jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,699
- 34,707
- 2,180
Him saying the ice sheet is collapsingThanks for the warning ... I'll mind my resolve ... the OP starts with a lie ... what gives? ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Him saying the ice sheet is collapsingThanks for the warning ... I'll mind my resolve ... the OP starts with a lie ... what gives? ...
You have NOT shown that these data are incorrect.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...
I have been doing climate research for over ten years. Your pointed attacks on my character are baseless.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.
LOL... I dont know if its science, but it might be to make a failed model look like its science.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.![]()
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.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?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?
As Crick has no idea what is normal, let me help...What is normal?
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.
dude, that's been the ask since the day I joined this board. still crickets.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 ...
A recent study find the following climate tipping points nearing certainty.
View attachment 693962
![]()
World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points, study finds
Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible changewww.theguardian.com
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?
dude, that's been the ask since the day I joined this board. still crickets.
Keep crying wolf though.
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.Because it doesn't exist ... because CO2 doesn't have extraordinary reactivity ...
Look around you, how has climate changed? ...
The ocean temperatures have fallen -0.02 deg C in two years.
It's called an interglacial cycle.A recent study find the following climate tipping points nearing certainty.
View attachment 693962
![]()
World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points, study finds
Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible changewww.theguardian.com
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?
AmenAs 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.
As Crick has no idea what is normal, let me help...
Him saying the ice sheet is collapsing
Because it doesn't exist ... because CO2 doesn't have extraordinary reactivity ...