MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe they all concluded that global warming was indeed causing increases in severe weather or increasingly severe weather. Whether any of them were successful at steering you towards the conclusions of mainstream science, I'd have to say I've seen nothing suggesting such a thing has happened. Shame though.

Did any of them go deeper than feelings?

 

[Crick]

I think they all did. Feelings seem to be what you rely on Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think they all did. Feelings seem to be what you rely on Todd.

Wow!

"Heatwaves, droughts and extreme rainstorms used to happen once in a decade on average"

The precision of this claim is amazing!

DURR

By 2030, the global surface temperature is expected to rise 1.5°C above the Earth’s baseline temperature, which means that:

• Heatwaves would be 4.1x more frequent
• Droughts would be 2x more frequent
• Extreme rainstorms would be 1.5x more frequent

Do you believe that 1.5°C "above the Earth's baseline temperature" (hilarious!)
would mean what they claim?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 652425

Wow!

"Heatwaves, droughts and extreme rainstorms used to happen once in a decade on average"

The precision of this claim is amazing!

DURR

By 2030, the global surface temperature is expected to rise 1.5°C above the Earth’s baseline temperature, which means that:

• Heatwaves would be 4.1x more frequent
• Droughts would be 2x more frequent
• Extreme rainstorms would be 1.5x more frequent

Do you believe that 1.5°C "above the Earth's baseline temperature" (hilarious!)
would mean what they claim?

Exactly what qualifications do YOU have Todd, to correct them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly what qualifications do YOU have Todd, to correct them?

Correct them? How can I correct them, I didn't see them post any facts.

 

[Crick]

Correct them? How can I correct them, I didn't see them post any facts.

Have you noticed Todd that more and more often these days, you take the easy way out?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you noticed Todd that more and more often these days, you take the easy way out?

You posted some really silly links claiming that AGW causes extreme weather.
How seriously was I supposed to take them?

 

[Crick]

Did you think I would find a full-bore scientific study examining whether or not global warming alters the weather across the entire planet? Serious studies would be looking at things like the San Fernando Valley or the Chesapeake Bay or what happened in the Mississippi basin between 1962 and 1967. That's one of the reasons for the IPCC's assessment reports. Real science is just too finely grained for the general public.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you think I would find a full-bore scientific study examining whether or not global warming alters the weather across the entire planet? Serious studies would be looking at things like the San Fernando Valley or the Chesapeake Bay or what happened in the Mississippi basin between 1962 and 1967. That's one of the reasons for the IPCC's assessment reports. Real science is just too finely grained for the general public.

No. I thought you would find tabloid style articles.

 

[ding]

For the love of God, Crick, learn how to use the reply button.

 

[Crick]

No. I thought you would find tabloid style articles.

Then don't demand scholarly articles where you know none exist.

 

[Rigby5]

You posted some really silly links claiming that AGW causes extreme weather.
How seriously was I supposed to take them?

But we have all seen the changes so do know they are real.
For example, in the 1950s when the USS Nautilus went under the North Pole, it was obvious the ice was much thicker and constant compared to after 1997 when the fabled Northwest Passage finally opened up.
There used to be much older and larger glaciers which have almost completely disappeared, like snow capped mountains like Kilimanjaro.
You don't have to actually be old enough to have lived through the warming, since you can just look at old images or read about it.
Clearly the earth is not just getting warmer, but very quickly compared to the historic cycles.
And the historic cycles say we now should be starting a cooling off period.

If you want to know the science behind it, it is that all the solar energy hitting the earth will accumulate and cause massive over heating, except that at the upper atmosphere to space, gas molecules will radiate out that solar energy, as photons.
The idea being heat can not leave the earth by conduction or convention, because of the vacuum of space can't conduct or convect.
So then what determines global warming or cooling is what gas concentrations there are at that border layer.
And the problem with carbon in the atmosphere, is that it reduces photonic radiation, converting that energy instead to vibratory heat, which then can't leave the planet.
So it has to accumulate.

If you want to understand the 110,000 year long normal ice age and interglacial periods, you have to remember that plants absorb atmospheric carbon.
After they absorb too much, then the planet slowly cools off, the plants eventually die, they decompose, restore the atmospheric carbon, and it then slowly warms up again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then don't demand scholarly articles where you know none exist.

None exist?

That's a shocker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For example, in the 1950s when the USS Nautilus went under the North Pole, it was obvious the ice was much thicker and constant compared to after 1997 when the fabled Northwest Passage finally opened up.

So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clearly the earth is not just getting warmer, but very quickly compared to the historic cycles.

How quickly?

 

[Crick]

How quickly?

How many graphs have you seen now Todd, that show the current warming as a vertical line unlike anything for the last several million years. We all know you've seen those graphs so we all know when you ask that question you're just being rhetorical. You'd love for one or more of us to waste our time coming up with some technical answers and posting a few more temperature graphs when you obviously don't give a shit about the question or its answer, just how many circles you can con us into running around.

 

[ding]

How many graphs have you seen now Todd, that show the current warming as a vertical line unlike anything for the last several million years. We all know you've seen those graphs so we all know when you ask that question you're just being rhetorical. You'd love for one or more of us to waste our time coming up with some technical answers and posting a few more temperature graphs when you obviously don't give a shit about the question or its answer, just how many circles you can con us into running around.

How long until the earth warms another 2C?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many graphs have you seen now Todd, that show the current warming as a vertical line unlike anything for the last several million years. We all know you've seen those graphs so we all know when you ask that question you're just being rhetorical. You'd love for one or more of us to waste our time coming up with some technical answers and posting a few more temperature graphs when you obviously don't give a shit about the question or its answer, just how many circles you can con us into running around.

How many graphs have you seen now Todd, that show the current warming as a vertical line unlike anything for the last several million years.

You think that the warming over the last 100 (or is it more, be specific) years is unlike any time over the last several million years, because you saw it on a graph?

just how many circles you can con us into running around.

You do seem to be easily conned.

 

[Crick]

How many graphs have you seen now Todd, that show the current warming as a vertical line unlike anything for the last several million years.

You think that the warming over the last 100 (or is it more, be specific) years is unlike any time over the last several million years, because you saw it on a graph?

I'm sorry. Did you see it somewhere else?

just how many circles you can con us into running around.

You do seem to be easily conned.

Says the fellow who, along with megaminds like SSDD, Westwall, Ding, jc456 and skookerasbil reject mainstream science's underestanding of AGW.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sorry. Did you see it somewhere else?



Says the fellow who, along with megaminds like SSDD, Westwall, Ding, jc456 and skookerasbil reject mainstream science's underestanding of AGW.

I'm sorry. Did you see it somewhere else?

Did you see a chart for the last several million years that showed details at the 100 year level?

Post it.

Says the fellow who.......reject mainstream science's underestanding of AGW.

Yes, I reject the pearl-clutching, multi-trillion dollar hysteria that has hijacked science recently.
You shouldn't try to bolster your argument with me by trying to add others to it.