Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[percysunshine]

Scientists did from ice cores, bubbles in amber etc . Next stoopid question please.

Those are not property measurments. They are proxy models which need calibration.

Have you ever tried this?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Those are not property measurments. They are proxy models which need calibration.

Have you ever tried this?

Come on alarmist guys, you're dissing your very own scientists.

It's raining, that's man made climate change.
It's sunny, that's manmade climate change.
It's purple sky, that's manmade climate change.

Come on, the climate was "5 times" worse 66 million years ago, yet you claim pending disaster.

You know fine well what the answer is, climate alarmists are thick c***** and scientists just want the money. Go on, get your testicles out of your wife's purse, just admit it.

 

[percysunshine]

Come on alarmist guys, you're dissing your very own scientists.

It's raining, that's man made climate change.
It's sunny, that's manmade climate change.
It's purple sky, that's manmade climate change.

Come on, the climate was "5 times" worse 66 million years ago, yet you claim pending disaster.

You know fine well what the answer is, climate alarmists are thick c***** and scientists just want the money. Go on, get your testicles out of your wife's purse, just admit it.

So I guess the answer is no.

You have never reconciled a proxy model with a measurement.

You can do this. Look at a thermometer, and then watch the Weather Channel.

 

[Captain Caveman]

So I guess the answer is no.

You have never reconciled a proxy model with a measurement.

You can do this. Look at a thermometer, and then watch the Weather Channel.

Thank you for confirming.

 

[percysunshine]

Thank you for confirming.

Don't be embarassed. This is kind of a nuance of the scientific method.

 

[Old Rocks]

The rate of change was larger during the 1910-1940 period of global warming ... between 1940 and 1980 temperatures went down ... we're back to global warming again but the rate isn't as high as in the beginning of the 20th Century ... God, you suck at math ...

We sift our oceans taking out (and eating) every living thing larger than a mouse ... THAT'S why the oceans are dying ... not CO2 ...

Care to give your sources for those statements?

• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

 

[westwall]

So I guess the answer is no.

You have never reconciled a proxy model with a measurement.

You can do this. Look at a thermometer, and then watch the Weather Channel.

More importantly, climatologists have NEVER been able to do a one day hindcast with one of their models.

FAIL.

 

[ding]

Those are not property measurments. They are proxy models which need calibration.

Have you ever tried this?

CO2 concentrations come from Keeling, Law Dome ice cores, Vostik ice cores and are measurements.

For CO2 estimates more than 400,000 years ago, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes are used as proxies much as oxygen isotopes are used as proxies for temperature.

These proxies are well established and widely accepted and used within the scientific community. So I am pretty sure a calibration was done prior to these proxies being widely accepted by the scientific community.

 

[percysunshine]

CO2 concentrations come from Keeling, Law Dome ice cores, Vostik ice cores and are measurements.

For CO2 estimates more than 400,000 years ago, boron 11 isotopes and alkenoid carbon isotopes are used as proxies much as oxygen isotopes are used as proxies for temperature.

These proxies are well established and widely accepted and used within the scientific community. So I am pretty sure a calibration was done prior to these proxies being widely accepted by the scientific community.

The proxy measures are.. proxies. Not real measurements. Proxy models are hints at direction, but they are not precise real measurements.

There is a scientific understanding of uncertainty.

Do you believe everything the scientist God Fauci proclaims?

 

[ding]

The proxy measures are.. proxies. Not real measurements. Proxy models are hints at direction, but they are not precise real measurements.

There is a scientific understanding of uncertainty.

Do you believe everything the scientist God Fauci proclaims?

Most things we measure are indirect measurements of the phenomenon we are trying to get at and thus are proxies. Inherent in all estimates is uncertainty. That's a poor reason to disparage the use of proxies.

I would have to know everything "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims to be able to answer that and I don't know everything "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims. In fact I know very little about what "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims. I'm not a political animal like you.

 

[percysunshine]

Most things we measure are indirect measurements of the phenomenon we are trying to get at and thus are proxies. Inherent in all estimates is uncertainty. That's a poor reason to disparage the use of proxies.

I would have to know everything "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims to be able to answer that and I don't know everything "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims. In fact I know very little about what "the scientist God" Fauci proclaims. I'm not a political animal like you.

I am not disparaging the use of a proxy. It may be the only reprisentation available. However, it is incombent for the scientist to describe the range of uncertainty. Models have assumptions. Non-linear models are very sensitive to assumptions.

 

[Flash]

Care to give your sources for those statements?

• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

View attachment 573297

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

You are lying again.

We have no idea what the earth's temperature was in 1880. During that time most temperature data was taken at universities in or near big cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Data from Africa and Central and South America and even the Western US and large parts of Canada and Asia were very sparse.

Humans really didn't start to take representative data until after WWII and even now it is not complete.

You stupid uneducated Environmental Wackos never get anything right.

 

[ding]

I am not disparaging the use of a proxy. It may be the only reprisentation available. However, it is incombent for the scientist to describe the range of uncertainty. Models have assumptions. Non-linear models are very sensitive to assumptions.

They do that by using multiple proxies.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Care to give your sources for those statements?

• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
• 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

View attachment 573297

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

No offence, but the problem with climate alarmists, is that they're very credulous, looking at little graphs for a few hundred years is quite funny.

Go back to the Ordovician period, some 500 million years ago, co2 varied from 3,000ppm to 9,000ppm, yet scientists conclude the temperature was 10c above today's average. That temperature change is me moving from the UK to the equator.

So climate alarmists claiming scientists that have worked on the past are wrong, and the scientists working on today's climate are right, is piss funny.

All you alarmists just need to do is explain why you all feel the human race and world is going to end as co2 and temperature increases to levels way below the past when life flourished.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are lying again.

We have no idea what the earth's temperature was in 1880. During that time most temperature data was taken at universities in or near big cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Data from Africa and Central and South America and even the Western US and large parts of Canada and Asia were very sparse.

Humans really didn't start to take representative data until after WWII and even now it is not complete.

You stupid uneducated Environmental Wackos never get anything right.

You are one dumb fuck. Anywhere we have a glacier that was accumulating ice, and still has ice from that time, we have a record of the temperature. Dr. Hansen's predictions from his 1981 paper on CO2 were and are spot on. In spite of the lies of people like Westwall.

 

[Old Rocks]

No offence, but the problem with climate alarmists, is that they're very credulous, looking at little graphs for a few hundred years is quite funny.

Go back to the Ordovician period, some 500 million years ago, co2 varied from 3,000ppm to 9,000ppm, yet scientists conclude the temperature was 10c above today's average. That temperature change is me moving from the UK to the equator.

So climate alarmists claiming scientists that have worked on the past are wrong, and the scientists working on today's climate are right, is piss funny.

All you alarmists just need to do is explain why you all feel the human race and world is going to end as co2 and temperature increases to levels way below the past when life flourished.

Because not a thing you posted is true. Why are you such an ignorant ass? No, the world is not going to end if we exceed 3 C. But things could get very uncomfortable for a large proportion of humanity, and the impact of habitat loss to human activity combined with climate change could spell extinction for many of the species presently on Earth. There is a discipline called Paleoclimatology. Perhaps if you just read a little in that, you could post a little bit intelligently about past climates and their study.

 

[Flash]

You are one dumb fuck. Anywhere we have a glacier that was accumulating ice, and still has ice from that time, we have a record of the temperature. Dr. Hansen's predictions from his 1981 paper on CO2 were and are spot on. In spite of the lies of people like Westwall.

Wind and solar are scam technologies. Waste of money and will never live up to anywhere near expectation. Of course with the filthy government subsidies the goddamn things who give a shit?

 

[westwall]

You are one dumb fuck. Anywhere we have a glacier that was accumulating ice, and still has ice from that time, we have a record of the temperature. Dr. Hansen's predictions from his 1981 paper on CO2 were and are spot on. In spite of the lies of people like Westwall.

No, they weren't you lying sack of poo. hansen was miles off on his predictions. He has NEVER been correct. Even with NO drastic reduction in GHG production the temperatures are far below his three predictions.

JAMES HANSEN'S 1988 PREDICTIONS COMPARED TO OBSERVATIONS on JSTOR

Dale R. McIntyre, JAMES HANSEN'S 1988 PREDICTIONS COMPARED TO OBSERVATIONS, Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2009), pp. 587-594

www.jstor.org

 

[ding]

Because not a thing you posted is true. Why are you such an ignorant ass? No, the world is not going to end if we exceed 3 C. But things could get very uncomfortable for a large proportion of humanity, and the impact of habitat loss to human activity combined with climate change could spell extinction for many of the species presently on Earth. There is a discipline called Paleoclimatology. Perhaps if you just read a little in that, you could post a little bit intelligently about past climates and their study.

I about fell out of my chair when I read you invoking Paleo-climatology. According to Paleo-climatology CO2 does not drive climate change. If t did our present temperature wouldn't be 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 was 120 ppm greater than previous interglacial cycles. It would be 2C warmer than previous interglacial cycles not 2C less. That's a difference of 4C.

 

[Flash]

I have a good friend who is an executive with Duke Energy, one of the largest utilities in the nation.

They are putting up these stupid solar farms right and left.

I asked him why are they investing in this scam technology. He knows it is a scam the same as I do.

He said for two reasons.

First the filthy ass government gives them all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks and allows them to pass the cost of construction onto the consumers.

Second of all they borrow money for operating and capital from mostly European banks. The Euro banks are under the dumbass EU mandate to invest in silly ass "green" shit. They get much better rates and terms that way.

Solar and wind are just scams. Nothing more than Environmental a Wacko's wet dreams.