Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
Barking Lab RatsYou don't even know the basics about the hypothesis. I have given you these basics several times and you ignore it. SO here it is once again. A very good article on the BASICS OF THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS:
The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute
Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.mises.org
Dr Evans is very succinct in his presentation. He shows the five parameters of CAGW and why they each fail. He explains the science behind the hypothesis and shows that there is very little, in fact, that we disagree on. He shows exactly how the hypothesis fails.
As to your appeals to authority, as a Ph.D. I don't do these. Ideal in facts that I can understand, research, and prove with empirical evidence or experiment.
It's a feel-good hypothesis. How can they feel good about Doom and Gloom? It makes these nerdy social-rejects feel like comic-book superheroes out to save the world from the meanies and go-getters who rejected them from childhood on.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
And you have not answered any of my questions. This is why most people ignore you.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,973
- 2,768
- 315
- Thread starter
- #284
Temperature, CO2 level, (and other GHG levels), Sea Level, etc, are all Observable and Measurable Facts.
NONE of your posts shed ANY light on the topic, just hostility and denial.
You are a Demented TROLL who can't write more than a dozen words in a post.
`
Last edited:
Says the jackass who posts up wiki shit and claims that is superior to actual SCIENCE PAPERS!
YES!
Dude, if you don't even know this fundamental definition you should tuck tail and run.
You are so powerfully ignorant it is painful to watch.
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
Learn to pronouncenoun
- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Denial is what you are doing. People are getting tired of your spamming the thread and not looking at the data we supply. That is why the thread has degraded to this. This is a two-way street, and you only want things to go one way, your way. That isn't going to happen...
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Before the Industrial Rev, we have NO MODERN MEASUREMENTS of GLOBAL CO2 or temperature anomalies to compare with. Certainly NONE with measurement accuracy and GLOBAL distribution required to EVEN FIND a warming rate of 0.14DegC per decade.
There will be no resolution of the CO2 or warming increase that we've seen in the MODERN era in most EVERY GLOBAL proxy study by tree rings, mud bugs, or ice cores. So the ONLY thing that those proxies records will GENERALLY resolve are "relatively FLAT" 500 or 1000 year AVERAGES.
The exception here -- and I have the data -- are a few LOCAL - HIGH RESOLUTION proxies that DO SHOW CONSIDERABLE variation in BOTH CO2 and Temperature records. Some that show STEEP FAST RISES over 100 years of over 0.5DegC. They even show close to 1DegC for the MWP (medieval warm period) and the "Roman Period".
But when the sparse LOCAL proxies with HIGH resolution are MERGED into a GLOBAL proxy -- most all of that high resolution data is "smoothed out" to conform to the BULK of the rest of the proxy data.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
REALLY? Show me the consensus on the 2100 temperature anomaly WITHOUT a factor of 2 or 3 "variance" in estimates. You're confused about consensus. EVERY QUESTION ON Global warming needs it's OWN consensus. Especially the IMPORTANT ONES like "how hot will it be in 2100" or how high are the seas gonna rise.
Without getting the gist of this -- you're really NEVER gonna get traction on GW warming YELLING CONSENSUS on a single GENERALIZED question.
This is WHY the massive majority of the public and lately the MEDIA as a whole arent having weekly crappin' sessions on GW as an "existential threat". Because the predictions for the future keep declining and the modeling is forced to TUNE DOWN the 50 and 100 year estimates of "danger and damage.
THe global warming circus is off the road retiring in Tucson right now for the past decade.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
There is in the sense that even the smoothed out low resolution proxy studies show the 2 variables tracking each other pretty completely on 1000 year time scales. HARD tho to determing lead/lag status of those 2 variables thru the Ice Ages -- because CO2 DE-sequestration had to LEAD the temperature rise as the ground shed its mile deep ice sheets that COMPLETELY shut down natural CO2 cycle,
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Just deleted about 11 posts, gave one warning, maybe 2 thread bans. WOULD LIKE to keep this thread open. If you got a post deletion -- dont continue to post "all personal" or "off-topic" or you'll also get warned and/or ejected.
By definition wouldn’t ice melting and ice freezing be lagging indicators of warming and cooling. In other words I don’t see how it can be possible for CO2 and sea level / ice to not lag temperature.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Yeah .. biology is a soft science ... no reckoning in the mathematics ...
Physics is otherwise ... it is grounded in mathematics as to be inseparable ... from the beginning, the student is expected to be concurrent with college mathematics while taking college physics ... the fundamental understandings are defined in mathematical terms ... force is directly proportional to mass using the first derivative of velocity as the constant of proportion ... F = m dv/dt ...
(2+2 is 4)
Yes ... and 13ºC + 1ºC = 14ºC ... and 14ºC + 1ºC = 15ºC ... global warming without climate change ... or tell us where climate has changed ...
ETA: There is no need for consensus in mathematics ... nor physics ... you're entitled to disagree with their standards of proof, but these are their standards to set ... some things are set in stone, and are invariable ... something the consensus doesn't take into consideration ...
Last edited:
ReinyDays
Gold Member
They would be concurrent within the time required to perform the work involved ... and for the cause of temperature change, we have the effect of sea level/ice changes ... kitchen counter physics ...
Whether we like it or not, there is a theory that says temperature follows CO2 ... setting aside the truth of such a notion, do we have a theory that explains why CO2 follows temperature? ... what part of the climate system changes temperature first, if not man's pollution? ... besides French blowhards full of hot air ...
The Sun has this rather large impact on global Temps.
I will go with that as the source for the temp increases.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
there are actually a couple of things that prove the lag of CO2.
One is water temperature and how it sequesters more CO2 when it is cold and releases CO2 when warm. The warming must trigger that release or cooling will trigger uptake of CO2.
Then we have vegetation, one of the main sources of CO2 is degrading plant life. It must warm to foster this growth. then, in about 80-200 years there is enough dead growth and degradation to create methane and CO2.
Both of these require the heating and cooling to precede the rise or fall of CO2 in our atmosphere. The basic physical properties of the gases and how they are made, sequestered, or released is a real CAGW killer...
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Yep, each spike in CO2 is preceded by temperature increase. CO2 continues to rise for some 80+ years after the earth begins to cool. This is called process time. The time it takes for vegetation to die and slow CO2 creation. This is why there is such a rapid decrease in CO2 concentrations at abut 200 years from the cooling start.
The lag is evident in many proxies.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
CO2 did not START the 4 Ice age warming periods. It couldn't because the CO2 nature exchange was blocked by the ice and ocean current perturbations for eons. So -- this is the "feel good" basis for the Catastrophic powers of CO2.
Same argument that increasing temperature causes RELEASE of previously sequestered CO2 by means of melting calthrates or frozen methane/CO2 and ACCELERATING the "warming powers" of CO2. EXCEPT -- they are comparing the ridiculously SMALL amount of CO2/Methane LEFT TODAY by previous thaws -- to the MASSIVE RESERVES that were locked by miles of ice and ocean current deviations during the Ice Ages.
The solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
When the DOJ declares a person is in the gangs, how do they verify that to evict the terrorist?- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 7
