Greenland Melt

[CrusaderFrank]

It's frightening how the Warmer Cult operates. There's not a shred of science on their sides, just some faked data and people getting paid to say "CONSENSUS!!" and that's what they try to pass off as science

 

[Kosh]

So I post real data on sea level, and Kosh just handwaves it away. Poor addled Kosh could not have illustrated any better what a brainwashed cultist he is. That's why we call them deniers, because they auto-deny any data that contradicts their cult's d6ogma.

Seriously Kosh, your fellow cultists all know by now what a loyal cultist you are. You don't have to keep proving it by digging your head even deeper into the sand. Closing your eyes and covering your ears will be quite sufficient to keep out that annoying real world.

Now, you won't convince anyone you're not a brainless parrot by doing all those cut-and-pastes concerning topics that you clearly don't understand yourself. If you understood them, you'd know why you cult website has failed so very badly at the science.

We could try to tell you where you're screwing up, but frankly, it's a waste of time, as you lack the brainpower necessary to understand. And there's no shame in that, as long as you understand what you don't understand. That's why I don't lecture brain surgeons on how to do brain surgery. What you're doing essentially is lecturing brain surgeons on how to do brain surgery.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

Doesn't mean anything.

Analogous process is unemployment. Each month the change in employment is published. The actual number of people that became unemployeed is ten times as many. And the number of people that got jobs is ten times as well. It isn' t important. What is important is the difference between the two.

Same with body temperature. Normal is 98.6. If you have a temp of 100.4. Gosh, that's only 2.8%

See the problem? You don't know the difference between the numbers and what is being measured.

If your not clear on this, you can experiment by eating rat poison. Just 2 or 3% of your body weight.

Come back when you are done.

Then we can discuss why your IQ that is 3% below normal is significant

So in other words you have no science to back up your AGW religion.

As always when faced with the real science the AGW cult clings to the AGW scripture.

More proof that the AGW cult are the true deniers, they deny real science.

 

[Crick]

And you ignore the fact that at a concentration of 200ppm or less NOTHING grows on this planet.

He has ignored nothing. The point is irrelevant to this discussion. It is an obvious red herring on your part.

CO2 is essential to life on this planet and to date you have failed to show that CO2 drives climate.

CO2 has been very thoroughly demonstrated to affect climate.

In fact all empirical data shows the exact opposite.

This statement is either blithering ignorance or a bald-faced lie. Take your pick.

You don't even have correlation to fall back on. That train left the station 17 years ago.

Ditto.

 

[westwall]

And you ignore the fact that at a concentration of 200ppm or less NOTHING grows on this planet.

He has ignored nothing. The point is irrelevant to this discussion. It is an obvious red herring on your part.

CO2 is essential to life on this planet and to date you have failed to show that CO2 drives climate.

CO2 has been very thoroughly demonstrated to affect climate.

In fact all empirical data shows the exact opposite.

This statement is either blithering ignorance or a bald-faced lie. Take your pick.

You don't even have correlation to fall back on. That train left the station 17 years ago.

Ditto.

No it hasn't. The opposite has been shown to be true. It got really warm 800 years ago, and the empirical evidence we have, says that the current rise in CO2 levels is directly attributable to that event.

Records going back 600,000 years show that first warming occurs and THEN, and only then, CO2 levels rise after hundreds of years. You are quite simply, unsurprisingly, wrong.

 

[Crick]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

Who the **** cares, sOn?! What effect does the CO2 have on climate, I mean besides NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.

Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'

 

[Crick]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.

Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'

REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells? How about fossil fuel bookkeeping?
************************************************************************************************
Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

[ Schimel et al., Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Section 2.1.3: Concentration Projections and Stabilisation Calculations, p. 82 (and pp. 76–86 generally) in IPCC SAR WG1 1996.]

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only way to stop ManMade Global Warming is to give your banking account information to the attorney for the Nigerian Finance Minister; the attorney claims he has Consensus

 

[mamooth]

dude, I already pointed out you're fear mongering is a 2 and 3/4 inches rise over 23 years and 25/32'nd rise since 2008.

And I was kind enough to ignore that bit of stupidity on your part, being I'd grown bored with embarrassing you. You should have thanked me.

Your numbers are close, but your conclusion is just plain dumb. Pointing out that a 3.3mm / year rise doesn't add up to a lot over a few years does not in any way refute the fact that an accelerating rate of sea level adds up to a large amount of sea level rise over a century.

If you can't grasp a point that simple, you're out of luck, because I can't dumb it down any further.

And by the way, your obsessive vendetta against me probably won't end well. It never ends well for the crazies who choose that path. They almost always self-destruct in very amusing ways.

 

[Kosh]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.

Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'

REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells? How about fossil fuel bookkeeping?
************************************************************************************************
Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

[ Schimel et al., Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Section 2.1.3: Concentration Projections and Stabilisation Calculations, p. 82 (and pp. 76–86 generally) in IPCC SAR WG1 1996.]

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

So nothing with datasets and source code to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

And of course as we can see through actual real science that CO2 does not drive climate, never has. The AGW cult is still following a religious belief, especially when they push out hockey sticks as their "proof".

 

[Ernie S.]

How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?

The Gore hast spake unto them.

 

[Crick]

How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?

How did you get fooled into believing you could tell the difference or that ANYONE would care IN THE SLIGHTEST what your opinion might be?

 

[Kosh]

How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?

How did you get fooled into believing you could tell the difference or that ANYONE would care IN THE SLIGHTEST what your opinion might be?

In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results.

Two Canadian scientists found out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach. They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even if they inputted a completely random data set. The curve was a function of the statistics used, and had nothing to do with reality. When the Canadian scientists applied the correct statistics, out popped the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum (see above). Worse, a scandal at Great Britain's Climate Research Unit in the late fall of 2009 revealed that the data used in the graph after 1960 was from a totally different and completely corrupted data set. Even if the second data set was not corrupted, combining two radically different data sets (apples and oranges) into one graph negates its scientific validity. Although the Hockey Stick Curve was thoroughly discredited, it continued to be used in publications and media reports for years, and was a main component of Al Gore's video The Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode is that even after having his error exposed, Dr. Michael Mann is still a principal scientist in the IPCC and receives millions of dollars from the US government. Tragically, this kind of slipshod research has also been discovered coming out of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the finding that NASA's temperature data was in error in 2007, other errors are being reported.

 

[westwall]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.

Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'

REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells? How about fossil fuel bookkeeping?
************************************************************************************************
Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.

[ Schimel et al., Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Section 2.1.3: Concentration Projections and Stabilisation Calculations, p. 82 (and pp. 76–86 generally) in IPCC SAR WG1 1996.]

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Correlation does not equal CAUSATION. You had correlation of increasing CO2 levels and warmth up until 17 years ago. Then THAT STOPPED. Thus you no longer can even point to correlation as a foundation for your failed theory.

Get it? Even a science denier like you should be able to see that. But, as you are merely a propagandist and political operative I know that there is no amount of evidence that will alter your BS viewpoint....because your BS viewpoint isn't yours. It belongs to your masters.

 

[Kosh]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?

How did you get fooled into believing you could tell the difference or that ANYONE would care IN THE SLIGHTEST what your opinion might be?

I'm all hurt now.

Boo Hoo.

Let's see how can I make myself feel better?

I Know! I'll ask the AGWCult to show their Lab work!

Crick, remember that experiment you keep telling us about, the one that shows a 100PPM increase in CO2 raising temperature and lowering ocean pH. You gonna post it for us?

 

[mamooth]

REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells?

Correlation does not equal CAUSATION.

Ah, another fine example of the Westwall two-step.

That is, Westwall knows the data -- in this case, the isotopic analysis -- says he's full of shit. Hence, he attempts to switch the topic to something completely different, in this case "correlation does not equal causation", something that has zilch to do with isotopic analysis.

And then that's followed up by Kosh and Frank doing their cult parrot routines. Same old same old. It would only be unusual if they weren't cult parrots.

 

[Kosh]

REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells?

Correlation does not equal CAUSATION.

Ah, another fine example of the Westwall two-step.

That is, Westwall knows the data -- in this case, the isotopic analysis -- says he's full of shit. Hence, he attempts to switch the topic to something completely different, in this case "correlation does not equal causation", something that has zilch to do with isotopic analysis.

And then that's followed up by Kosh and Frank doing their cult parrot routines. Same old same old. It would only be unusual if they weren't cult parrots.

A 2009 paper (Adrian Kerton: “Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection”, Energy & Environment, Vol 20, 2009 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00005] states: “Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate.” The following figure is from that paper, comparing normalized NMP location in terms of latitude and longitude with normalized northern hemisphere temperature anomalies.


This "correlations" has more validity than the CO2 farce that the AGW cult is pushing!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?

Incredible.

Please explain to me how temperature can possibly decrease in an increasing CO2 environment. According to your "Theory" that should be physically impossible