and NOAA, who have screwed data as well have been studying and reporting Satellite temperatures since 1979...........Via Satellite..........

On this thread or another........I reported how one of the frauds was using 1 surface temperature monitoring device for 12,000 square miles of surface temperatures.............

So...........let's guess the rest of the temps for the 12,000 square miles.......or use Satellite data imaging................

And you have called NASA and NOAA frauds as well as they are involved in the studies..................LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04...ade-you-that-man-made-climate-change-is-real/

I just found out that Ron Bailey at Reason.com published an article a few days ago entitled, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view. Now, maybe he is addressing people who deny any human involvement in global warming. His article is vague, and maybe he can clarify his intent for us.

The second problem I have is with Ron’s list of a variety of evidences of global-average warming, which (again) no skeptic worth their salt disputes. The science dispute is over how much of the warming is manmade versus natural. Like too many others, Ron conflates climate change with human-caused climate change, which are not the same thing.

Regarding his list, he seems to believe they are independent evidences of manmade warming. Wrong. To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.

These things would all occur together anyway, no matter the cause of the warming, Ron. And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.

 

[eagle1462010]

My Global Warming Skepticism for Dummies Roy Spencer PhD.

Concluding Remarks

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″.

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet only the adjusted data sets show warming... If you take the raw data and analyze it we have been cooling since the mid 1970's

Whom to believe.. Data manipulators and activists or the raw unaltered data....???

Again there has been no warming for over 18 years 6 months..

And the satellite Data confirms it.

View attachment 41608

A perfect example of how the deniers LIE!
They lie that we have been cooling since the 1970s and then compound that lie by lying that the satellite data "confirms" it, but only post cherry picked data starting 2001, not the mid 1970s because they know they are lying. Deniers are premeditated liars!

There is not one single satellite data set, raw or otherwise, starting in the 1970s that shows cooling!

The reality is there has been no statistically significant global cooling for 115 years and 5 months.

AND as expected the adulterated data and manipulated crap is spewed as truth..

Nothing to worry about then, everything is just fine.

LOL He cites Mann's work as proof... and narrowly identifies small areas while ignoring areas that are growing...

The Desperation... Is breathtaking..