Global warming tipping points

[jc456]

Thanks for the warning ... I'll mind my resolve ... the OP starts with a lie ... what gives? ...

Him saying the ice sheet is collapsing

 

[Crick]

Crick, every one of those data sets has been manipulated. You have been shown over and over again how and why they do it. Not going to waste my time further with you...

You have NOT shown that these data are incorrect.

Current temperatures in the North Pacific and Atlantic are 2 to 5C higher than normal.

An intense marine heat wave is setting ocean temperature records in the North Atlantic

As climate change causes the pace of warming to accelerate, scientists are concerned about the potential consequences for marine ecosystems, sea-level rise and extreme weather.

www.nbcnews.com

I shouldn't waste my time with you because everything you post here is nothing but a steaming, reeking pile of shit. But I need to make certain that everyone else knows that. So, what was the topic of your doctoral thesis? Did it involve the equivalency of gravity and magnetism? Have you managed to convince scientists worldwide that there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect? What exactly ARE you doing with all that advanced learning you've tucked under your belt?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Look, I don't dare argue with a brilliant mind with the name "Billy Bob" but the manipulation of data is WAAAY beyond your understanding.

Let someone who has spent an entire career dealing with data explain to you that:

1. Nothing has been manipulated to force a false conclusion

2. Any manipulation was done to ensure the data was not biased (you wouldn't understand the math if it was shown you so I won't bother)

3. If you, in all your GED brilliance can find a flaw in the actual data and show us how it has been fraudulently manipulated you will probably be extremely famous. But you can't because YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND EVEN THE SIMPLE BASIC STUFF IN THIS TOPIC. You are, like most on here, an idiot. Just a regular guy. Sure, you may know all about your F150's engine, but you don't know this and you don't understand how data is processed.

Basically: you are an idiot who THINKS he's smarter than the experts.

That's how we know you are an idiot.

I have been doing climate research for over ten years. Your pointed attacks on my character are baseless.

Please explain the base hypothesis of AGW. When you fail at this very base line concept grasp it will be painfully obvious that you have no clue. I love your claim that I do not know the basics, yet you have not demonstrated even a cursory knowledge of the hypothesis.

You scream, rant and rave all while showing you do not grasp even the basics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. Then you scream that the "government scientists" know best when they have deliberately changed all of the data sets over 90 times in the last thirty years. NOAA and the NWS has been caught doing it over and over again. East Anglia was caught deleting the core EMPERICAL set of data for the "new model driven" one. No REPUTABLE scientist EVER deletes data, EVER. Then they hide their work and demand that you obey.

All of the data sets Crick put forth have been manipulated. I can pull papers from thirty years ago showing the base line data sets and compare them to today's data sets. They do not match, at all. There are shifts of over 2 deg C in these data sets. The data sets are so badly corrupted you can't even get a cursory agreement with some of the best proxy data sets we have; the Greenland Ice Cores is a good example. I can take the 1980 verson of the Earth temperature data and it correlates very well with Ice cores. Today the error bars are +/- 2 deg C to make them fit. The only thing that fits better are the failed models that exaggerate the warming by no less than a factor of ten. Now why would that be?

The manipulated temperature record is so corrupt we can no longer use them. FULL STOP!

Now let's start with the basics, shall we? tell me what the hypothesis is, what parts of it we agree on and what parts we do not agree on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are plenty of good reasons to change actual temperature measurements from 100-140 years ago. Especially when you have the science on your side.

LOL... I dont know if its science, but it might be to make a failed model look like its science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL... I dont know if its science, but it might be to make a failed model look like its science.

If you're a Nobel Prize winner like Michael Mann, you're allowed to molest the data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have NOT shown that these data are incorrect.

Current temperatures in the North Pacific and Atlantic are 2 to 5C higher than normal.

An intense marine heat wave is setting ocean temperature records in the North Atlantic

As climate change causes the pace of warming to accelerate, scientists are concerned about the potential consequences for marine ecosystems, sea-level rise and extreme weather.

www.nbcnews.com

I shouldn't waste my time with you because everything you post here is nothing but a steaming, reeking pile of shit. But I need to make certain that everyone else knows that. So, what was the topic of your doctoral thesis? Did it involve the equivalency of gravity and magnetism? Have you managed to convince scientists worldwide that there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect? What exactly ARE you doing with all that advanced learning you've tucked under your belt?

Crick, not going to continue the circle jerk.. You do not accept that the data has been manipulated even though I have pulled papers from 1980 and recent showing the disparity between them. Hell, I even took Michael Manns own paper and the data set he used and compared it to today and you still denied it. Others like Sunsettommy have done the same for you and you deny it.

Without a desire to learn you are nothing more than a propogandist.

NO the sea surface temperatures are not rising. Argo has shown that we have cooled 0.02 deg C below 300 feet in the last 9 years. The surface temperatures of the oceans have decreased almost a full 4 degrees C in the last 9 years as well.

Good Luck... What's coming is going to finish off the failed AGW hypothesis. Natural variation is about to kick you in the ass.

 

[jc456]

You have NOT shown that these data are incorrect.

Current temperatures in the North Pacific and Atlantic are 2 to 5C higher than normal.

An intense marine heat wave is setting ocean temperature records in the North Atlantic

As climate change causes the pace of warming to accelerate, scientists are concerned about the potential consequences for marine ecosystems, sea-level rise and extreme weather.

www.nbcnews.com

I shouldn't waste my time with you because everything you post here is nothing but a steaming, reeking pile of shit. But I need to make certain that everyone else knows that. So, what was the topic of your doctoral thesis? Did it involve the equivalency of gravity and magnetism? Have you managed to convince scientists worldwide that there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect? What exactly ARE you doing with all that advanced learning you've tucked under your belt?

What is normal?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What is normal?

As Crick has no idea what is normal, let me help...

Normal is defined as the condition in which an object remains most of the time. Its 'normal' state. IF we look at the earth and the paleo record, we will find the state the earth is in most of the time.



Looking at the last 450,000 years the greatest time we spend, as a planet, is about 6 to 8 deg C Cooler than today. Our "Normal" state is in glaciation. Our current Holocene is cooler than previous warm periods have been. But we will soon be returning to 'normal' for the planet earth.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have been doing climate research for over ten years. Your pointed attacks on my character are baseless.

Please explain the base hypothesis of AGW. When you fail at this very base line concept grasp it will be painfully obvious that you have no clue. I love your claim that I do not know the basics, yet you have not demonstrated even a cursory knowledge of the hypothesis.

You scream, rant and rave all while showing you do not grasp even the basics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. Then you scream that the "government scientists" know best when they have deliberately changed all of the data sets over 90 times in the last thirty years. NOAA and the NWS has been caught doing it over and over again. East Anglia was caught deleting the core EMPERICAL set of data for the "new model driven" one. No REPUTABLE scientist EVER deletes data, EVER. Then they hide their work and demand that you obey.

All of the data sets Crick put forth have been manipulated. I can pull papers from thirty years ago showing the base line data sets and compare them to today's data sets. They do not match, at all. There are shifts of over 2 deg C in these data sets. The data sets are so badly corrupted you can't even get a cursory agreement with some of the best proxy data sets we have; the Greenland Ice Cores is a good example. I can take the 1980 verson of the Earth temperature data and it correlates very well with Ice cores. Today the error bars are +/- 2 deg C to make them fit. The only thing that fits better are the failed models that exaggerate the warming by no less than a factor of ten. Now why would that be?

The manipulated temperature record is so corrupt we can no longer use them. FULL STOP!

Now let's start with the basics, shall we? tell me what the hypothesis is, what parts of it we agree on and what parts we do not agree on.

I'll not comment on the attacks on Billy_Bob's character ... [evil grin] ... but I can confirm his knowledge claims in climatology ... he is what he claims to be ... I'm not saying I agree with him always ... just he's right more often than most of you ...

I'll add a few questions for the Hystericals ...

The physics of these matters requires rigid mathematical proof ... or it's conjecture ... so where is the mathematical proof of CO2's extraordinary reactivity in the IR bandwidth? ... start with Planck's Law and work your way up ... the next question is how are we demonstrating this extraordinary reactivity? ... what lab experiment gives us these numbers that are being splashed around? ...

There are counter-examples galore you still have to address ...

 

[jc456]

I'll not comment on the attacks on Billy_Bob's character ... [evil grin] ... but I can confirm his knowledge claims in climatology ... he is what he claims to be ... I'm not saying I agree with him always ... just he's right more often than most of you ...

I'll add a few questions for the Hystericals ...

The physics of these matters requires rigid mathematical proof ... or it's conjecture ... so where is the mathematical proof of CO2's extraordinary reactivity in the IR bandwidth? ... start with Planck's Law and work your way up ... the next question is how are we demonstrating this extraordinary reactivity? ... what lab experiment gives us these numbers that are being splashed around? ...

There are counter-examples galore you still have to address ...

dude, that's been the ask since the day I joined this board. still crickets.

 

[westwall]

A recent study find the following climate tipping points nearing certainty.
View attachment 693962

World on brink of five âdisastrousâ climate tipping points, study finds

Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible change

www.theguardian.com

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

But, of course, none of these actually look threatening, do they. And since this is all based on lies, there is NOTHING to worry about. Right?

How many tipping points have we already passed?

Let's see, I can remember the first one back in the 90's. Then there were a whole bunch of them. Even now king Charles warned us we had 96 hours to save the world!

Oooooops.

Those 96 hours are long gone

Keep crying wolf though. It seems to be all you clowns know how to do.

 

[ReinyDays]

dude, that's been the ask since the day I joined this board. still crickets.

Because it doesn't exist ... because CO2 doesn't have extraordinary reactivity ...

Look around you, how has climate changed? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Keep crying wolf though.

Wolf ...

 

[jc456]

Because it doesn't exist ... because CO2 doesn't have extraordinary reactivity ...

Look around you, how has climate changed? ...

oh, I know that. And you are correct, there isn't any data to support any of it. read my signature line and know that is a demofk.

 

[BlindBoo]

The ocean temperatures have fallen -0.02 deg C in two years.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

www.epa.gov

The tiny downward slope at the very end of their graph is what the .02 represents. BFD.

 

[ding]

A recent study find the following climate tipping points nearing certainty.
View attachment 693962

World on brink of five âdisastrousâ climate tipping points, study finds

Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible change

www.theguardian.com

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

But, of course, none of these actually look threatening, do they. And since this is all based on lies, there is NOTHING to worry about. Right?

It's called an interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

As Crick has no idea what is normal, let me help...

Normal is defined as the condition in which an object remains most of the time. Its 'normal' state. IF we look at the earth and the paleo record, we will find the state the earth is in most of the time.

View attachment 695069

Looking at the last 450,000 years the greatest time we spend, as a planet, is about 6 to 8 deg C Cooler than today. Our "Normal" state is in glaciation. Our current Holocene is cooler than previous warm periods have been. But we will soon be returning to 'normal' for the planet earth.

Amen

 

[ReinyDays]

As Crick has no idea what is normal, let me help...

We can use standard deviation to state what is normal, and anything within 2 deviations should be expected ... especially in meteorological data ... but then we'd have to explain instrumentation error to people who've never taken a science class in high school ... good luck with that ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Him saying the ice sheet is collapsing

The only tipping point I know of is the Elbow-Shoulder-Vertical tipping point when the beer starts sloshing down my throat ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because it doesn't exist ... because CO2 doesn't have extraordinary reactivity ...

In your uneducated point of view what does that sentence mean to you? I'm genuinely curious to see what you think you mean.