Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

[ding]

Hilarious

You one dead ass stupid boi.

I’ve forgotten more science than either of you keyboard warriors ever knew.

 

[Crick]

Have you ever been published? I have.

Taking lessons from Billy Boy and Donald Trump?

 

[ding]

Taking lessons from Billy Boy and Donald Trump?

I’ve been published twice. How about you?

 

[Crick]

Take a look at the oxygen isotope curve and then tell me my analysis of a cooling planet is unfounded.

YOUR analysis? All the fuck you are doing is looking at temperature curves someone else made. That's not an "analysis", that's fucking reading "Dick and Jane".

Because from where I sit it's unfounded to say an incremental 120 PARTS PER MILLION OF A RELATIVELY WEAK GHG will reverse a 50 million year trend of a cooling planet.

1) "unfounded": Blatantly false since there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating precisely this point. What is unfounded is just about every contention you have ever placed before this forum. You have NEVER produced a published paper that agrees or even vaguely supports your central theses.
2) "incremental": The trend of increasing CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has not been incremental. I believe you simply don't understand what the word actually means. Do us a favor and look it up.
3) "120 parts per million": You seek to make this look like a small change. A more meaningful characterization of what has happened is to note that it is a 50% increase and the highest value in over 2.5 million years; more than twelve times the span of human existence.
4) "relatively weak GHG": By dint of its absorption spectrum and its atmospheric lifetime, CO2 cannot be objectively termed a "weak GHG" under any circumstances. Look at Venus. You can compare it to water vapor but you have to note that water vapor is dependent on warming, not vice versa. You can compare it to methane, but you have to note that its lifetime is roughly a tenth of CO2's or less.
5) "50 million year old trend": This is a type of mistake you have frequently made here: believing that a process such as the cooling of the Earth has inertia or momentum; that the Earth cannot be warming because the cooling has been underway for such an extended length of time. Like your contention that apparently spontaneous changes in ocean circulation are responsible for glacial-interglacial cycles, the manifest flaws in this claim display a really fundamental weakness in your knowledge of how the universe works. Events require causes. Nothing actually happens spontaneously. "Natural" does not mean what a lot of deniers here seem to think it means; an even not requiring causation or explanation.

 

[ding]

YOUR analysis? All the fuck you are doing is looking at temperature curves someone else made. That's not an "analysis", that's fucking reading "Dick and Jane".

1) "unfounded": Blatantly false since there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating precisely this point. What is unfounded is just about every contention you have ever placed before this forum. You have NEVER produced a published paper that agrees or even vaguely supports your central theses.
2) "incremental": The trend of increasing CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has not been incremental. I believe you simply don't understand what the word actually means. Do us a favor and look it up.
3) "120 parts per million": You seek to make this look like a small change. A more meaningful characterization of what has happened is to note that it is a 50% increase and the highest value in over 2.5 million years; more than twelve times the span of human existence.
4) "relatively weak GHG": By dint of its absorption spectrum and its atmospheric lifetime, CO2 cannot be objectively termed a "weak GHG" under any circumstances. Look at Venus. You can compare it to water vapor but you have to note that water vapor is dependent on warming, not vice versa. You can compare it to methane, but you have to note that its lifetime is roughly a tenth of CO2's or less.
5) "50 million year old trend": This is a type of mistake you have frequently made here: believing that a process such as the cooling of the Earth has inertia or momentum; that the Earth cannot be warming because the cooling has been underway for such an extended length of time. Like your contention that apparently spontaneous changes in ocean circulation are responsible for glacial-interglacial cycles, the manifest flaws in this claim display a really fundamental weakness in your knowledge of how the universe works. Events require causes. Nothing actually happens spontaneously. "Natural" does not mean what a lot of deniers here seem to think it means.

Can you walk me through the oxygen isotope curve and explain the climate changes it recorded?

 

[Crick]

I’ve been published twice. How about you?

Without revealing anything you don't want to reveal, give us a little more detail. What topic published in what sort of media?

 

[Crick]

Can you walk me through the oxygen isotope curve and explain the climate changes it recorded?

Oxygen 18 isotope is a proxy for temperature. That is common knowlede on this forum and if you think you're going to impress anyone here with that, you have simply made another in a long line of mistakes.

 

[ding]

Without revealing anything you don't want to reveal, give us a little more detail. What topic published in what sort of media?

Both were technical papers concerning completions of oil and gas wells. The first dealt with the impacts of perforating a casing string twice to increase area open to flow to avoid creating hot spots during production operations. The question being asked was would perforating the casing twice lead to potential collapse issues due to tectonic forces. The second paper was about creating an immobile proppant for water injection in soft sands to prevent the proppant from being washed away when injecting above frac pressure.

 

[ding]

Oxygen 18 isotope is a proxy for temperature. That is common knowlede on this forum and if you think you're going to impress anyone here with that, you have simply made another in a long line of mistakes.

That's not what I am asking. I'm asking you to walk through the data explaining what it is showing about earth's changing climate.

 

[Crick]

That's not what I am asking. I'm asking you to walk through the data explaining what it is showing about earth's changing climate.

View attachment 979331

Sometimes the O18 levels drop which indicates temperatures have risen. Sometimes the O18 levels increase, which indicate temperatures have fallen. When temperatures rise, the Earth is warmer. When temperatures fall, the Earth is cooler.

Tricky, that.

 

[ding]

Sometimes the O18 levels drop which indicates temperatures have risen. Sometimes the O18 levels increase, which indicate temperatures have fallen. When temperatures rise, the Earth is warmer. When temperatures fall, the Earth is cooler.

Tricky, that.

Still not what I was asking you to do. Are you incapable of interpreting what this data shows is happening to earth's climate?

 

[Robert W]

Incorrect.

Science tells us that temperature change requires adaptation and if it changes too quickly, there is insufficient time to accomplish that adaptation.

Explain all these old time examples of hot days!!!

 

[Crick]

Still not what I was asking you to do. Are you incapable of interpreting what this data shows is happening to earth's climate?

I'm getting really tired of your bullshit. Just say whatever the fuck it is you want to say. I'm not here to play your straight man.

 

[Crick]

Explain all these old time examples of hot days!!!
View attachment 979424

I really don't know what you want me to explain, but I wouldn't consider 1998 as being "old time".

 

[ding]

I'm getting really tired of your bullshit. Just say whatever the fuck it is you want to say. I'm not here to play your straight man.

I need you to say you can't do it and ask me to do it for you.

 

[ding]

I'm not here to play your straight man.

Right. You are here to say and do anything - no matter how dishonest - to protect your dogmatic beliefs including arguing against the climate impacts of the disruption of thermohaline circulation.

 

[Crick]

Right. You are here to say and do anything - no matter how dishonest - to protect your dogmatic beliefs including arguing against the climate impacts of the disruption of thermohaline circulation.

Identify the lies you believe I have told.

 

[ding]

Identify the lies you believe I have told.

I already did and you know it.

 

[Crick]

I already did and you know it.

I know you have not and now YOU are the liar.

 

[ding]

I know you have not and now YOU are the liar.

You've been making implied arguments that the ocean can't be responsible for climate changes by questioning the how when you knew full well not only the how but that it does. Or did you forget your catastrophic cooling comment already?