Its called NATURE!!!!

[ding]

And why is that? Explain how you - with no apparent qualifications whatsoever - have outsmarted thousands of actively researching, publishing, well cited PhDs.

But as you've been told on several occasions, the world was cooling off for 6,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. And that cooling was being driven by the Milankovitch cycles which were, and remain, in a state to drive cooling, not radically rapid warming unlike any Milankovitch effect ever seen. Additionally, our warming has come in very tight correlation with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, a coincidence in your universe with one-in-many-thousands odds. That you choose to say there is virtually no feedback mechanism and that the warming from CO2 itself is extremely weak, all without a shred of real evidence and in straight up contradiction to mainstream science, backed by basic physics, chemistry and enormous amounts of empirical evidence, does nothing but mark you as nothing but some sort of ignorant whack job.

Yeah. You're as stupid as a rock.

You seem upset.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah. You're as stupid as a rock.

Several rocks just called to say they were upset and offended at being compared to ding.

 

[ding]

But as you've been told on several occasions, the world was cooling off for 6,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. And that cooling was being driven by the Milankovitch cycles which were, and remain, in a state to drive cooling, not radically rapid warming unlike any Milankovitch effect ever seen.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming AND cooling trends. I've never seen any math showing how much orbital cycles lower surface temperatures. Have you?

But are you arguing that 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 averted a glacial period?

 

[ding]

Several rocks just called to say they were upset and offended at being compared to ding.

Do you believe man's CO2 emissions averted thousands of feet of thick ice sheets from forming over large portions of the northern hemisphere too?

 

[ding]

But as you've been told on several occasions, the world was cooling off for 6,000 years before the Industrial Revolution.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

 

[ding]

Additionally, our warming has come in very tight correlation with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels

Given that CO2 is a relatively weak GHG (1C per doubling of CO2) and given that our present temperature is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more CO2, the planet warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature is a much better correlation. It's exactly what has been occurring over the past 30 glacial cycles of the last 3 million years.

 

[ding]

That you choose to say there is virtually no feedback mechanism and that the warming from CO2 itself is extremely weak, all without a shred of real evidence and in straight up contradiction to mainstream science, backed by basic physics, chemistry and enormous amounts of empirical evidence, does nothing but mark you as nothing but some sort of ignorant whack job.

I didn't say there is virtually no feedback. I said water vapor is both a positive (GHG) and a negative feedback (clouds and evaporative cooling). The planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm is the best empirical evidence that the feedback from CO2 (i.e. increased water vapor) is a net negative feedback. Otherwise the planet wouldn't have cooled with 600 ppm as you are shitting your pants over 420 ppm thinking humanity and all life on the planet is doomed.

 

[otto105]

That there isn't as much human driven warming as you think there is. That's how. That what you are attributing to man is in reality natural warming that goes on in every interglacial period.

Now do you understand?

I understand that you’re an idiot.

By choice.

 

[otto105]

Given that CO2 is a relatively weak GHG (1C per doubling of CO2) and given that our present temperature is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more CO2, the planet warming up to it's pre-glacial temperature is a much better correlation. It's exactly what has been occurring over the past 30 glacial cycles of the last 3 million years.

Hilarious fuckup

 

[ding]

I understand that you’re an idiot.

By choice.

You're as stupid as a rock.

 

[ding]

Hilarious fuckup

I get that you're upset.

 

[otto105]

View attachment 955203

I won’t waste time trying to refute your stupidity.

 

[otto105]

I get that you're upset.

Hilarious

 

[Grumblenuts]

I won’t waste time trying to refute your stupidity.

Of course it's already been refuted by climate experts. No one need bust a gut responding to ding's ceaseless spam and nonsense. A few keystrokes and his secret sources reveal themselves along with crushing critiques such as:

Climate denial published by Statistics Norway

A discussion paper released by Statistics Norway contains standard talking-points of climate denial and a crude statistical model of selected temperature measurements which is unable to detect anything. Here I show how these points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.

blog.indecol.no

I do not understand how Statistics Norway can defend releasing this piece of propaganda in a series of manuscripts that are meant to present early-phase scientific research. Given the unscientific character of the content, they put their own reputation on line.

P.S.: It is somewhat ironic that Dagsvik and Moen criticise the statistical analysis of temperature data through climate researchers and claim that they can do better. Fifteen years ago, physics professor at Berkeley, Richard Muller, did. His Berkeley Earth project received big money from climate skeptics in the U.S. coal industry to disprove the hypothesis that the Earth's temperature has increased. The team improved both the dataset and statistical method. The analysis showed that warming was even stronger than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had determined at the time. Berkeley Earth also publishes a guide for climate skeptics, showing the limits of climate science knowledge in a simple manner.

 

[San Souci]

Now you went and done it. Greta Thunberg is going to let the air out of your tires tonight, while you're asleep.

Greta Thornbird is a retarded little Spaz.