Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

[Sunsettommy]

Flacaltenn writes:

"Dammit DIng.. You helped him out and there was a box of doughnuts at stake here... But I feel he was not interested in the details anyways.. "

===

The understatement of the year!

Now you understand why I stopped responding to Alpines vapid babbling?

He is clearly a science illiterate, he ignored most of your coherent statements, because he doesn't understand it.

 

[ding]

When did methane become attributed to man?

Tacos, my friend, tacos ... ha ha ha ha ...

But seriously ... cattle belch quite a bit of methane ... beef production in the world is a significant source of carbon pollution in our atmosphere ... thus the requirement to reduce meat consumption by 90% ...

I was thinking more about methane released from decaying vegetation but cow farts sound exciting too.

 

[ding]

When the next glacial cycle begins they will be begging for natural gas to be vented into the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

 

[ReinyDays]

I was thinking more about methane released from decaying vegetation but cow farts sound exciting too.

Cow belches ...

When the next glacial cycle begins they will be begging for natural gas to be vented into the atmosphere.

I don't think we last that long ... we are the last putrefied bud on a diseased and dying unsuccessful branch of the tree of life ... good riddance to bad rubbish ...

 

[ding]

I was thinking more about methane released from decaying vegetation but cow farts sound exciting too.

Cow belches ...

When the next glacial cycle begins they will be begging for natural gas to be vented into the atmosphere.

I don't think we last that long ... we are the last putrefied bud on a diseased and dying unsuccessful branch of the tree of life ... good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Farts are funnier.

 

[ReinyDays]

Farts are funnier.

You'll start high school soon enough ... then you'll notice girls ... and that's the end to any fun you've been having ...

 

[Rye Catcher]

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansenâs amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

www.theguardian.com

no credible scientist predicts a single number for a 2 decade span, neither did hansen...
he had 3 models low/mid/high and they were beyond accurate, predicted everything as they happened...

clueless climate retards however take one number out of its context and try to hide their stupidity behind it...

you can lie as much as you like, but the fact is that you cant lie against a warming globe anymore and thats a tell for anyone interested in the subject beyond politics and ignorance surrounding it...

And consider this truism: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Best to ask a polar bear, "how's the weather".

 

[flacaltenn]

When did methane become attributed to man?

Thru domestic cattle -- LITERALLY "thru domestic cattle".. HOWEVER, what flourished in N. America that farted LONG BEFORE big farms? Buffalo as dense as the plains grass. Deer, Elk, Beaver and Antelope. And no one doing the accounting EVER accounts for the trade-off..

Just one of John Kerry's first acheivements as Climate Czar.. Also takes the weight off their hooves and makes them more lively..

 

[flacaltenn]

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansenâs amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

www.theguardian.com

no credible scientist predicts a single number for a 2 decade span, neither did hansen...
he had 3 models low/mid/high and they were beyond accurate, predicted everything as they happened...

clueless climate retards however take one number out of its context and try to hide their stupidity behind it...

you can lie as much as you like, but the fact is that you cant lie against a warming globe anymore and thats a tell for anyone interested in the subject beyond politics and ignorance surrounding it...

And consider this truism: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Best to ask a polar bear, "how's the weather".

Polar Bears are fine.. Turns out they were MORE a victim of "political correctness".. Russia, Canada, US allowed polar native tribes hunting allocations thru the 70s, because it was a PRIMARY SOURCE of income to RESELL those permits to trophy hunters..

Couple that with seal fur hunters competing with them for a primary food source in the mid 20th century the population was DOWN to maybe a total of 5000.. No polar bear was worried about GWarming then.. Go ask them..

Polar Bear Population Higher than in 20th Century: Is Something Fishy about Extinction Fears? (ibtimes.com)

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,'" it read.

You want to HELP the polar bears???? -- Go protest in Canada... Only nation that allows NON-natives to hunt them.. And 60% of the population LIVE THERE...

Sick trophy hunters ‘are driving polar bears to extinction’ as less that 25,000 remain in the wild – The Sun

EVERY FREAKING enviro disaster has been lazily attributed to GWarming in the past 3 decades.. It infuriates me as an environmentalist.. Because there's never ONE stressor on a problem species.. But GW has sucked the LIFE out of TRUE environmentalism.. And for that reason alone -- it needs to get permanently shelved. The circus is dead.. Long live science...

 

[flacaltenn]

 

[alpine]

Alpine shows excellent proof he doesn't know what Scenario B is with his reply:

i already told you ^^^^ there...
you are incapable of reading and understanding...

He stated this as what he thinks Scenario B is:

it is a linear increase scenario, which is what it was in reality...

I gave this broken head a link to the source he obviously never read what Dr. Hansen wrote, he made this revealing reply at post 83, showing his abject ignorance in what Scenario B is:

"it is accurate enough for a study done 30 years ago...
it demonstrated the type of increase we should expect in a linear co2 emission increase quite well...
i also showed you how well it fits in once you adjust the model with the knowledge which he didnt have 30 years ago and had to assume...

the stupidity in your copy/paste post that expects to prove anything to anyone by bashing an unlikely scenario in a 30 year old study stands however... "

bolding mine to show what this fool says about CO2 emissions, he states that CO2 emission increases from 1988.

Now here is what Dr. Hansen actually stated for Scenario B

"ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 3. Annual mean global surface air temperature computed for trace gas scenarios A, B, and C described in reference 1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth; scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000.] The shaded range is an estimate of global temperature during the peak of the current and previous interglacial periods, about 6,000 and 120,000 years before present, respectively. The zero point for observations is the 1951-1980 mean (reference 6); the zero point for the model is the control run mean. "

Scenario B is about CO2 emission at fixed current rate for 1988, but the post one article shows it has increased a lot since 1988, as I showed at post 24

View attachment 434225

Scenario B is obviously wrong, CO2 emissions have gone up since 1988 while his scenario B is CO2 stays at 1988 rate (no increase at all).

Scenario A allows for increasing CO2 emissions from 1988 onwards.

Dr. Hansen wrote,

"1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth; "

bolding mine

It was actually 1.9%/yr but close enough, but his predicted temperature trend based on this scenario A was way off, as shown here:

View attachment 434226

You have been smashed, I am done here showing how ignorant and stupid you are.

so what you are trying to say is that your graph up there shows an exponential co2 emission growth since 1988?

be careful answering this one...

looks like tommy doesnt know what exponential means...
and yet he thinks he smashed something...
that was most likely his balls...

the greenhouse gas emission/concentration increase was not exponential as suggested in the scenario a, neither did hansen expect that to happen...

it has been even lower than what he was suggesting for scenario b where a linear increase of all current ghg continued...

some reasons for that could be human intervention eliminating some of those gases entirely and new data also changing our understanding of how some others reacted over time, like methane...

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

tommy still mia...
getting his crushed balls treated i bet...

not only he failed to understand the meaning of exponential, he also failed to realize greenhouse gas doesnt just mean co2, but all sorts of other gases humans have been trying to prevent emissions of alongside co2 for decades and in some cases even completely removed from the atmosphere all together which very much contributed to the fact that scenario a tommy has been bashing didnt become reality to begin with...

he thinks just by doing nothing planet miraculously survived which gives him the sense that climate was not changing to begin with but in reality a lot of smart people put a lot of effort to make it happen, to provide a bright future for people like tommy and his children...

and they will continue to do so even tho tommy and alikes try to self-sabotage themselves and whole humanity by electing anti-science imbeciles as representatives to high offices...

even tho tommy will keep making shit up about some self made "farce"... sorry "facts"... and miss the whole point of climate science, science will keep working in the benefit of tommy...


we are wishing tommy best of luck in his future endeavors bullshitting on message boards on subjects he is clearly has no understanding of other than copy pasting some farce from websites thats being managed by some self proclaimed expert idiots typing from their basements...

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

The entire CATASTROPHIC tenets of GWarming theories were BASED on those early projections. And all that EXAGGERATED hype STILL LIVES on the web... We are WAY past those adjunct theories of "tipping points" and trigger temperatures and "run-away" warming at which all 5th graders are taught they are gonna die..

You're right -- the "emergency" is pretty dead with the newer science.. That's WHY there's not a bi-yearly UN snorkfest over GW "science" anymore.. The air has gone out of the tires here.. ALL the important metrics have been constantly DOWN during the decades since.. INCLUDING the predictions for GMASTemp anomalies and sea level in 2100..

Do you know what the climate sensitivity factor represents? It's a GUESS at how the surface temperature is related to the prime "forcing" from CO2 heating thru back radiation.. This number is KEY for all the models since Hansen did his.. It's been revised down by ALMOST a full factor of 3.. Just tracking this silly construct gives a PERFECT VIEW of the science SETTLING on less doom/gloom.

I'll pull the chart of the estimates from 30 or 50 papers and post it for ya.. You can SEE the doom/gloom factor shrink over time...

And how can you diss Hansen? He's the "Father of Catastrophic GW".. Never missed a chance to OVER HYPE the risk to the media.. He's one of the 8 or 10 "activists in labcoats" that CREATED this chance for the left to implement "world domination" under the ruse of a melting junker of a planet we inherited... You owe EVERYTHING POLITICAL that has come of this -- to him...

If you put more effort into arguing YOUR POSITION than you do dissing folks -- we all MIGHT learn something.. Dubious because a lot of us like Tommy have been digging details on this circus since the tents got pitched..

Since you KNOW SO MUCH about "hot gases" other CO2 -- what is the MAJOR Greenhouse gas? Box of doughnuts you have no clue..

Sure.. Besides CO2 there are a few others that matter. Especially the MAJOR ONE you're gonna tell us about that OVERPOWERS and dilutes the effect of CO2 and CH4 -- the 2 attributed to man..

2nd question for ya.. In terms of CO2 -- what percentage of annually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere is due to man? What percentage is contributed NATURALLY by the land and ocean??

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

The entire CATASTROPHIC tenets of GWarming theories were BASED on those early projections. And all that EXAGGERATED hype STILL LIVES on the web... We are WAY past those adjunct theories of "tipping points" and trigger temperatures and "run-away" warming at which all 5th graders are taught they are gonna die..

You're right -- the "emergency" is pretty dead with the newer science.. That's WHY there's not a bi-yearly UN snorkfest over GW "science" anymore.. The air has gone out of the tires here.. ALL the important metrics have been constantly DOWN during the decades since.. INCLUDING the predictions for GMASTemp anomalies and sea level in 2100..

Do you know what the climate sensitivity factor represents? It's a GUESS at how the surface temperature is related to the prime "forcing" from CO2 heating thru back radiation.. This number is KEY for all the models since Hansen did his.. It's been revised down by ALMOST a full factor of 3.. Just tracking this silly construct gives a PERFECT VIEW of the science SETTLING on less doom/gloom.

I'll pull the chart of the estimates from 30 or 50 papers and post it for ya.. You can SEE the doom/gloom factor shrink over time...

And how can you diss Hansen? He's the "Father of Catastrophic GW".. Never missed a chance to OVER HYPE the risk to the media.. He's one of the 8 or 10 "activists in labcoats" that CREATED this chance for the left to implement "world domination" under the ruse of a melting junker of a planet we inherited... You owe EVERYTHING POLITICAL that has come of this -- to him...

i thought my position has been simple and obvious here;

climate doesnt stop changing because some guy seen some text on a website that was shared on his facebook timeline...

the mocking of hansens 30 year old study by science deniers is almost as old as hasens study itself...
was pitched by a dude who was being paid by oil whales years ago and still resonating...

every year some other self-claimed expert will draw his farce conlusion from his half fact half fiction data he barely understands...

and this dude will expect people who spent half of their lifetime on the subject to drag that big stone he just threw into the well out of there...
like they have been waiting for that opportunity all their lifetime...

how can one not be thrilled about the opportunity to spend their hours or even days trying to educate the dude who refused all their studies not even reading any word of it, but got intrigued by some half assed conspiracy website that just dropped on his facebook timeline shared by his used cars salesman jimmy and try to argue against a whole field of climate science based on that single piece of source...

and yet they do that...
i have seen plenty of scientists in the past literally doing this...
sitting in front of an ignorant fool and try to defend their point of view with the steel nerves not cracking under that deliberate torture technique...

unfortunately, i am neither a scientist nor have such nerves...

so i obviously make fun of foolish people...
thats why we are all here anyways, not...
to laugh at the other dude, because we are always right, regardless...

so let me start laughing at your ignorance and trust me i will enjoy this the most...

lets start with the farce...
i mean the gasses you are curious about...

View attachment 434636
source

only ch4 and co2 is attributed to man, eh...
i would say, you dont know much about gasses do you...

so what appears "natural" to you, turns out to be not only man made, but was also man unmade...
which is the case for what the land emits as ghg...

while you were fantasizing about ghgs being all "natural" believing in your own convenient farce, the smart and capable people did go out there looking for the truth...

they figured, smashing and plowing the fertile top soil of massive agricultural land year over year in the name of farming not only destroyed it, but also caused plenty of the organic material to vanish and turn into ghgs...

do you know how much of the agricultural land adapted the techniques developed based on this single truth discovered by climate scientists?...



and all this adventure started in 1988, by hansen and his friends warning the human kind to take action, which they did... the world was not this post-modernist back then, not full of self proclaimed scientists and experts...

so this is like an epic story from iliad by homer and achievements are in biblical proportions where humans played gods...
and yet you simpletons are so far from understanding any of it...
living in your small convenient bubble not even aware of the angels watching over you all...
just like how it was described in the old book; the moment you felt safe, the moment you started worshiping the golden calf... sorry.. the orange orangutan...

Can't help ya if you're ANGRY about science and politics.. That's apparently ALL ya got.. Never told us all what the MAJOR greenhouse gas was. And apparently you can't read bar charts.. Because the CFCs and the laughing gas (NO2) you're sucking on aren't major contributors to the Greenhouse.

Who exactly is "playing God" here? The folks who still teach our kids they're gonna die from GW before they can get married or folks like me who aren't crapping their pants over a GMASTemp change of 0.7degC in my lifetime??

Answer the question.. Of all the CO2 loaded to the atmos every year -- what FRACTION of that is attributed to man? TERMITES are right in about 3rd place for species killing the planet with CO2..

Here's the entire story of GW in a nutshell.. The "climate sensitivity is one of the most important variable estimates in a climate model as represented by the "equilibrium and transient" temperature response to forcings.
As the ECS/TCR numbers went down over the years -- the models got 'better" and the "PROBLEM" get cut off at the knees.. Which I like to say is a great example of the "science never being settled" -- because science is ALWAYS "settling".. And THESE numbers have "settled" a WHOLE BUNCH in just the past couple decades..

Which is WHY -- you don't get the monthly/weekly headlines of doom/disaster/panic anymore..

View attachment 434761

That graph -- ESPECIALLY the newer values -- show that I was correct all along.. That the surface temperature resulting from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is MUCH MORE LIKE the basic physics/chemistry atmospheric forcing calculation than ANY OF the earlier models with the "CATASTROPHIC" all positive feedbacks and accelerated warming theories..

In fact, the NEWEST numbers put that "climate sensitivity" number BELOW the number you get for the "basic" model based on just physics/chem/geometry of the "back radiated" CO2 in the atmos.. Which is 1.1DegC per CO2 doubling..

No wonder the "activists in labcoats" ran for the hills and all ya got now are politicians and globalists trying to keep "the dream alive" of a planetary emergency that puts THEM in charge of everything..

Alpine shows excellent proof he doesn't know what Scenario B is with his reply:

i already told you ^^^^ there...
you are incapable of reading and understanding...

He stated this as what he thinks Scenario B is:

it is a linear increase scenario, which is what it was in reality...

I gave this broken head a link to the source he obviously never read what Dr. Hansen wrote, he made this revealing reply at post 83, showing his abject ignorance in what Scenario B is:

"it is accurate enough for a study done 30 years ago...
it demonstrated the type of increase we should expect in a linear co2 emission increase quite well...
i also showed you how well it fits in once you adjust the model with the knowledge which he didnt have 30 years ago and had to assume...

the stupidity in your copy/paste post that expects to prove anything to anyone by bashing an unlikely scenario in a 30 year old study stands however... "

bolding mine to show what this fool says about CO2 emissions, he states that CO2 emission increases from 1988.

Now here is what Dr. Hansen actually stated for Scenario B

"ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 3. Annual mean global surface air temperature computed for trace gas scenarios A, B, and C described in reference 1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth; scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000.] The shaded range is an estimate of global temperature during the peak of the current and previous interglacial periods, about 6,000 and 120,000 years before present, respectively. The zero point for observations is the 1951-1980 mean (reference 6); the zero point for the model is the control run mean. "

Scenario B is about CO2 emission at fixed current rate for 1988, but the post one article shows it has increased a lot since 1988, as I showed at post 24

View attachment 434225

Scenario B is obviously wrong, CO2 emissions have gone up since 1988 while his scenario B is CO2 stays at 1988 rate (no increase at all).

Scenario A allows for increasing CO2 emissions from 1988 onwards.

Dr. Hansen wrote,

"1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth; "

bolding mine

It was actually 1.9%/yr but close enough, but his predicted temperature trend based on this scenario A was way off, as shown here:

View attachment 434226

You have been smashed, I am done here showing how ignorant and stupid you are.

so what you are trying to say is that your graph up there shows an exponential co2 emission growth since 1988?

be careful answering this one...

looks like tommy doesnt know what exponential means...
and yet he thinks he smashed something...
that was most likely his balls...

the greenhouse gas emission/concentration increase was not exponential as suggested in the scenario a, neither did hansen expect that to happen...

it has been even lower than what he was suggesting for scenario b where a linear increase of all current ghg continued...

some reasons for that could be human intervention eliminating some of those gases entirely and new data also changing our understanding of how some others reacted over time, like methane...

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

tommy still mia...
getting his crushed balls treated i bet...

not only he failed to understand the meaning of exponential, he also failed to realize greenhouse gas doesnt just mean co2, but all sorts of other gases humans have been trying to prevent emissions of alongside co2 for decades and in some cases even completely removed from the atmosphere all together which very much contributed to the fact that scenario a tommy has been bashing didnt become reality to begin with...

he thinks just by doing nothing planet miraculously survived which gives him the sense that climate was not changing to begin with but in reality a lot of smart people put a lot of effort to make it happen, to provide a bright future for people like tommy and his children...

and they will continue to do so even tho tommy and alikes try to self-sabotage themselves and whole humanity by electing anti-science imbeciles as representatives to high offices...

even tho tommy will keep making shit up about some self made "farce"... sorry "facts"... and miss the whole point of climate science, science will keep working in the benefit of tommy...


we are wishing tommy best of luck in his future endeavors bullshitting on message boards on subjects he is clearly has no understanding of other than copy pasting some farce from websites thats being managed by some self proclaimed expert idiots typing from their basements...

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

The entire CATASTROPHIC tenets of GWarming theories were BASED on those early projections. And all that EXAGGERATED hype STILL LIVES on the web... We are WAY past those adjunct theories of "tipping points" and trigger temperatures and "run-away" warming at which all 5th graders are taught they are gonna die..

You're right -- the "emergency" is pretty dead with the newer science.. That's WHY there's not a bi-yearly UN snorkfest over GW "science" anymore.. The air has gone out of the tires here.. ALL the important metrics have been constantly DOWN during the decades since.. INCLUDING the predictions for GMASTemp anomalies and sea level in 2100..

Do you know what the climate sensitivity factor represents? It's a GUESS at how the surface temperature is related to the prime "forcing" from CO2 heating thru back radiation.. This number is KEY for all the models since Hansen did his.. It's been revised down by ALMOST a full factor of 3.. Just tracking this silly construct gives a PERFECT VIEW of the science SETTLING on less doom/gloom.

I'll pull the chart of the estimates from 30 or 50 papers and post it for ya.. You can SEE the doom/gloom factor shrink over time...

And how can you diss Hansen? He's the "Father of Catastrophic GW".. Never missed a chance to OVER HYPE the risk to the media.. He's one of the 8 or 10 "activists in labcoats" that CREATED this chance for the left to implement "world domination" under the ruse of a melting junker of a planet we inherited... You owe EVERYTHING POLITICAL that has come of this -- to him...

If you put more effort into arguing YOUR POSITION than you do dissing folks -- we all MIGHT learn something.. Dubious because a lot of us like Tommy have been digging details on this circus since the tents got pitched..

Since you KNOW SO MUCH about "hot gases" other CO2 -- what is the MAJOR Greenhouse gas? Box of doughnuts you have no clue..

Sure.. Besides CO2 there are a few others that matter. Especially the MAJOR ONE you're gonna tell us about that OVERPOWERS and dilutes the effect of CO2 and CH4 -- the 2 attributed to man..

2nd question for ya.. In terms of CO2 -- what percentage of annually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere is due to man? What percentage is contributed NATURALLY by the land and ocean??

so dismissing current up to date studies and trying to draw conclusions out of a 30 year old study is pseudo-science at best and some brain farce at the most...

The entire CATASTROPHIC tenets of GWarming theories were BASED on those early projections. And all that EXAGGERATED hype STILL LIVES on the web... We are WAY past those adjunct theories of "tipping points" and trigger temperatures and "run-away" warming at which all 5th graders are taught they are gonna die..

You're right -- the "emergency" is pretty dead with the newer science.. That's WHY there's not a bi-yearly UN snorkfest over GW "science" anymore.. The air has gone out of the tires here.. ALL the important metrics have been constantly DOWN during the decades since.. INCLUDING the predictions for GMASTemp anomalies and sea level in 2100..

Do you know what the climate sensitivity factor represents? It's a GUESS at how the surface temperature is related to the prime "forcing" from CO2 heating thru back radiation.. This number is KEY for all the models since Hansen did his.. It's been revised down by ALMOST a full factor of 3.. Just tracking this silly construct gives a PERFECT VIEW of the science SETTLING on less doom/gloom.

I'll pull the chart of the estimates from 30 or 50 papers and post it for ya.. You can SEE the doom/gloom factor shrink over time...

And how can you diss Hansen? He's the "Father of Catastrophic GW".. Never missed a chance to OVER HYPE the risk to the media.. He's one of the 8 or 10 "activists in labcoats" that CREATED this chance for the left to implement "world domination" under the ruse of a melting junker of a planet we inherited... You owe EVERYTHING POLITICAL that has come of this -- to him...

i thought my position has been simple and obvious here;

climate doesnt stop changing because some guy seen some text on a website that was shared on his facebook timeline...

the mocking of hansens 30 year old study by science deniers is almost as old as hasens study itself...
was pitched by a dude who was being paid by oil whales years ago and still resonating...

every year some other self-claimed expert will draw his farce conlusion from his half fact half fiction data he barely understands...

and this dude will expect people who spent half of their lifetime on the subject to drag that big stone he just threw into the well out of there...
like they have been waiting for that opportunity all their lifetime...

how can one not be thrilled about the opportunity to spend their hours or even days trying to educate the dude who refused all their studies not even reading any word of it, but got intrigued by some half assed conspiracy website that just dropped on his facebook timeline shared by his used cars salesman jimmy and try to argue against a whole field of climate science based on that single piece of source...

and yet they do that...
i have seen plenty of scientists in the past literally doing this...
sitting in front of an ignorant fool and try to defend their point of view with the steel nerves not cracking under that deliberate torture technique...

unfortunately, i am neither a scientist nor have such nerves...

so i obviously make fun of foolish people...
thats why we are all here anyways, not...
to laugh at the other dude, because we are always right, regardless...

so let me start laughing at your ignorance and trust me i will enjoy this the most...

lets start with the farce...
i mean the gasses you are curious about...

View attachment 434636
source

only ch4 and co2 is attributed to man, eh...
i would say, you dont know much about gasses do you...

so what appears "natural" to you, turns out to be not only man made, but was also man unmade...
which is the case for what the land emits as ghg...

while you were fantasizing about ghgs being all "natural" believing in your own convenient farce, the smart and capable people did go out there looking for the truth...

they figured, smashing and plowing the fertile top soil of massive agricultural land year over year in the name of farming not only destroyed it, but also caused plenty of the organic material to vanish and turn into ghgs...

do you know how much of the agricultural land adapted the techniques developed based on this single truth discovered by climate scientists?...



and all this adventure started in 1988, by hansen and his friends warning the human kind to take action, which they did... the world was not this post-modernist back then, not full of self proclaimed scientists and experts...

so this is like an epic story from iliad by homer and achievements are in biblical proportions where humans played gods...
and yet you simpletons are so far from understanding any of it...
living in your small convenient bubble not even aware of the angels watching over you all...
just like how it was described in the old book; the moment you felt safe, the moment you started worshiping the golden calf... sorry.. the orange orangutan...

You left out water vapor. And it's the most influential.


View attachment 434769

Dammit DIng.. You helped him out and there was a box of doughnuts at stake here... But I feel he was not interested in the details anyways..

first of all, what kind of a mod are you...
you could have made this bs in 1 post but rather preferred to flood the topic...
i guess it is normal for someone going through a tantrum, so wont break your balls...
but just so you know, you are not just a politically biased mod, but also an incompetent one unaware of your own rules...

so you looked at the graph up there i posted that lectured you about other ghgs...
the other gasses are not MAJOR ghgs anymore, well, because they are NOT there anymore, are they...
simple reasoning but sometime too much for some...

and you should also have realized something else very specific with that graph...
not only it was educational for you, but it also had a link underneath...
thats also called a "source link"...
people use it to link the source of a knowledge they are using in their argument...
since it is obvious they are not the one coming up with it...
i mean, even the most prominent accomplished scientist will reference to something...

and now go back to your graph...
and take a close look at it...
what is it you DONT see?...
you got it right, a source...

but not to worry, i will add the source for you, alongside the actual true graph in a moment...

but first, lets explain to how it doesnt make any sense for you to go on with the ecs or anything related to it...
because you dont know what it represents...
it is not a single value as you may think it is, but a range...
thats what i was trying to explain to the OP as well...
scientific research and modeling doesnt conclude 1 single number and calls the day...
it suggests a range and the single number is merely the middle of that range as a representative...

and this range and representative number can significantly be different from one research to another, simply because of the methods and techniques being used and performed...
so before judging if there is a decline in ecs, first you should compare it accordingly with the type of measurements and modeling being suggested in the research...
and that doesnt happen by pulling one number out of your arse and claim ecs have been declining...

this is the actual graph, again with a source to it so you can go in there and educate yourself a bit...

source

the simple physics predict an avg 1C warming for co2 doubling...
on top, the uncertain part is what the whole science is about to predict in a range of 4.5 to 1.5, for the feedback...
thats the complex prediction of a natural process of warming as a result of the co2 concentration doubling up with the human activity on the planet and its interaction with everything else in the atmosphere and the planet itself...


regardless what this range is, the fact of the global warming due to human activity remains...
so ecs being whatever doesnt mean anything from your perspective of the argument...
ecs low end getting 0.5C lower doesnt change any of the fact that we have to cut the carbon emissions to avoid a catastrophe in the future...

so to sum it up; you cant just show up pulling some numbers out of your arse and say "ecs this and ecs that" and expect to prove something about anything...

becasue if you did that, you would be merely parroting this guy, a mechanical engineer nobody typing the bs you are parroting here from his tucson arizona basement (as seen in his profile photo) in his bs blog notrickszone.com which you were obviously ashamed to put a link of as a source...

the OP was at least honest...
he never tried to hide his bs sources...

but you come here and try to spread some farce you smelled in some nobodies tucson basement...
and you think you have any weight...

pfff.....

 

[flacaltenn]

first of all, what kind of a mod are you...
you could have made this bs in 1 post but rather preferred to flood the topic...
i guess it is normal for someone going through a tantrum, so wont break your balls...
but just so you know, you are not just a politically biased mod, but also an incompetent one unaware of your own rules...

Whiny bitch aintcha? Report me.. Be sure to CITE THE RULES I violated... LOL... Apparently, you mistake discussion for trolling or something...

so you looked at the graph up there i posted that lectured you about other ghgs...
the other gasses are not MAJOR ghgs anymore, well, because they are NOT there anymore, are they...
simple reasoning but sometime too much for some...

You were throwing CFCs in my face because I didn't list them. Or NO2... And the CFCs are STILL THERE. They've just been reformulated to NOT EAT OZone.. And the Biden Admin just announced that they WILL BE fucking with my HVAC systems again and CHANGING CFC formulations again. WHY? Because -- global warming.. I THINK they are just trying to make heating and cooling too expensive for the poor and middle class...

and now go back to your graph...
and take a close look at it...
what is it you DONT see?...
you got it right, a source...

Dang you're dense.. It's a compilation of papers.. EACH ONE IS SOURCED ENOUGH TO LOOK UP.. I've checked 5 or 6 of them.. You really dont science for a living do ya? There are about 40 "sources" in that graph you nidget...

About "your source".. Click on the link in the top of article for "climate sensitivities studies" and look at the table.. TOSS OUT EVERYTHING that say "climate model" because USING an estimate in a climate model IS NOT DIVINING ONE FROM EMPIRICAL DATA... Then toss out each one that says paleo.. Do I have to explain why? Are ya really interested? What you're left with "Instrumentation or Combined"... THOSE number estimates match MY chart pretty well and show the decline over time..

 

[flacaltenn]

because you dont know what it represents...
it is not a single value as you may think it is, but a range...
thats what i was trying to explain to the OP as well...

Ranges have median values. The proxy derived ones are most of your noise when you look at range and they SCREW up the median values.. Of course you want to know the range. If only to see how CERTAIN the data is.. But reporting a median value on EXPERIMENTAL/Combination studies is totally cool..

After all the MEDIA and politicians and the UN IPCC always published the WORST CASE values for GMAST or sea level predictions to inflict maximum PANIC amongst the public for decade and I NEVER ONCE saw any of the "GW activists in labcoats" call them out for "not showing the full range"...

 

[Rye Catcher]

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansenâs amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

www.theguardian.com

no credible scientist predicts a single number for a 2 decade span, neither did hansen...
he had 3 models low/mid/high and they were beyond accurate, predicted everything as they happened...

clueless climate retards however take one number out of its context and try to hide their stupidity behind it...

you can lie as much as you like, but the fact is that you cant lie against a warming globe anymore and thats a tell for anyone interested in the subject beyond politics and ignorance surrounding it...

And consider this truism: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Best to ask a polar bear, "how's the weather".

Polar Bears are fine.. Turns out they were MORE a victim of "political correctness".. Russia, Canada, US allowed polar native tribes hunting allocations thru the 70s, because it was a PRIMARY SOURCE of income to RESELL those permits to trophy hunters..

Couple that with seal fur hunters competing with them for a primary food source in the mid 20th century the population was DOWN to maybe a total of 5000.. No polar bear was worried about GWarming then.. Go ask them..

Polar Bear Population Higher than in 20th Century: Is Something Fishy about Extinction Fears? (ibtimes.com)

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,'" it read.

You want to HELP the polar bears???? -- Go protest in Canada... Only nation that allows NON-natives to hunt them.. And 60% of the population LIVE THERE...

Sick trophy hunters ‘are driving polar bears to extinction’ as less that 25,000 remain in the wild – The Sun

EVERY FREAKING enviro disaster has been lazily attributed to GWarming in the past 3 decades.. It infuriates me as an environmentalist.. Because there's never ONE stressor on a problem species.. But GW has sucked the LIFE out of TRUE environmentalism.. And for that reason alone -- it needs to get permanently shelved. The circus is dead.. Long live science...

The substance to my post was not Polar Bears, but the truism in re response to the post above. I added the bears to the end of my comment based solely on videos of water, when Ice usually covered their terrain.

 

[ReinyDays]

Dang you're dense..

No mention of the second question:

2nd question for ya.. In terms of CO2 -- what percentage of annually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere is due to man? What percentage is contributed NATURALLY by the land and ocean??

Answer the question.. Of all the CO2 loaded to the atmos every year -- what FRACTION of that is attributed to man? TERMITES are right in about 3rd place for species killing the planet with CO2..

I explained this to alpine in detail just a few weeks ago ... I'd like to find out if this person is able to learn ...

 

[alpine]

first of all, what kind of a mod are you...
you could have made this bs in 1 post but rather preferred to flood the topic...
i guess it is normal for someone going through a tantrum, so wont break your balls...
but just so you know, you are not just a politically biased mod, but also an incompetent one unaware of your own rules...

Whiny bitch aintcha? Report me.. Be sure to CITE THE RULES I violated... LOL... Apparently, you mistake discussion for trolling or something...

so you looked at the graph up there i posted that lectured you about other ghgs...
the other gasses are not MAJOR ghgs anymore, well, because they are NOT there anymore, are they...
simple reasoning but sometime too much for some...

You were throwing CFCs in my face because I didn't list them. Or NO2... And the CFCs are STILL THERE. They've just been reformulated to NOT EAT OZone.. And the Biden Admin just announced that they WILL BE fucking with my HVAC systems again and CHANGING CFC formulations again. WHY? Because -- global warming.. I THINK they are just trying to make heating and cooling too expensive for the poor and middle class...

and now go back to your graph...
and take a close look at it...
what is it you DONT see?...
you got it right, a source...

Dang you're dense.. It's a compilation of papers.. EACH ONE IS SOURCED ENOUGH TO LOOK UP.. I've checked 5 or 6 of them.. You really dont science for a living do ya? There are about 40 "sources" in that graph you nidget...

About "your source".. Click on the link in the top of article for "climate sensitivities studies" and look at the table.. TOSS OUT EVERYTHING that say "climate model" because USING an estimate in a climate model IS NOT DIVINING ONE FROM EMPIRICAL DATA... Then toss out each one that says paleo.. Do I have to explain why? Are ya really interested? What you're left with "Instrumentation or Combined"... THOSE number estimates match MY chart pretty well and show the decline over time..

because you dont know what it represents...
it is not a single value as you may think it is, but a range...
thats what i was trying to explain to the OP as well...

Ranges have median values. The proxy derived ones are most of your noise when you look at range and they SCREW up the median values.. Of course you want to know the range. If only to see how CERTAIN the data is.. But reporting a median value on EXPERIMENTAL/Combination studies is totally cool..

After all the MEDIA and politicians and the UN IPCC always published the WORST CASE values for GMAST or sea level predictions to inflict maximum PANIC amongst the public for decade and I NEVER ONCE saw any of the "GW activists in labcoats" call them out for "not showing the full range"...

you are not "discussing" anything...
yours is a venting monologue thats flooding the topic...
and thats against the rules somewhere in that long bs document you guys have somewhere on your bs board...
and your incompetence not to understand that, is your own incompetence not to understand it...
i dont have the time nor will to waste with that...

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

i was throwing cfc on your face because the OP you are replying here to is about a specific scenario in a research that did take those ghgs into account, since they were effectively in the atmosphere back then...
a scenario in a study you are trying to prove that was not accurate 30 years later, without even realizing what a dumb fuck argument you are making...

and in the specific case of hansens study, there was a range of scenarios for a reason...
a very simple reason but very hard for you morons to understand...
the same reason why current studies have a range...
because; he didnt know what was gonna happen in the future...

so as the name suggests, it is a prediction...
it is a forecast with only a certain probability...

even hansen, the biggest alarmist you yourself claimed, did predict high tail scenario a (which the science deniers like yourself are trying to bash here because you have nothing other than a high tail) is the least probable outcome...

but it was still a possibility...

and the smart people who actually have an idea about "risk management" didnt want to take those chances and did something about the ghgs to put us in the current situation where we still have hope and time to keep things under control, and not have an economic meltdown like you alarmists claim would happen if we moved a finger about global warming either...

if they were bunch of post-modern idiots prioritizing their ac bill over the planet like you folks, it would have been a much different outcome...

and next time, learn to read what you are discussing, before you open your mouth parroting all that bs around...

 

[Captain Caveman]

Do any Lefties know who Michael Shellenberger is? He advised Obama to waste billions on renewables and realised he got it all wrong. So you believed him the first time, what about the second time? The article includes a couple of doomsters predictions, you will laugh at them.

Refuting climate doomsayers: Michael Shellenbergerâs Apocalypse Never

The United Nations calls climate change “the defining crisis of our time,” adding that “no corner of the globe is immune from [its] devastating consequences,” and that its “infinite cost” is reaching “irreversible highs.” American environmentalist Michael Shellenberger agrees that global warming...

debate.energy

 

[ReinyDays]

you are not "discussing" anything...
yours is a venting monologue thats flooding the topic...
and thats against the rules somewhere in that long bs document you guys have somewhere on your bs board...
and your incompetence not to understand that, is your own incompetence not to understand it...
i dont have the time nor will to waste with that...

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

i was throwing cfc on your face because the OP you are replying here to is about a specific scenario in a research that did take those ghgs into account, since they were effectively in the atmosphere back then...
a scenario in a study you are trying to prove that was not accurate 30 years later, without even realizing what a dumb fuck argument you are making...

and in the specific case of hansens study, there was a range of scenarios for a reason...
a very simple reason but very hard for you morons to understand...
the same reason why current studies have a range...
because; he didnt know what was gonna happen in the future...

so as the name suggests, it is a prediction...
it is a forecast with only a certain probability...

even hansen, the biggest alarmist you yourself claimed, did predict high tail scenario a (which the science deniers like yourself are trying to bash here because you have nothing other than a high tail) is the least probable outcome...

but it was still a possibility...

and the smart people who actually have an idea about "risk management" didnt want to take those chances and did something about the ghgs to put us in the current situation where we still have hope and time to keep things under control, and not have an economic meltdown like you alarmists claim would happen if we moved a finger about global warming either...

if they were bunch of post-modern idiots prioritizing their ac bill over the planet like you folks, it would have been a much different outcome...

and next time, learn to read what you are discussing, before you open your mouth parroting all that bs around...

Still nothing ... just personal attacks ... "shift" key is your friend, alpine ...

Flac al'Tenn will put out what information he knows, and he's usually right ... you don't put any out because you know you're wrong ... here's a clue, parroting Skeptical Science as a bad idea ... they're downright deceitful ...

what percentage of annually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere is due to man? What percentage is contributed NATURALLY by the land and ocean??

 

[Sunsettommy]

you are not "discussing" anything...
yours is a venting monologue thats flooding the topic...
and thats against the rules somewhere in that long bs document you guys have somewhere on your bs board...
and your incompetence not to understand that, is your own incompetence not to understand it...
i dont have the time nor will to waste with that...

and what "compilation of papers" you are talking about...
you are just googling stuff on the way and smelling some dude farting is his basement while tossing years of fundamental credible research out the window just because they dont fit your narrative...

i was throwing cfc on your face because the OP you are replying here to is about a specific scenario in a research that did take those ghgs into account, since they were effectively in the atmosphere back then...
a scenario in a study you are trying to prove that was not accurate 30 years later, without even realizing what a dumb fuck argument you are making...

and in the specific case of hansens study, there was a range of scenarios for a reason...
a very simple reason but very hard for you morons to understand...
the same reason why current studies have a range...
because; he didnt know what was gonna happen in the future...

so as the name suggests, it is a prediction...
it is a forecast with only a certain probability...

even hansen, the biggest alarmist you yourself claimed, did predict high tail scenario a (which the science deniers like yourself are trying to bash here because you have nothing other than a high tail) is the least probable outcome...

but it was still a possibility...

and the smart people who actually have an idea about "risk management" didnt want to take those chances and did something about the ghgs to put us in the current situation where we still have hope and time to keep things under control, and not have an economic meltdown like you alarmists claim would happen if we moved a finger about global warming either...

if they were bunch of post-modern idiots prioritizing their ac bill over the planet like you folks, it would have been a much different outcome...

and next time, learn to read what you are discussing, before you open your mouth parroting all that bs around...

Still nothing ... just personal attacks ... "shift" key is your friend, alpine ...

Flac al'Tenn will put out what information he knows, and he's usually right ... you don't put any out because you know you're wrong ... here's a clue, parroting Skeptical Science as a bad idea ... they're downright deceitful ...

what percentage of annually ADDED CO2 to the atmosphere is due to man? What percentage is contributed NATURALLY by the land and ocean??

Agree with you strongly, but I think he is too far gone, since his writing style indicate that he is a science illiterate in the extreme, and lacks debating skills as well.

He will never answer those two questions, because it zooms over his head, you are dealing with a stubborn climate IDEOLOGIST.