Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

[Oddball]

Deniers seem to be the same sort of folk who have embraced the qanon nonsense. It is concerning that this level of idiocy gets a welcome in trumps administration.

Ad strawmainem argument(s)....Not an argument.

 

[ReinyDays]

Deniers seem to be the same sort of folk who have embraced the qanon nonsense. It is concerning that this level of idiocy gets a welcome in trumps administration.

Well ... let's see your math then ... mine's in post #55 ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Deniers seem to be the same sort of folk who have embraced the qanon nonsense. It is concerning that this level of idiocy gets a welcome in trumps administration.

What a classic dead on arrival statement you made.

I am impressed!

Meanwhile cnm, crick, mamooth and YOU have completely ignored post 37

Snicker...........

 

[mamooth]

Go ahead and point out a half-dozen lab experiments ...

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

HITRAN is compiled by the US air force. The CO2 reference section there lists 77 papers.

That is not how logarithmic functions behave ...

Of course it is. Doubling is exponential growth, so taking a log makes it linear.

maybe the citation you give from above will explain this?

Citing high school math covers it.

... it's ass-hat wrong, between 180 ppm to 280 ppm, we've seen +12ºC temperature increase

Only if you're dishonest enough to start with ice ages. Few are.

Back in reality, going from 280 to 400 -- half of a doubling -- has resuletd in 1.0C growth. That demonstrates a transient climate sensitivity (TCS) of 2.0C. But the warming isn't finished yet. Even if CO2 levels stopped rising, temperatures would still rise for a while. The final temperature change would be the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which has to be bigger than TCS, so the 3.0C looks pretty close.

 

[Theowl32]

Lol

 

[mamooth]

Meanwhile cnm, crick, mamooth and YOU have completely ignored post 37

Ripped to shreds in another post. Even if you haven't typed a response to that post yet, you know I addressed it. You're lying deliberately again. And I don't think anyone is surprised. No matter. I can make you squeal and run just as effectively here.

Why did you say that a graph that showed how correct the predictions were said the opposite? After all, the prediction was for 0.20C/decade warming, and the results were 0.19C/decade. The prediction was remarkably accurate.

Why did you make the implied claim that AGW science predicts quickly accelerating warming?

Why did you make the implied claim that AGW science predicts surface warming which is uniform year-to-year?

I don't know if you're just that ignorant of the actual science, or if you're being deliberately dishonest again. Whatever the case is, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Meanwhile cnm, crick, mamooth and YOU have completely ignored post 37

Ripped to shreds in another post. Even if you haven't typed a response to that post yet, you know I addressed it. You're lying deliberately again. And I don't think anyone is surprised. No matter. I can make you squeal and run just as effectively here.

Why did you say that a graph that showed how correct the predictions were said the opposite? After all, the prediction was for 0.20C/decade warming, and the results were 0.19C/decade. The prediction was remarkably accurate.

Why did you make the implied claim that AGW science predicts quickly accelerating warming?

Why did you make the implied claim that AGW science predicts surface warming which is uniform year-to-year?

I don't know if you're just that ignorant of the actual science, or if you're being deliberately dishonest again. Whatever the case is, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Never saw this alleged ripped to shred post, provide the link.

I just looked through this thread, no such reply has showed up, but found it another thread, YOU clearly showed that you have badly misunderstood the chart, not surprising since you are a proven science illiterate which is why you are unable to understand it.

Your immature babble marked you as emotionally insecure, no need for YOU to be such a jerk all the time.

 

[mamooth]

Never saw this alleged ripped to shred post, provide the link.

Dr. Feynman on Climatologists

Dr Feynmann never experienced current weather ; thus, what he said decades ago is empty

www.usmessageboard.com

When wlll you figure out that I can always back up what I say?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Never saw this alleged ripped to shred post, provide the link.

Dr. Feynman on Climatologists

Dr Feynmann never experienced current weather ; thus, what he said decades ago is empty

www.usmessageboard.com

When wlll you figure out that I can always back up what I say?

I found it but you made clear you don't understand the chart at all, your reply against it, showed you don't understand what the chart is showing, what the main point of the article was about, that is why I don't have to respond to your drivel over it, since it is too stupid.

 

[mamooth]

I found it but you made clear you don't understand the chart at all, your reply against it, showed you don't understand what the chart is showing,

Then explain it to us, but in a coherent fashion this time. Use clear and direct English instead of denier rage-speak. I can only respond to what you write, and you wrote a load of gibberish.

that is why I don't have to respond to your drivel over it, since it is too stupid.

So there's your inevitable declare-victory-and-retreat speech, the one that everyone expected.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I found it but you made clear you don't understand the chart at all, your reply against it, showed you don't understand what the chart is showing,

Then explain it to us, but in a coherent fashion this time. Use clear and direct English instead of denier rage-speak. I can only respond to what you write, and you wrote a load of gibberish.

that is why I don't have to respond to your drivel over it, since it is too stupid.

So there's your inevitable declare-victory-and-retreat speech, the one that everyone expected.

Here is a hint you missed:

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

and,

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

You never made an actual counter to them at all.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mamooth writes this hilarious thumper, from post 66:

"Ripped to shreds in another post. Even if you haven't typed a response to that post yet, you know I addressed it. You're lying deliberately again. And I don't think anyone is surprised. No matter. I can make you squeal and run just as effectively here."

===

From the other thread is his silly "ripped to shreds" replies to the chart he completely misunderstood:

"And a hilarious faceplant it was."

"So the chart shows that the AGW predictions have been spot on. The prediction was 0.20C/decade, and the actual result was 0.19C/decade."

" You do realize that AGW theory did not predict accelerating warming, right? Apparently not. You're kind of clueless about the basics. "

"Congrats on disproving your dopey strawman. Next time, you might want to try addressing what the science actually says."

" That was a fine "declare victory and run away crying" speech. And I think everyone expected it, based on your history here. "

===

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C.

That tiny difference certainly confirms that over the past 30 years there has not been an extreme impact on longer-term temperature change despite some 850 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere since 1988.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

link

=====

His response was expected and predictable, his science illiteracy was made clear by his own hand.

This is why I said what you wrote was STUPID!

 

[mamooth]

Here is a hint you missed:

No, I pointed out that you were just babbling kind of incoherently.

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

You need to define your technobabble terms. Exactly what are "multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter? Explain it clearly in plain English. If you weren't just parroting something from a blog that you don't actually understand, that shouldn't be a problem.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

Next, demonstrate why you believe AGW theory requires that the "multiple periodicities" be smooth. Don't just wave your hands around wildly and claim that's the case. Demonstrate it.

Why don't you link us to the specific conspiracy blog post that you cribbed it from? Maybe that author can explain it better.

 

[ReinyDays]

Go ahead and point out a half-dozen lab experiments ...

HITRAN is compiled by the US air force. The CO2 reference section there lists 77 papers.

That's a database of emission spectra ... doesn't say anything about temperature ... try actually reading one of these papers ...

The question is what the numerical relationship between concentration and temperature is ... you know ... math ... these 77 paper fail to fit the request, or please provide the link to the one you think does ...

That is not how logarithmic functions behave ...

Of course it is. Doubling is exponential growth, so taking a log makes it linear.

Is this with respect to time? ... looking at the trace it's obviously quadratic, and near linear ... yes, log2 of doubling is linear ... but log2 of linear is logarithmic ...

maybe the citation you give from above will explain this?

Citing high school math covers it.

High school math uses Euler's number ... e = 2.72 ... I know the National Enquirer uses the term "doubling", but they have to cater to their readership ...

... it's ass-hat wrong, between 180 ppm to 280 ppm, we've seen +12ºC temperature increase

Only if you're dishonest enough to start with ice ages. Few are.

Are you suggesting the basic laws of nature were different 20,000 years ago ... that's a stretch, care to explain? ... didn't think so ...

Back in reality, going from 280 to 400 -- half of a doubling -- has resuletd in 1.0C growth. That demonstrates a transient climate sensitivity (TCS) of 2.0C. But the warming isn't finished yet. Even if CO2 levels stopped rising, temperatures would still rise for a while. The final temperature change would be the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which has to be bigger than TCS, so the 3.0C looks pretty close.

Those are estimated values ... and from this page from NOAA ... these values do not include changes in cloudiness ... an area of research just beginning at the time this page was written, and it appears it was written sometime after 2019 ...

What you've done is you've cleverly narrowed your sample pool to show that within a unique range your little formula works ... whereas in any other range, it fails ...

And you dare to call me dishonest ... "It's always the thief who cries 'thief' first" ...

 

[mamooth]

That's a database of emission spectra ... doesn't say anything about temperature ... try actually reading one of these papers ...

You asked for the science. I gave it to you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it will warm the earth.

The question is what the numerical relationship between concentration and temperature is ... you know ... math ... these 77 paper fail to fit the request, or please provide the link to the one you think does ...

The models do that. But you'll say that's invalid, even though the models have been stellar in their predictions. And you won't use "All models are invalid" standard for anything except climate science.

Is this with respect to time?

No, it's with respect to changing CO2 concentration.

yes, log2 of doubling is linear ...

So I'm right. End of story.

High school math uses Euler's number ... e = 2.72 ... I know the National Enquirer uses the term "doubling", but they have to cater to their readership ...

The base of the logarithm matters not to the fact that any logarithm of an exponential function is a linear function.

Are you suggesting the basic laws of nature were different 20,000 years ago ... that's a stretch, care to explain? ... didn't think so ...

I'm suggesting other factors affecting the earth were very different 20,000 years ago. You're pretending the CO2 is the sole climate control knob. Rest assured that the rational people don't worship the CO2 molecule as much as you do.

Those are estimated values ... and from this page from NOAA ... these values do not include changes in cloudiness ... an area of research just beginning at the time this page was written, and it appears it was written sometime after 2019 ...

Yet the suggested values are close to what's being observed. You're arguing with observed reality, not with me.

What you've done is you've cleverly narrowed your sample pool to show that within a unique range your little formula works ... whereas in any other range, it fails ...

Golly, how awful, to have a simple model that works correctly in the recent past and present, and which never claimed to model the distant past.

What's your model say about how present temperatures should behave?

What's that? You don't even have a model at all, much less one with a record of success?

Science requires making testable predictions. We're making them. You're not, so you're not doing science.

 

[ReinyDays]

You asked for the science. I gave it to you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it will warm the earth.

You gave a different science ... the few papers I did check had nothing to do with the question at hand ... how much does CO2 alone raise temperatures? ... field data reflects all the factors, we want to know what part CO2 plays ...

Phaw ... you know exactly what I'm asking ... just your tender pride won't allow you to admit you don't know ...

The models do that. But you'll say that's invalid, even though the models have been stellar in their predictions. And you won't use "All models are invalid" standard for anything except climate science.

I myself have no problems with model results ... indeed I rely on these for my claim of 2ºC rise in 100 years ... and that little of a rise will not cause any of catastrophic things predicted ... but models produce distribution curves, not predictions ... there's no prophecy programs available yet ... they are what they are, an exceptional useful tool, but it's statistics ... and statistics ≠ physics ...

No, it's with respect to changing CO2 concentration.

Changes in CO2 concentrations with respect to changes in CO2 concentrations is unity ... f'(x) = 1

The rest of this is just mindless dribble that only displays your complete ignorance of simple differential calculus ...

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 404351

I kinda hate to admit this ... but this chart puzzles me ... according to the link the chart came from, this says DemoNazis are trying to destroy the United States ... why do you think this says anything else? ... it's pretty clear here how Joe Biden is going to confiscate my mortgage and only pay me pennies on the dollar ... I don't see where this says anything else ...

This is non-standard data set ... like some Russian solder made it up to get folks to vote for The Donald ... bears no resemblance to almost all the actual data we have ... pick any airport in the US and compare ... see, no resemblance ... if you took twenty airports and averaged them, you'll find they far more closely follow the NOAA curve ... you know, math ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 404351

I kinda hate to admit this ... but this chart puzzles me ... according to the link the chart came from, this says DemoNazis are trying to destroy the United States ... why do you think this says anything else? ... it's pretty clear here how Joe Biden is going to confiscate my mortgage and only pay me pennies on the dollar ... I don't see where this says anything else ...

This is non-standard data set ... like some Russian solder made it up to get folks to vote for The Donald ... bears no resemblance to almost all the actual data we have ... pick any airport in the US and compare ... see, no resemblance ... if you took twenty airports and averaged them, you'll find they far more closely follow the NOAA curve ... you know, math ...

It surprises me when people have difficulty understand this section, it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets, versus the nearly monotonic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no cause/effect relationship between them in the chart, THAT is the point!

"This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months)."

"And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels."

This should have been enough for you to figure out......, but I wonder?

He posted various time frames using the official HC4 temperature data, surely that was obvious?

The data is from hadleycrut4, the CO2 data is from the NOAA CO2 database. It is right at the bottom of the page in the link.

Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel. Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset

Nothing unnatural about the chart set up.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's a database of emission spectra ... doesn't say anything about temperature ... try actually reading one of these papers ...

You asked for the science. I gave it to you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it will warm the earth.

The question is what the numerical relationship between concentration and temperature is ... you know ... math ... these 77 paper fail to fit the request, or please provide the link to the one you think does ...

The models do that. But you'll say that's invalid, even though the models have been stellar in their predictions. And you won't use "All models are invalid" standard for anything except climate science.

Is this with respect to time?

No, it's with respect to changing CO2 concentration.

yes, log2 of doubling is linear ...

So I'm right. End of story.

High school math uses Euler's number ... e = 2.72 ... I know the National Enquirer uses the term "doubling", but they have to cater to their readership ...

The base of the logarithm matters not to the fact that any logarithm of an exponential function is a linear function.

Are you suggesting the basic laws of nature were different 20,000 years ago ... that's a stretch, care to explain? ... didn't think so ...

I'm suggesting other factors affecting the earth were very different 20,000 years ago. You're pretending the CO2 is the sole climate control knob. Rest assured that the rational people don't worship the CO2 molecule as much as you do.

Those are estimated values ... and from this page from NOAA ... these values do not include changes in cloudiness ... an area of research just beginning at the time this page was written, and it appears it was written sometime after 2019 ...

Yet the suggested values are close to what's being observed. You're arguing with observed reality, not with me.

What you've done is you've cleverly narrowed your sample pool to show that within a unique range your little formula works ... whereas in any other range, it fails ...

Golly, how awful, to have a simple model that works correctly in the recent past and present, and which never claimed to model the distant past.

What's your model say about how present temperatures should behave?

What's that? You don't even have a model at all, much less one with a record of success?

Science requires making testable predictions. We're making them. You're not, so you're not doing science.

Deniers seem to be the same sort of folk who have embraced the qanon nonsense. It is concerning that this level of idiocy gets a welcome in trumps administration.

Ad strawmainem argument(s)....Not an argument.

Tommy is a little piss-for-brains who actually is a poster child for the fucked up left.

All mouth and no capability.

His country is a miserable mess and he somehow takes no responsibility.

That is what makes him part of.....the left.

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 404351

I kinda hate to admit this ... but this chart puzzles me ... according to the link the chart came from, this says DemoNazis are trying to destroy the United States ... why do you think this says anything else? ... it's pretty clear here how Joe Biden is going to confiscate my mortgage and only pay me pennies on the dollar ... I don't see where this says anything else ...

This is non-standard data set ... like some Russian solder made it up to get folks to vote for The Donald ... bears no resemblance to almost all the actual data we have ... pick any airport in the US and compare ... see, no resemblance ... if you took twenty airports and averaged them, you'll find they far more closely follow the NOAA curve ... you know, math ...

It surprises me when people have difficulty understand this section, it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets, versus the nearly monotonic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no cause/effect relationship between them in the chart, THAT is the point!

"This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months)."

"And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels."

This should have been enough for you to figure out......, but I wonder?

He posted various time frames using the official HC4 temperature data, surely that was obvious?

The data is from hadleycrut4, the CO2 data is from the NOAA CO2 database. It is right at the bottom of the page in the link.

Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel. Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset

Nothing unnatural about the chart set up.

I guess what defies logic is that you trust an ultra-right-wing scab site ... I know they're saying what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it true ...

it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets

No, it's not ... the chart from MET-UK labels the vertical axis as "HC4 Global Temperature Anomaly" ... Russian military agents cleverly change the word "anomaly" to "change" so to imply CO2 concentrations have no correlation to temperature ... when in fact it only shows that the temperature departure from average has no correlation ... nor should any be expected ...

The Chart shows June 1994 as +0.2ºC ... it shows Feb 2001 as -0.2ºC ... and that's with respect to the average temperature in those time periods, which went up +0.4ºC ... meaning the actual temperatures in the UK in June 1994 and Feb 2001 were exactly the same ... still doesn't show a correlation but why post falsehoods when the truth is good enough? ...

Here a clue ... ultra-right-wing scabs sites are an especially poor source for scientific information ... you're better than that ...