Global Warmers Stopped by Arctic Ice

[flacaltenn]

If you ask, without insulting, I can tell.

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

So what degree F is all of that?

I leave that to you for "extra credit". Thought you took physics... Or 10th grade math... Or knew how to call up an I-net calculator... NONE of those 3 JC???? Damn...

 

[jc456]

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

So what degree F is all of that?

I leave that to you for "extra credit". Thought you took physics... Or 10th grade math... Or knew how to call up an I-net calculator... NONE of those 3 JC???? Damn...

so you can't give me the temperature in degree F I see. BTW, the question has always been temperature not energy. Degrees F. Hottest evah shit.

One last thing, you did see the experiment I posted on CO2 causing cooling not warming right?

 

[flacaltenn]

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

So what degree F is all of that?

I leave that to you for "extra credit". Thought you took physics... Or 10th grade math... Or knew how to call up an I-net calculator... NONE of those 3 JC???? Damn...

so you can't give me the temperature in degree F I see.

9/5ths of the Cent. Value. Geeeez................

 

[jc456]

Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type? It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..

well my position is that CO2 does absolutely nothing to temperatures. In fact, there has never been one experiment that shows it does. ZERO. So 20 PPM or 400 PPM the temperature is the same. Now, I will say to those who argue differently, to put up or shut up. Show me an experiment that shows CO2 will increase temperatures. Just one!!!!! four years on here now, still zip. you post some cockamamie formula and yet you can't prove it.

Look up Diurnal Bulge.

 

[flacaltenn]

You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos.

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type? It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..

well my position is that CO2 does absolutely nothing to temperatures. In fact, there has never been one experiment that shows it does. ZERO. So 20 PPM or 400 PPM the temperature is the same. Now, I will say to those who argue differently, to put up or shut up. Show me an experiment that shows CO2 will increase temperatures. Just one!!!!! four years on here now, still zip. you post some cockamamie formula and yet you can't prove it.

Then you are a bigger denier than I am. In fact, I'm a skeptic and your position puts you on the special bus. Since you reject the GreenHouse Laws and basic physics and chemistry..

 

[jc456]

Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type? It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..

well my position is that CO2 does absolutely nothing to temperatures. In fact, there has never been one experiment that shows it does. ZERO. So 20 PPM or 400 PPM the temperature is the same. Now, I will say to those who argue differently, to put up or shut up. Show me an experiment that shows CO2 will increase temperatures. Just one!!!!! four years on here now, still zip. you post some cockamamie formula and yet you can't prove it.

Then you are a bigger denier than I am. In fact, I'm a skeptic and your position puts you on the special bus. Since you reject the GreenHouse Laws and basic physics and chemistry..

I do because it's never been tested. And for you, if you believe in the greenhouse gas crap, then how can you not say increasing CO2 doesn't warm the planet? you're playing both sides of the page. How is that?

And that is just a hypothesis based on a formula, never proven. how is it you believe in it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ----

Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2. Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming.

It's not magic. It's science.

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.

so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims. The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.

You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type? It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..

well my position is that CO2 does absolutely nothing to temperatures. In fact, there has never been one experiment that shows it does. ZERO. So 20 PPM or 400 PPM the temperature is the same. Now, I will say to those who argue differently, to put up or shut up. Show me an experiment that shows CO2 will increase temperatures. Just one!!!!! four years on here now, still zip. you post some cockamamie formula and yet you can't prove it.

Then you are a bigger denier than I am. In fact, I'm a skeptic and your position puts you on the special bus. Since you reject the GreenHouse Laws and basic physics and chemistry..

I do because it's never been tested. And for you, if you believe in the greenhouse gas crap, then how can you not say increasing CO2 doesn't warm the planet? you're playing both sides of the page. How is that?

And that is just a hypothesis based on a formula, never proven. how is it you believe in it?

You'd never be able to land a space probe on a comet if you need to "test it" in order to figure out the guidance profile.

 

[jc456]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

 

[westwall]

The Gore Effect Strikes Again

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge team is not the first global warming expedition to be faced with icy troubles. In 2013, an Antarctic research vessel named Akademik Shokalskiy became trapped in the ice, the problem was so severe that they actually had to rescue the 52 crew members.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice

Your logic is funny.

Nothing states that there should be no ice there. You just wish it to be so.

No? Your hero's have been bleating about an ice free Arctic for years now.... Below is just one of hundreds of hysterical reports that the Arctic will be ice free. Most recently the Siearra Club was breathlessly telling me that it would be ice free by 2013. How did that work out?

"The set-up for this summer is disturbing," says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season.
North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008

 

[westwall]

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

You are right and wrong....but mostly wrong. The reason venus is so much hotter than earth is that its' atmosphere is over 90 times more dense than ours....if you travel up into the atmosphere, however, and measure the temperature at a height where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...and compensate for the difference in incoming radiation because the planet is closer to the sun than us you will find that the temperature is about the same as here on earth despite the fact that the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

If the atmosphere of venus were 90+ times more dense than the earth and comprised mostly of non so called greenhouse gasses like nitrogen and oxygen, the surface of the planet would be even hotter. It isn't rocket science. If the atmosphere of venus were composed of nearly all non radiative gasses, the planet would have to depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere. It is just silly to believe that radiative gasses inhibit a planet's atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.

Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?

Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?

Venus, if it had exactly the same atmosphere as Earth would be hotter, simply because it's closer to the sun.

However, Venus is still hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse gases it contains. 90+time more oxygen would be 90+ times more and this also causes issue, however that doesn't mean that if Venus was 90 time more dense than Earth with the same gas make up of Earth, that Venus would be hotter than it is.

However, the person I was speaking to who has been going on about how we can't prove the greenhouse effect, hasn't replied yet, hmmm....

Dense means it weighs more. Using Venus as your analog only shows how little you know about science dude. Just sayin...

 

[Lewdog]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

 

[jc456]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

 

[westwall]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

 

[Lewdog]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

 

[mamooth]

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.

 

[westwall]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

 

[westwall]

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.

 

[Lewdog]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

 

[westwall]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

 

[mamooth]

Westwall, Cryosphere Today hasn't updated their maps for months, due to a sensor failure in the satellite they used.

So, you looked at that map that showed most of the Arctic frozen, maybe a late May type situation, and you said "yep, that's what the Arctic looks like in mid-August!". Anybody with basic understanding of climate science would know that Hudson Bay shouldn't be frozen solid in mid-August. Even if the date on it was totally wrong, you should have known better.

Here's what the arctic looks like now.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.