Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[abu afak]

"Meaty"? If you mean in a vegan, fake meat sort of way, ok. But we only deal with facts, not false claims. To date you have never posted one thing that supports the idea that mankind causes globull warming.

Not one. We, on the other hand, have posted THOUSANDS of links that prove the theory is wrong.

No, your threads contain opinion, and falsified data.

This has been PROVEN to you multiple times.

All you do is laugh like a loon, and hurl insults.

Really?
LYING old Clocksupper.

LINK for my "Falsified data?"
LINK for me "PROVEN wrong?"
You can't you LIAR.

You Demented old FRAUD.

I use NASA (alot), Yale, Columbia, Wall Street Journal (my home page), etc x 10.

I don't think you've EVER posted a link you Illiterate POS, and never started a threads in Science or Environment compared to my 100?
You are through..
Demented.
Do the right thing before you lose your last 5%.
Resign.

`

 

[flacaltenn]

n Reality, many on this board believe there is no warming, GW or AGW. (The largest and longest running thread on this msg board)
There are many other "It's cold this week/somewhere so it can't be warming" threads to that effect.
They think it's not warming.

Both sides confuse weather with climate often. Doesn't mean that folks who see global warming as severely over-stated in terms of IMMEDIACY and CONSEQUENCES don't believe there hasn't been warming. In fact, MOST of the people to the SOUTH of what I believe about GW -- will tell you that the "climate is ALWAYS changing". And who you might consider a denier could have some reservations about the DETAILS of how the 0.6DegC in your lifetime has been measured, modeled or otherwise created.

You of course claim your position is not 'extremist.'
But what does that mean?
Do you believe AGW?

What's the SPECIFIC question here? AGW is not just ONE QUESTION. Are you asking me what the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be? How MUCH of the relatively small anomaly we've measured is DUE TO MAN? Whether I believe in ACCERATED or RUN-AWAY warning or "Trigger Temperatures" ? Only a fool says "yes or no" to AGW...

Do you believe a rise in Sea Level of 1-7 feet by 2050 or 2100 or 2200 is coming?

Sea level WILL RISE. Currently at 3mm/yr. HISTORICALLY, before they went to satellite measurement -- it was about 2.2mm/yr. To get to 2 meters -- that's 300 yrs. The numbers you're quoting rely on GROSS ESTIMATES of ANTARCTICA melting pretty fully.

Good news is -- GW doesn't really AFFECT the southern hemisphere nearly as much as the rest of the globe.

Bad news is --- Since about 2015 -- science has discovered that the volcanic rifts BENEATH the Antarctic coastal glaciers are INDEED ACTIVE. And all that ice speeding up is FAR MORE likely due to "lubricating the skids" thru the ocean bedrock beneath them. SO -- WE COULD HAVE about 6Ft of sea level rise in ANY ONE DECADE BEFORE 2100.

 

[flacaltenn]

""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""

Stanford scientists have NO historical evidence that can MEASURE rises of less than about 400 years because the tree rings, ice cores, mud bugs they use DONT HAVE TEMPORAL resolution TO SEE accurate measurements of "climate temperature" in anywhere CLOSE to our ability to measure today..

The only thing we know about ancient temperatures is a rough AVERAGE of "the climate" multiple CENTURIES..

To quote a scientist. "I think that I shall never see, a thermometer worse than a tree".

 

[abu afak]

Both sides confuse weather with climate often. Doesn't mean that folks who see global warming as severely over-stated in terms of IMMEDIACY and CONSEQUENCES don't believe there hasn't been warming. In fact, MOST of the people to the SOUTH of what I believe about GW -- will tell you that the "climate is ALWAYS changing". And who you might consider a denier could have some reservations about the DETAILS of how the 0.6DegC in your lifetime has been measured, modeled or otherwise created.

You can say "both sides" anything but it's mostly the Right.
IAC, You Hugely misrepresented what the degrees of climate/warming denial were. (none, and no GW v AGW consideration.. the Actual debate.)
Again, it wasn't just a matter of degree, it was also AT ALL, and any AGW at all.

What's the SPECIFIC question here? AGW is not just ONE QUESTION. Are you asking me what the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be? How MUCH of the relatively small anomaly we've measured is DUE TO MAN? Whether I believe in ACCERATED or RUN-AWAY warning or "Trigger Temperatures" ? Only a fool says "yes or no" to AGW...

And AGW is absolutely is one specific question. You are free to give your opinion how much, if any.
"Only a fool says yes or no to AGW" is ducking the issue, probably you are in DENIAL of it.
The vast majority of scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs agree there IS AGW.
All "Fools" I guess.

Denying AGW is also denying the Greenhouse effect of 50% more CO2 and other GHGs

You can't finesse me BOY.
Time to think about who may indeed may have an extreme position.

Sea level WILL RISE. Currently at 3mm/yr. HISTORICALLY, before they went to satellite measurement -- it was about 2.2mm/yr. To get to 2 meters -- that's 300 yrs. The numbers you're quoting rely on GROSS ESTIMATES of ANTARCTICA melting pretty fully.

Good news is -- GW doesn't reallyAFFECT the southern hemisphere nearly as much as the rest of the globe.

Bad news is --- Since about 2015 -- science has discovered that the volcanic rifts BENEATH the Antarctic coastal glaciers are INDEED ACTIVE. And all that ice speeding up is FAR MORE likely due to "lubricating the skids" thru the ocean bedrock beneath them. SO -- WE COULD HAVE about 6Ft of sea level rise in ANY ONE DECADE BEFORE 2100.

There's no good News about Rising seal level and the Northern and Southern Hemisphere's will be just as much. (more near the equator tho). A good part of the planet live in coastal cities, some of our biggest.

Then you try to attribute sea level rise to Volcanos, not warming!
IOW, "only fools take a position on AGW," while you claim it's Volcanos raising sea level.

Never mind that warming Correlates with the increase in GHGs WE put in the atmo and will raise temp even more even at current levels as the warming and Oceans continue to absorb even at this thickness of the GHG 'blanket.'
BTW, half the current sea level rise is estimated to be from Volume expansion due to the Warming Oceans.
All points to that warming.

IOW, you just don't like the "denier" label you absolutely merit with your opinions.
What a piece of BS work/false triangulation that post was.


EDIT: For the record I put Skookerasbil, jc456, and Toddster back on Ignore today after a week of tolerating Idiocy beyond belief.


`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The usual, dislike with no response to my meaty post... and then a ONE line partisan high-five.
You are Trash.
You PhD is a Do.Pe and you deface/degrade this serious thread with your non-topical team play post.

I repeat: you are a disgrace to this mb and they were justified in Demoting you from mod to Demented trash can.

`

Meaty post?

Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period.

Meathead post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're very confused 'the other dick.'
They are talking about the CURRENT post-Industrial Revolution warming/AGW, really 1880-2020 and most of it Forward changes.

""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""​

They are talking Now and forward based on temp and emission projections.
You IDIOT.

Anytime you get a like from Demented Westwall, you know you're wrong.

`



Most of my thread starts are in DETAILED support of AGW and I have discussed and defended them in detail.

You, OTOH, can't write more than ONE topical sentence, nor a paragraph, and have NEVER started a thread in Science or Environment.
You are functional Illiterate on any and all topics.
Resign before you lose your last 5%.

`

""Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change OVER THE NEXT CENTURY will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.""

The likely rate of change? That's fucking hilarious!!!

Even funnier than saying it was already 10 times quicker.

 

[Leo123]

The Earth's climate is always changing. Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age. The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet. Consensus is not science it is politics. Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can globally affect Earth's climate.

 

[abu afak]

The Earth's climate is always changing. Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age.

Never this fast in GHG's, and temp will soon follow/keep following.
You need to at least read a few pages back to enter a thread without looking like an idiot.
That's Proven.

The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet. Consensus is not science it is politics. Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can affect Earth's climate.

Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really do that. (2+2 IS 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by continuing consistent observation.
So in fact, science IS consensus. The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW.
`

 

[abu afak]

The Earth's climate is always changing. Sometimes slowly or quickly as in the onset of the Ice Age. The true extent of Human contributory factors has not been scientifically proven yet. Consensus is not science it is politics. Until an actual scientific experiment is performed that can make it rain in drought areas (for instance) or stop a hurricane or tornado, there is no scientific proof that humans can globally affect Earth's climate.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[flacaltenn]

You can say "both sides" anything but it's mostly the Right.
IAC, You Hugely misrepresented what the degrees of climate/warming denial were. (none, and no GW v AGW consideration.. the Actual debate.)
Again, it wasn't just a matter of degree, it was also AT ALL, and any AGW at all.

Definately NOT "mostly the right". Before GW lost it's scientific momentum, EVERY weather record was not just INSINUATED by the left and the media, it SCREAMED GW multiple times a week. All of that drama has cooled down now since about 2008 and "the hiatus" (look it up -- GW pretty much STOPPED for a 12 year period). And you RARELY get the monthly headline about "NEW STUDY CONFIRMS" anything about GW.

If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW. Would our mitigation actions be A LOT different if man only contributed 50% of it? Or am I denier if I believe that we dont have enough PRECISION in our knowledge of the NATURAL CO2 cycle sources and sinks to UNDERSTAND the 5% that man contributes to sourcing CO2 every year when the literature says that HALF of that is absorbed by natural sinks? Do you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about here? Do you CARE?

Or are you here just to rack people and scream obscenities at them?

You're treating this more like TEAM LOYALTY then appreciating ALL THE QUESTIONS that must be answered to HAVE an educated opinion.

 

[Leo123]

Never this fast in GHG's, and temp will soon follow/keep following.
You need to at least read a few pages back to enter a thread without looking like an idiot.
That's Proven.


Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really do that. (2+2 IS 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time by continuing consistent observation.
So in fact, science IS consensus. The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW.
`

Theories have to be proven by experimentation, not 'affirmed' which is a vague term. If you want to prove that humans can change global climate do an experiment where you actually alter storms (for instance), control the winds, the rain, etc.

 

[abu afak]

Theories have to be proven by experimentation, not 'affirmed' which is a vague term. If you want to prove that humans can change global climate do an experiment where you actually alter storms (for instance), control the winds, the rain, etc.

Theories do NOT Get Proven.
We still have Atomic theory, Relativity, and Evolution theories which remain theories and are FACTS if not 'proven.'

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
Scientific American - 2001.

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”​

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution...."​

`

 

[abu afak]

Definately NOT "mostly the right". Before GW lost it's scientific momentum, EVERY weather record was not just INSINUATED by the left and the media, it SCREAMED GW multiple times a week. All of that drama has cooled down now since about 2008 and "the hiatus" (look it up -- GW pretty much STOPPED for a 12 year period). And you RARELY get the monthly headline about "NEW STUDY CONFIRMS" anything about GW.

WHAT
GW stopped in 2008?
WHAT?
You're not even in this debate.
That's Lunatical or 100% ignorant.
and 2020 Tied 2016 as warmest.
(I posted a thread on that in Env section a year go)

If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW. Would our mitigation actions be A LOT different if man only contributed 50% of it? Or am I denier if I believe that we dont have enough PRECISION in our knowledge of the NATURAL CO2 cycle sources and sinks to UNDERSTAND the 5% that man contributes to sourcing CO2 every year when the literature says that HALF of that is absorbed by natural sinks? Do you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about here? Do you CARE?

Or are you here just to rack people and scream obscenities at them?

You're treating this more like TEAM LOYALTY then appreciating ALL THE QUESTIONS that must be answered to HAVE an educated opinion.

Most tellingly a stunning only very partial 'quote' and response to only 1/3 of my post.
Whoa!
All that topical meat evidencing my point/what IS the truth about AGW and your denial WHIFFED on egregiously.

So I'll respond to that 1/3 and accept the 2/3 as conceded on the actual point/evidence for AGW.
Wow.

Flacaltenn""If I ADMIT that the Earth is experiencing a relatively mild warning -- which I DO. There's not REALLY a huge diff about GW and AGW.""​

What's this "IF" ****?
Can't you state your position?
Will you lose your rep/conservative status among the lackeys here. Cognitive dissonance?
You constantly are 'If'ing.
Wimp city
Be a big bot, pretend you can actually defend your position/non-position.

So first, you ARE basically admitting you basically do not believe in AGW, or only an insignificant one.
Second, It may have cooled without AGW and OUR GHGs.
Man may be responsible for ie, 150 or 200% of the warming!
As some scientists surmise, the 20th c may have been cooler instead of warmer were it not for our GHG dump.
So you have a premise error too.
We may responsible for not only up 1.2 C, but for it not being down 1.2 C. IOW maybe we contributed 2.4 C.

"Team Loyalty"
I am in the 'STEM' party.
I believe in hard quantitatively evidenced Facts.
I believe there ARE races. I believe there are differences among them physically and Cognitively.
Crime is attrocious in one, tiny in another.
Facts first.
**** liberality.
I believe in balanced Budgets, and many other Conservative ideas.

I have no one/no side I have to defend except the truth.
YOU, OTOH are RW through the spectrum.
(and if I recall a creationist too, at least with your likes. Go ahead and clarify)

I posted that alot of that truth in the BULK of my post you did not/could not answer.
Big WHIFF on lots of info re Temp, GHGs, Sea Level, etc.

`

 

[flacaltenn]

Theories do NOT Get Proven.
We still have Atomic theory, Relativity, and Evolution theories which remain theories and are FACTS if not 'proven.'

You still worried that an atom bomb will destroy the atmosphere? That's why they TESTED IT. Don't get that. We have atom theory NOW that keeps getting MORE SPECIFIC. Finding sub-atomic particles IS proven. Showing that atoms can communicate with other over VAST DISTANCES is SO proven that the world powers are RACING to implement space based communications, command/control apps operating on that theory.

What part of atomic theory bothers you bunky? Aint interested in rehashing evolution in this thread. IN FACT, this thread is reserved by moderation SPECIFICALLY to debate people who insist the GREENHOUSE theory is wrong. Why did you choose to rehash OLD conflicts in HERE????

 

[flacaltenn]

WHAT
GW stopped in 2008?
WHAT?
You're not even in this debate.
That's Lunatical or 100% ignorant.
and 2020 Tied 2016 as warmest.
(I posted a thread on that in Env section a year go)

That's NOT what I said and you're showing your ignorance. Even the bogus IPCC UN panel had a section on "the Hiatus" in their AR3 or 4 report. Showing a random collection of hottest years does not NEGATE THE FACT that in the beginning 2000s, the GMAST anomaly did not change for 10 or 11 years more than subtely in the 3rd digit to the right of the decimal point.

We're done.

 

[abu afak]

That's NOT what I said and you're showing your ignorance. Even the bogus IPCC UN panel had a section on "the Hiatus" in their AR3 or 4 report. Showing a random collection of hottest years does not NEGATE THE FACT that in the beginning 2000s, the GMAST anomaly did not change for 10 or 11 years more than subtely in the 3rd digit to the right of the decimal point.

We're done.

You Got GUTTED on every point and have responses to NONE of the many points I made and answered.
Astonishing WHIFF!
Even a bigger fraudulent post than your last which whiffed on 2/3 of my post
Now Whiffing on about 80% of lots of climate explanation and debunking of your astonishing ignorance and DUPLICITY.
You're a Complete FRAUD.

In the tiny portion you replied to you said you don't hear so much on warming any more because it paused since 2008.
What a Complete NON-entity you are on this topic in all respects.
You know NOTHING and tried to hedge with noncommittal, omission, and 'short-quoting.' (and an 'Atom Bomb' Deflection/TROLL post)
YOU FRAUD.
`

EDIT:
Whole exchange COPIED for future reference.

 

[ding]

Seems like this debate could be settled by performing a controlled laboratory experiment where the associated temperature of CO2 at varying concentrations was quantified.

 

[Wuwei]

Seems like this debate could be settled by performing a controlled laboratory experiment where the associated temperature of CO2 at varying concentrations was quantified.

CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.

 

[ding]

CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.

And it's your belief that the associated temperature for varying concentrations of CO2 was measured?

That's not my understanding. It's my understanding that no one has ever tried to quantify the associated temperature from CO2 at varying concentrations. Why don't you go back and check and get back to me?

 

[ReinyDays]

CO2 absorption of thermal radiation has been done well over one hundred years ago. I believe it was covered in this thread.

The question is "how much" ... and "for how long" ... and this all boils down to the numerical relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's emissivity factor ... you know, the math ...

We've seen a degree Celsius temperature increase since 1980 ... we should be able to point and say, "here is what a single degree increase will do" ... where in the world are we seeing weather that can't occur, or occurs at a significant reduction of intensity, if average global temperatures were a single degree cooler? ... the climatologists interviewed on NPR say they can't tell us this ... so far, no smoking gun demonstrating climate change ...

Projecting catastrophe where none has occurred before ... with only 1.8 W/m^2 ... we'll need something more definitive than just carbon dioxide has an emission spectrum ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ...