Human Caused Global Warming

[mamooth]

Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?

It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.

So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?

 

[Wyld Kard]

Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?

It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.

So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?

do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?

I'm not, however you do. You have aligned yourself with some the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board with regards to global warming / climate change.

Just like the OP, Crick, and Goldierocks, you have faithfully accepted and believe in the lies and misinformation and are trying hard to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.

Is this your weak-assed attempt at a scare tactic?

But it's much too late for you and the other three stooges. You all drank the Kool-aid and didn't look back.

So, make a choice.

I already did long ago. You should've realized that from the posts that I made.

Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?

 

[Crick]

A shame really. So sad... to willfully choose stupid...

 

[Crick]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

Your comment regarding normalization should have been addressed to me. After all the screaming from your side about adjustment made to the US HCN temperature record, you ears should have perked up at the mention of adjustment. As well, you failed to look up detrending. One description is "In most cases, where only a single time series exists to be analysed, the variance of the

's is estimated by fitting a trend, thus allowing

to be subtracted from the data

(thus detrending the data) and leaving the residuals

as the detrended data, and calculating the variance of the

's from the residuals — this is often the only way of estimating the variance of the

's."

Suffice it to say your temperature data were absolutely WORTHLESS as something which could be compared to the data already presented. I did NOT describe the actual global temperatures but was processed to allow an examination of its normalized variance.

 

[Old Rocks]

There have been more than a dozen studies that have confirmed the Hockey Stick graph. And here is another;

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick ThinkProgress

Not that it matters, you political nutters are going to deny this until it becomes so obvious that you can no longer do that, then you are going to blame the scientists for failing to warn you.

 

[jc456]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

jc456,
Statistics has little or nothing to do with it. What matters are the measurements.

Right, that are normalized. Why?

 

[jc456]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

Your comment regarding normalization should have been addressed to me. After all the screaming from your side about adjustment made to the US HCN temperature record, you ears should have perked up at the mention of adjustment. As well, you failed to look up detrending. One description is "In most cases, where only a single time series exists to be analysed, the variance of the

's is estimated by fitting a trend, thus allowing

to be subtracted from the data

(thus detrending the data) and leaving the residuals

as the detrended data, and calculating the variance of the

's from the residuals — this is often the only way of estimating the variance of the

's."

Suffice it to say your temperature data were absolutely WORTHLESS as something which could be compared to the data already presented. I did NOT describe the actual global temperatures but was processed to allow an examination of its normalized variance.

I did earlier. That was a repost.

 

[jc456]

There have been more than a dozen studies that have confirmed the Hockey Stick graph. And here is another;

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick ThinkProgress

Not that it matters, you political nutters are going to deny this until it becomes so obvious that you can no longer do that, then you are going to blame the scientists for failing to warn you.

ding, ding, ding, ding..........Wow and I thought you were without hope.

 

[mamooth]

Is this your weak-assed attempt at a scare tactic?

Yes, in the same way that they take at-risk youth to prisons to scare them straight. I figure if I point to specific examples of what denialism usually leads to, that might scare you straight.

I doubt it will work, though. It rarely does. The lure of the perverted denialist lifestyle is just too strong. It gives those who embrace it the cheap emotional validation that they're hooked on, while removing any need for them to behave rationally. That total abdication of reason which the denier cult allows is irresistible to those who are too lazy to work at thinking.

 

[jc456]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

Your comment regarding normalization should have been addressed to me. After all the screaming from your side about adjustment made to the US HCN temperature record, you ears should have perked up at the mention of adjustment. As well, you failed to look up detrending. One description is "In most cases, where only a single time series exists to be analysed, the variance of the

's is estimated by fitting a trend, thus allowing

to be subtracted from the data

(thus detrending the data) and leaving the residuals

as the detrended data, and calculating the variance of the

's from the residuals — this is often the only way of estimating the variance of the

's."

Suffice it to say your temperature data were absolutely WORTHLESS as something which could be compared to the data already presented. I did NOT describe the actual global temperatures but was processed to allow an examination of its normalized variance.

Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data. 1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average. Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have average monthly data. Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance. We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time. The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them. A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.

 

[Crick]

This coming from the poster (Billy Bob) with the WORST record of providing sources for his data and his claims. You have NEVER provided raw data or methodology for anything you've put up here. And nine times out of ten (or more) you don't provide your sources. Your post above is the most hypocritical piece of shite I've seen in a very long while.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?

It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.

So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?

THIS IS A BADGE OF HONOR!

An Alarmist, who uses no basis in facts for anything it does, throws out ADHOMs like they were candy (ie:the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board) and is totally clueless. I am in awe watching a Moron continue to self destruct.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This coming from the poster (Billy Bob) with the WORST record of providing sources for his data and his claims. You have NEVER provided raw data or methodology for anything you've put up here. And nine times out of ten (or more) you don't provide your sources. Your post above is the most hypocritical piece of shite I've seen in a very long while.

Keep on throwing your shit pellets BOY!

I sent you directly to the Graphing Software and its data sets provided by NOAA, NWS, GISS, among others Who direct access source the data sets.

Your inability to read or do basic science is not my fault...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data. 1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average. Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have average monthly data. Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance. We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time. The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them. A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.

It is used to give the illusion that the spike we see today is somehow bigger than the spike (they washed out with normalization) that has occurred previously. Its called scientific FRAUD!

TIs the same quest the Michel Mann set upon with his tree rings a while back to give greater panic for this 'were goona fry' movement...

 

[jc456]

Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data. 1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average. Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have average monthly data. Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance. We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time. The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them. A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.

It is used to give the illusion that the spike we see today is somehow bigger than the spike (they washed out with normalization) that has occurred previously. Its called scientific FRAUD!

TIs the same quest the Michel Mann set upon with his tree rings a while back to give greater panic for this 'were goona fry' movement...

Well we normalize our data at my company, as the number of products are deployed hit the field. We do it to show the 'up' time of the systems (available). We do that based on increases of products against that up time metric. It was interesting to me that the warmer on here admitted they do that for temperature readings. Why would they need to smooth out the history of datasets from past collections? That is the gist of our argument. now they admit they do it. And we're deniers. LOL.....

 

[Conservative65]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Sounds like your sister got the good genes and you got what ran down your baby mama's leg.

 

[Conservative65]

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.

That is far too rational, stop before you scare the AGW cultists. They prefer hyperbole and fear mongering.

Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling. They'll prove to me they believe what they say.

 

[mamooth]

Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling. They'll prove to me they believe what they say.

It's rare to find a denier who isn't lusting for the death of their political opponents. As a general rule, they're on the sociopathic side.

Conservative65, you'll fit in well with the denier death-cult here. Count on them to welcome you with open arms. The more unstable you act, the more they'll love you.

 

[westwall]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

No, manufactured form a SINGLE tree within the Yamal grove of trees. It was the single tree that he could generate that graph from.

Doesn't matter though. It's you braindead fools who are talking to yourselves. We've already moved on to the next "big thing"... in other words.....WiNNING

 

[SSDD]

Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling. They'll prove to me they believe what they say.

It's rare to find a denier who isn't lusting for the death of their political opponents. As a general rule, they're on the sociopathic side.

Conservative65, you'll fit in well with the denier death-cult here. Count on them to welcome you with open arms. The more unstable you act, the more they'll love you.

Which side is actually calling for the imprisonment or death of the opposition?