Trump's NASA admin Bridenstine changes his tune on AGW

[Crepitus]

I gave you 6 with links to others.

You provided something...it wasn't even close to what you were asked to provide, but don't worry about it, the evidence you were asked for simply does not exist. You typify the warmer mentality. You provide evidence that the climate changes...what you didn't provide, and what you were specifically asked for was evidence that favors the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

What you showed us is that you don't even have the slightest idea of what evidence that we are causing the global climate to change would even look like. Anything is apparently enough to fool you.

I reiterate: Don't Be Stupider Than You Have To Be.

Look in a mirror guy...Like I said, you are apparently fooled by anything. Apparently in your mind, evidence that the climate is changing is also evidence that we are causing it...that would mean that in your mind, you don't think the climate ever changed prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Is that what you think?

It's good advice, you should take it.

Like most dupes, you lack the intellectual wattage to take your own advice.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

You are thrashing around trying to find a reason to say I didn't

You failed.

Go home.

More evidence that this whole topic is way over your head. The very fact that you believe you gave me what I asked for is observable evidence that you really don't even know what evidence that the bit of climate change we have seen is something that we have caused rather than simple natural variability. It would seem that any evidence of climate change is evidence in your mind that we have caused it. You see evidence that the climate has changed and ASSUME that we are the cause.

Are you able to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not even close to evidence for the cause of the change?

Here is a clue for you...evidence that we are causing climate change would look different from natural variability. After all, what is the point of crying over climate change if what we are causing looks just like natural variability...and that being said, how would you distinguish between what we caused and natural variability if what we caused looks just like natural variability?

I would understand if you continue to opt out of trying to provide evidence that doesn't exist. Providing evidence of change and assuming that it is evidence that we are causing the change just makes you look stupid and that is about all the evidence you will ever be able to provide...evidence of change with nothing more than an unsupportable assumption as to the cause of the change.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a fair try...in fact, it failed miserably. You did succeed in demonstrating what sort of tripe passes for evidence in that little mind of yours. Little wonder that you are just another warmist dupe.

Are you still here?

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

 

[SSDD]

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

All posers ignore the stuff that they can't deal with intellectually and pretend that they just have better things to do than defend their position...which begs the question...if you have better things to do, why are you here in the first place. Certainly not to defend your position.

What? You thought you could just come in and pretend to be smart, toss a few condescending comments around and fool people into thinking that you had a clue? Sorry guy...You must have thought you were in the shallow end of the pool. You aren't even keeping your head above water here.

I am still waiting for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. If you think any of the tripe you provided does that, then by all means explain how you think it does...or is even that trivial intellectual exercise over your head?

 

[SSDD]

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

Translation: I can't make a decent counterpoint to your sourced replies, therefore start ignoring him will make me feel better about it.

You wont even admit they LIED to you here:

""1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

View attachment 197607

It is easy to prove they LIED to you.

You are pathetic.

Your translator needs some serious work.

Maybe you don't get that the black line is the one indicating the level of atmospheric CO2...go over to the far left side of the graph and you see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere indicated in parts per million. Note that about 25 million years ago when the earth started to descend into the ice age that it is, at present, still in the process of exiting, the atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000 parts per million....imagine...an ice age beginning with CO2 at more than twice the level we see in the atmosphere right now.

And in case you were unaware, when it is cold...as it is now, the oceans hold much more CO2 than warm oceans do...which is why the people who wrote your article were being dishonest about atmospheric CO2 and the level that is the norm for planet earth. They missed the amount of time you must go back to see the present levels of CO2 by about 85 million years..and failed to mention that the CO2 levels have been down because the earth has been in an ice age and CO2 levels fall during cold periods because the oceans uptake so much CO2.

At this point, you don't even know enough to know how much real basic knowledge you don't have in your possession.

 

[SSDD]

You provided something...it wasn't even close to what you were asked to provide, but don't worry about it, the evidence you were asked for simply does not exist. You typify the warmer mentality. You provide evidence that the climate changes...what you didn't provide, and what you were specifically asked for was evidence that favors the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

What you showed us is that you don't even have the slightest idea of what evidence that we are causing the global climate to change would even look like. Anything is apparently enough to fool you.


Look in a mirror guy...Like I said, you are apparently fooled by anything. Apparently in your mind, evidence that the climate is changing is also evidence that we are causing it...that would mean that in your mind, you don't think the climate ever changed prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Is that what you think?

Like most dupes, you lack the intellectual wattage to take your own advice.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

You are thrashing around trying to find a reason to say I didn't

You failed.

Go home.

More evidence that this whole topic is way over your head. The very fact that you believe you gave me what I asked for is observable evidence that you really don't even know what evidence that the bit of climate change we have seen is something that we have caused rather than simple natural variability. It would seem that any evidence of climate change is evidence in your mind that we have caused it. You see evidence that the climate has changed and ASSUME that we are the cause.

Are you able to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not even close to evidence for the cause of the change?

Here is a clue for you...evidence that we are causing climate change would look different from natural variability. After all, what is the point of crying over climate change if what we are causing looks just like natural variability...and that being said, how would you distinguish between what we caused and natural variability if what we caused looks just like natural variability?

I would understand if you continue to opt out of trying to provide evidence that doesn't exist. Providing evidence of change and assuming that it is evidence that we are causing the change just makes you look stupid and that is about all the evidence you will ever be able to provide...evidence of change with nothing more than an unsupportable assumption as to the cause of the change.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a fair try...in fact, it failed miserably. You did succeed in demonstrating what sort of tripe passes for evidence in that little mind of yours. Little wonder that you are just another warmist dupe.

Are you still here?

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

 

[SSDD]

Run away....good choice.

 

[Crepitus]

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

You are thrashing around trying to find a reason to say I didn't

You failed.

Go home.

More evidence that this whole topic is way over your head. The very fact that you believe you gave me what I asked for is observable evidence that you really don't even know what evidence that the bit of climate change we have seen is something that we have caused rather than simple natural variability. It would seem that any evidence of climate change is evidence in your mind that we have caused it. You see evidence that the climate has changed and ASSUME that we are the cause.

Are you able to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not even close to evidence for the cause of the change?

Here is a clue for you...evidence that we are causing climate change would look different from natural variability. After all, what is the point of crying over climate change if what we are causing looks just like natural variability...and that being said, how would you distinguish between what we caused and natural variability if what we caused looks just like natural variability?

I would understand if you continue to opt out of trying to provide evidence that doesn't exist. Providing evidence of change and assuming that it is evidence that we are causing the change just makes you look stupid and that is about all the evidence you will ever be able to provide...evidence of change with nothing more than an unsupportable assumption as to the cause of the change.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a fair try...in fact, it failed miserably. You did succeed in demonstrating what sort of tripe passes for evidence in that little mind of yours. Little wonder that you are just another warmist dupe.

Are you still here?

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

 

[SSDD]

More evidence that this whole topic is way over your head. The very fact that you believe you gave me what I asked for is observable evidence that you really don't even know what evidence that the bit of climate change we have seen is something that we have caused rather than simple natural variability. It would seem that any evidence of climate change is evidence in your mind that we have caused it. You see evidence that the climate has changed and ASSUME that we are the cause.

Are you able to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not even close to evidence for the cause of the change?

Here is a clue for you...evidence that we are causing climate change would look different from natural variability. After all, what is the point of crying over climate change if what we are causing looks just like natural variability...and that being said, how would you distinguish between what we caused and natural variability if what we caused looks just like natural variability?

I would understand if you continue to opt out of trying to provide evidence that doesn't exist. Providing evidence of change and assuming that it is evidence that we are causing the change just makes you look stupid and that is about all the evidence you will ever be able to provide...evidence of change with nothing more than an unsupportable assumption as to the cause of the change.

I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a fair try...in fact, it failed miserably. You did succeed in demonstrating what sort of tripe passes for evidence in that little mind of yours. Little wonder that you are just another warmist dupe.

Are you still here?

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

 

[Crepitus]

Are you still here?

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.

Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

Why are you here, kid?

You failed to answer his question.
You failed to answer his sea ice history based on science research.
You failed to answer the NULL hypothesis statement.

It is YOU who has no arguments, doesn't debate much either as you quickly turn into a little troll boy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Of course you are....and everyone knows it. But feel free to prove otherwise by explaining how a single one of the points in your link supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability. Just one.

I predict that you won't even be able to do that and will, at best, toss out some other impotent pseudo insult rather than fully expose your ignorance by making the attempt, or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. And my predictions about what people will or won't do are rarely wrong.

What you won't do is explain how any one of your points supports AGW over natural variability because none of them do. So what do you do now hotshot...make an attempt? Toss out some impotent insult? Or run away?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

Why are you here, kid?

You failed to answer his question.
You failed to answer his sea ice history based on science research.
You failed to answer the NULL hypothesis statement.

It is YOU who has no arguments, doesn't debate much either as you quickly turn into a little troll boy.

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more. Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

Where are your awesome counterpoint to post 26 and post 36 I made against your comment about 6 things that prove your position, you didn't realize that massive lie they made.

You keep trolling, you will get reported, otherwise ANSWER the comments like a debater!

 

[SSDD]

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

Why are you here, kid?

You failed to answer his question.
You failed to answer his sea ice history based on science research.
You failed to answer the NULL hypothesis statement.

It is YOU who has no arguments, doesn't debate much either as you quickly turn into a little troll boy.

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more. Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

Where are your awesome counterpoint to post 26 and post 36 I made against your comment about 6 things that prove your position, you didn't realize that massive lie they made.

You keep trolling, you will get reported, otherwise ANSWER the comments like a debater!

Don't need counterpoints. Your posts are nonsense.

Elaborate.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually no,

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

Why are you here, kid?

You failed to answer his question.
You failed to answer his sea ice history based on science research.
You failed to answer the NULL hypothesis statement.

It is YOU who has no arguments, doesn't debate much either as you quickly turn into a little troll boy.

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more. Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

Here is a suggestion, just go outside..


Is it warmer today then 50 years ago?


Yes


Or


No?

Lol, I do believe I've unhinged the boy.

Impotent insult...how banal...and predictable.

Clearly you don't know how to defend a position...Sunsettommy already shredded most of the claims in your link, but I will take one apart just for fun... Lets look at the claims your warmist wacko site made regarding arctic and Antarctic ice.

They say that the ice in the arctic is 0.6 million square miles than the 1981 - 2010 mean for January. So the ice has decreased...so what? Clearly, in your mind that means something important....and also, it apparently suffices as evidence in your mind that man is causing the ice to melt.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is, at present, even with the bit of ice loss we have seen in the past few decades, that there is more ice present in the arctic than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years? Did it ever occur to you to check?

Here, have a look at this graph from Stein et al., 2017, published in The Journal of Quaternary Science, It shows that the ice present in the arctic at present, even with the small loss we have seen is greater in volume than has been present in the arctic for more than 90% of the past 10,000 years....and not just greater in volume, but a great deal greater in volume. If you look back between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and 8000 years ago, and between 9000 and 10,000 years ago you can see that in all likelihood the arctic was ice free during the summers.

This chart shows the extent of natural variability within the past 10,000 years. Go back to the period just before the present ice age began and there would have been little, if any ice at either pole. In fact, ice at the poles is the anomaly on earth, not the norm.



Here, from Knud Lassen and Peter Thejll, 2005, published in the Danish Meteorological Institute's Letters. While this chart only goes back to the year 1200, it is clear that the ice cover in the arctic is greater now than has been there for most of that period of time.



And I could go on and on with published studies showing that the ice present in the arctic today is considerably greater than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years.

So since the arctic ice is greater today, than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years, how do you suppose the questionable bit of ice loss (there are published studies that state that there has been no significant change since 1900) is any sort of indication that we are causing any ice loss at all. Natural variability shows far wilder, and faster swings in the ice coverage than anything we have seen.

Yup, definitely unhinged.

Why are you here, kid?

You failed to answer his question.
You failed to answer his sea ice history based on science research.
You failed to answer the NULL hypothesis statement.

It is YOU who has no arguments, doesn't debate much either as you quickly turn into a little troll boy.

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more. Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

Here is a suggestion, just go outside..


Is it warmer today then 50 years ago?


Yes


Or


No?

Actually no, that's not how it works.

 

[SSDD]

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more.

Plain for all to see? Like the emperor's new clothes. That is, after all, the nature of evidence in the field of climate change. You have yet to provide the first piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you will continue to fail to produce it because no such evidence exists.

Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

Classic answer from someone who has nothing to offer.. Why should you? Is that really the best you can do.

And alas, it is you who holds the religious belief. We have offered up actual science to support our skepticism of the AGW hypothesis...published science..you provided an opinion page that was full of lies and misinformation. We are asking for evidence...you are asking for us to just believe...have faith...join you in your faith of the so called experts. That is by definition religious in nature....asking for and searching for actual evidence is what science is about...not accepting proclamations on faith.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

We are asking for observed, measured evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...that is reality. You don't seem to be able to produce anything more than excuses for why you can't produce real evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, the question is why are you here? You and he are of a kind, peas in pod. You deny the evidence that is plain for all to see and then demand I produce more.

Plain for all to see? Like the emperor's new clothes. That is, after all, the nature of evidence in the field of climate change. You have yet to provide the first piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you will continue to fail to produce it because no such evidence exists.

Why should i? You fools will just ignore it because it runs contrary to your quasi-religeous belief that climate change is some sorta global scam to make scientists rich of something equally silly.

Classic answer from someone who has nothing to offer.. Why should you? Is that really the best you can do.

And alas, it is you who holds the religious belief. We have offered up actual science to support our skepticism of the AGW hypothesis...published science..you provided an opinion page that was full of lies and misinformation. We are asking for evidence...you are asking for us to just believe...have faith...join you in your faith of the so called experts. That is by definition religious in nature....asking for and searching for actual evidence is what science is about...not accepting proclamations on faith.

You need to get your collective head outta your collective ass and face reality for a change.

We are asking for observed, measured evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...that is reality. You don't seem to be able to produce anything more than excuses for why you can't produce real evidence.

He has nothing but trolling bluster left.

He will NEVER debate honestly and answer the question because many warmists never have answered that question.

He didn't even make a counter reply to posts 26,36 because he doesn't have anything to work with. He KNOWS about the big lie, he shows he doesn't care about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jim Bridenstine, former republican congressman from Oklahoma and AGW denier, who Trump appointed to run NASA, has changed his tune. He now agrees with mainstream science that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

NASA's administrator says he switched his position on climate change because he 'read a lot'

And which observed measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would he have seen to support this change of heart?

Oh, I think I would start with the absorption spectra of the GHGs, and them move on the the melting cryosphere, increase in extreme weather events, increasing acidity of the oceans, increasing temperatures of the oceans, for a start.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jim Bridenstine, former republican congressman from Oklahoma and AGW denier, who Trump appointed to run NASA, has changed his tune. He now agrees with mainstream science that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

NASA's administrator says he switched his position on climate change because he 'read a lot'

And which observed measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would he have seen to support this change of heart?

Oh, I think I would start with the absorption spectra of the GHGs, and them move on the the melting cryosphere, increase in extreme weather events, increasing acidity of the oceans, increasing temperatures of the oceans, for a start.

So it should be simple to provide lab work showing the temperature increase when we increase CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, no?

 

[Old Rocks]

You folks that deny AGW - how does it make you feel to have Trump on your side when its demonstrable that he's almost got the intellect of a fifth grader?

I have known that the AGW conjecture was bad since the early 1990's, long before Trump was in the White House.

Your comment is BELOW the level of the 5th grade in its stupid hate you make clear.

That Goddamned Agent Orange showed his allegiance to Russia at the G7. He is trying to destroy the Western Allaince, and when Putin and he meet, just as soon as they are alone, Putin will unzip his pants, tell Trump, "Here, you have been a good boy, have some".

Trump has denied the obvious fact that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. He does not give a damn.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jim Bridenstine, former republican congressman from Oklahoma and AGW denier, who Trump appointed to run NASA, has changed his tune. He now agrees with mainstream science that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

NASA's administrator says he switched his position on climate change because he 'read a lot'

And which observed measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would he have seen to support this change of heart?

Oh, I think I would start with the absorption spectra of the GHGs, and them move on the the melting cryosphere, increase in extreme weather events, increasing acidity of the oceans, increasing temperatures of the oceans, for a start.

So it should be simple to provide lab work showing the temperature increase when we increase CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, no?

Already has been done on a worldwide basis. We increased the GHGs, and the temperature has increased. And will continue to increase. And all of your stupidity will not change that. Go hide in your hollow moon.

 

[Old Rocks]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Who's denying the Greenhouse other than SSDD? You're all hung up ONE QUESTION. Whereas GW science is at least DOZENS of important questions. I can see the 1degC change in 100 years. I don't doubt it although the attempts to EXAGGERATE that warming are obvious now that the sat. record and surface records are diverging and becoming dissimilar. CO2 by man has SOME effect on the surface temp. CO2 ALWAYS plays some role.

The more important question is -- Is GW a planetary emergency? The answer is clearly no.. All the estimates, key parameters and models have been consistently REVISED DOWN during this 35 yr circus. And there are no longer monthly MORBID headlines about 2100 effects. Because -- it's not gonna get catastrophic.

And we have no evidence to BELIEVE that the "climate" has the zero variability shown by the proxy studies. Because the GLOBAL proxy studies can PRODUCE no 100 or 300 variances with the crappy data they attempt to align and merge.

Who else is denying the Greenhouse effect of CO2? Westwall, Skook, Silly Billy, and many more. It is not just CO2, it is also CH4, and the water vapor increase that results from those GHGs. 60 inches of rain in Houston is not catastrophic, not at all. LOL