CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[westwall]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Climate change is an entirely natural process that has been going on since time began. It is driven by solar energy and the CO2 content of the atmosphere is completely irrelevant.
The evidence of climate change is incontrovertible. Paleo climate records are now becoming pretty well described, and with those we can compare what is happening today.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

The climate is always changing.. What man is supposed to be responsible for is what is in question.

The empirical evidence shows that our current rise of 0.8 deg C is right in line with the LOG of CO2 but it can not all be attributed to it however. The evidence is right in front of your eyes in the empirical evidence presented.

The IPCC and the UN have co-opted this for their end run around our self governance in an effort to control us. Call it what you want, but it is well documented as UN Agenda 21.

 

[Confounding]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

The climate is always changing.. What man is supposed to be responsible for is what is in question.

The empirical evidence shows that our current rise of 0.8 deg C is right in line with the LOG of CO2 but it can not all be attributed to it however. The evidence is right in front of your eyes in the empirical evidence presented.

The IPCC and the UN have co-opted this for their end run around our self governance in an effort to control us. Call it what you want, but it is well documented as UN Agenda 21.

I am asking for evidence that scientists all over the world are deliberately misleading me. Show it to me. Do you have a link? Do you really think scientists are lying so plainly and so openly? Do you think scientific institutions all over the globe have been fooled so easily?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could you provide some evidence that there's a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists at hide the fact that AGW isn't actually happening? Reputable sources only please.

The climate is always changing.. What man is supposed to be responsible for is what is in question.

The empirical evidence shows that our current rise of 0.8 deg C is right in line with the LOG of CO2 but it can not all be attributed to it however. The evidence is right in front of your eyes in the empirical evidence presented.

The IPCC and the UN have co-opted this for their end run around our self governance in an effort to control us. Call it what you want, but it is well documented as UN Agenda 21.

I am asking for evidence that scientists all over the world are deliberately misleading me. Show it to me. Do you have a link? Do you really think scientists are lying so plainly and so openly? Do you think scientific institutions all over the globe have been fooled so easily?

You will never find any link like that. You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own. I provided the empirical evidence disproving their assumptions using their own hypothesis up thread.

 

[Confounding]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

The founding fathers warned us that an informed populace is the only defense to thwart tyrants and tyranny. You do not need to be a climate scientist. You only need to be informed and look at the facts. Today's climate scientists have their noses in their computer models and not reality. That is why I try and teach, when I can, those who want to be informed.

 

[Confounding]

The founding fathers warned us that an informed populace is the only defense to thwart tyrants and tyranny. You do not need to be a climate scientist. You only need to be informed and look at the facts. Today's climate scientists have their noses in their computer models and not reality. That is why I try and teach, when I can, those who want to be informed.

The climate scientists are not tyrants. I don't believe there is some global conspiracy to misinform humanity. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute the claims of scientists when truthfully you probably wouldn't even be able to have a conversation about it with a real scientist simply because you don't understand enough about the subject.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

Dr David Evans is a good place to start. He explains the IPCC hypothesis and then point by point dissects it.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[Confounding]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

Dr David Evans is a good place to start. He explains the IPCC hypothesis and then point by point dissects it.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Would you say your position on AGW is motivated by politics more than science?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The founding fathers warned us that an informed populace is the only defense to thwart tyrants and tyranny. You do not need to be a climate scientist. You only need to be informed and look at the facts. Today's climate scientists have their noses in their computer models and not reality. That is why I try and teach, when I can, those who want to be informed.

The climate scientists are not tyrants. I don't believe there is some global conspiracy to misinform humanity. I don't think it's reasonable to dispute the claims of scientists when truthfully you probably wouldn't even be able to have a conversation about it with a real scientist simply because you don't understand enough about the subject.

AGW is a ruse. As a practicing Meteorologist and Atmospheric Physicist I can say that with 100% certainty.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You will never find any link like that.

I already knew that.

You will have to look for yourself at the evidence and make that assumption on your own.

Right but I'm not a climate scientist. They have looked at mountains more evidence and have an infinitely deeper understanding of these issues than I do. I think it would be ridiculous for me to try to disagree with them after perusing through some articles/blogs about climate change.

Dr David Evans is a good place to start. He explains the IPCC hypothesis and then point by point dissects it.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

Would you say your position on AGW is motivated by politics more than science?

The Science does not warrant the political solutions offered.

 

[Confounding]

AGW is a ruse. As a practicing Meteorologist and Atmospheric Physicist I can say that with 100% certainty.

No man of science would ever say they know that with 100% certainty.

 

[Billy_Bob]

AGW is a ruse. As a practicing Meteorologist and Atmospheric Physicist I can say that with 100% certainty.

No man of science would ever say they know that with 100% certainty.

In this case... I would. Your 97% consensus is a farce because the questions are not specific enough.

Here is why I can say it with impunity.

1. The hypothesis has been show fatally flawed.
2. There is no hot spot.
3. LWIR escapes at the same slope as the warming.
4. Models fail with 100% certainty as they do not model the system correctly.

The empirical evidence shows the facts.. AGW is a fantasy as the IPCC describes it.

 

[Confounding]

The hypothesis has been show fatally flawed.

Despite your claim the scientists still say AGW is happening. Why do you think that is?

 

[flacaltenn]

The IPCC states that all warming prior to 1950 is considered natural variation or not man caused and that warming post 1950 is all man caused. I still don't know how they pulled off stopping natural cycles.

Below are those two rates of warming. There is no statistical difference between the two. If we consider natural variation, CO2's influence is zero.

The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

I then ask alarmists to show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

I never get a legitimate answer. lots of cut and paste garbage but little more.

CO2 "influence" is not Zero.. You need to be more careful... CO2 is RELATED to surface temp.. It is both a forcing and a Feedback effect. It's just been given "superpowers" by academics that believe the Earth's climate is so entirely fragile that a mere 2degC would irreversibly and permanently render the planet uninhabitable..

It was my intention to show the exaggeration. That is why I stated it was "at or near zero" in our current cycle. We have identified CO2's potential contribution is just about its LOG value.

View attachment 249202
CO2's ability is roughly 95% spent, so there is not much left for it to affect. The red line is actual observations and it is almost flat line at 800ppm.

On that log chart, it doesn't matter what the rate of warming is -- it only matters that given WHERE WE ARE on that graph -- you WILL get about 1.1DegC per doubling of CO2 concentration.. WITHOUT the more fantastic claims about "positive feedbacks", accelerations, trigger temps that have spawned out of GW speculation..

Since we're not thru the FIRST doubling (280 to 560) since the Indust. Age, we're about 60% accounted for just thru the BASIC calculation without the fear and dire consequences of the unsettled science. The REST very well COULD be natural variation coming out of a "Little Ice Age"..

To get to the NEXT doubling (560 to 1120ppm), will take TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1DegC.. THAT is why on that curve it LOOKS like we've maxxed out, but Log functions NEVER "max out".. It just takes MORE of the input to get to the same output you had last time..

I SERIOUSLY doubt that we're gonna reach the 1st doubling until at least 2060.. So the next doubling is not probably inside the end of this century --- IF man is actually causing the majority of that CO2 increase...

 

[flacaltenn]

The hypothesis has been show fatally flawed.

Despite your claim the scientists still say AGW is happening. Why do you think that is?

Of course it's warming.. Nobody is doubting that.. And man probably plays a part. But observing a 0.6degC warming in OUR lifetimes doesn't even BEGIN to address how serious the problem is REALLY gonna be by the end of century.. There is not JUST one single question to AGREE on that frames the whole GW picture.

All the estimates of HOW seriously the warming is GONNA become have been constantly revised down since this whole circus train left the station.. And a lot of FEAR and PANIC has been spread about "what scientists agree on"... They DO NOT agree on the 100 or more questions that must be answered to arrive at a conclusion that this is a "WORLD ENDING CRISIS".. Nor do they support the uninformed propaganda we get from media and the political elite that the END is in 12 years...

The media and political elite have been playing on people's fears with the help of "cover" from about a dozen of the world's GW scientists and the UN....

 

[Confounding]

Nobody is doubting that you ninny

I'm aware of the new goalpost arrangement. I wasn't suggesting that people are denying that.

And man probably plays a part.

I knew I could count on you.

But observing a 0.6degC warming in OUR lifetimes doesn't even BEGIN to address how serious the problem is REALLY gonna be by the end of century.. There is not JUST one single question to AGREE on that frames the whole GW picture.

All the estimates of HOW seriously the warming is GONNA become have been constantly revised down since this whole circus train left the station.. And a lot of FEAR and PANIC has been spread about "what scientists agree on"... They DO NOT agree on the 100 or more questions that must be answered to arrive at a conclusion that this is a "WORLD ENDING CRISIS".. Nor do they support the uninformed we get from media and the political elite that the END is in 12 years...

The media and political elite have been playing on people's fears with the help of "cover" from about a dozen of the world's GW scientists and the UN....

There is definitely a lot of hysteria and bullshit coming from the left on this matter. I wish Al Gore had never gotten involved.

 

[Confounding]

you ninny

By the way is this allowed in the CDZ?

 

[flacaltenn]

you ninny

By the way is this allowed in the CDZ?

No.. I went and warned myself and deleted it.. I did use the mildest form I could think of... LOL....

 

[Confounding]

No