# Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...



## Theowl32 (Jul 9, 2021)

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*

Direct link to the study:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
*Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"*

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. *Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made]* *climate change" after a series of studies.*
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. *The human contribution was about 0.01°C*”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been *collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, *which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: _"New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect',"_ the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal _Science Daily_. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' _— _an entirely natural occurrence _—_ could be *the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors*.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in _Science Daily_. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, *so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect*."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover* "practically" controls global temperatures* but that _*“only a small part”* of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic_, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. *A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.* That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to* "remake the U.S. economy"* would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective _—_ based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate _— _consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
_“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. *The human contribution was about 0.01°C.*”_
Which leads the scientists to state further:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, *we have practically no anthropogenic climate change*,” the researchers concluded.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
*This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate.* When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. *The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.*
Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, _*we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice*_," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being *a $93 trillion proposal* (according to one study) _—_ including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate _— _will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

is this where one of the board left wing mods says this is a wall of text and it isn't political?

Actually everything is political. Especially man made climate change.

Has little to do with with actual weather.


----------



## 366h34d (Jul 9, 2021)

Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing  climate change


----------



## Polishprince (Jul 9, 2021)

Liberals will never accept this study.   It provides reasonable doubt to their theorem that humans can change the climate.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2021)

Time for the Marxist left to follow the science for once.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters.  If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Cool...let's do nothing then.


----------



## Burgermeister (Jul 9, 2021)

Facts don't matter in lefty science.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...


Where in Virginia do you live? Lol


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...




The sea level isn't rising...do you know how I know?

the high priests of the man made global warming religion are buying up all the beachfront mansions........


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

366h34d said:


> Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing  climate change


Then watch as these charalatans' attempt gets laughed out of peer review.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Where in Virginia do you live? Lol


Not sure why that matters but currently I don't have a house on the coast and I want to keep it that way.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The sea level isn't rising...do you know how I know?
> 
> the high priests of the man made global warming religion are buying up all the beachfront mansions........


Not all of us get our climatology guidance from politicians.


----------



## Lesh (Jul 9, 2021)

Flawed non peer reviewed “study”


----------



## Theowl32 (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Where in Virginia do you live? Lol
> ...


Look everyone. A "smart leftist." He doesn't live on the coast. You know, like the billions of leftists who claim they believe the sea levels are rising and don't move from the coasts.....around the world. 

Lol at you people


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.


Yes. IF so and it comes to pass.

The issue is do you reorder society and take a $93 *trillion* dollar hollowing out of society based
purely on the say so of bad politicized science... not even science actually.
A well crafted and long promoted scheme to move much of the wealth of the West into the UN and other
leftist NGOs and third world hands based on a socialist desire to achieve "economic justice".

Greta Thunberg is turning over in her grave at the news, or will be, soon enough.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Thanks, and I'm sure any leftist who knows you exist is lol at you too.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


We knew the left would celebrate over the high temperatures in the west. So, the GLOBAL WARMING has caused record temperatures in a SPECIFIC AREA on the globe and NOT OTHER AREAS?

LOL 

Over a six-day period during the middle of June 2021, a dome of hot air languished over the western United States, causing temperatures to skyrocket. From June 15-20, all-time maximum temperature records fell at locations in seven different states (CA, AZ, NM, UT, CO, WY, MT). In Phoenix, Arizona, the high temperature was over 115 degrees for a record-setting six consecutive days, topping out at 118 degrees on June 17.


That is what caused the heat wave. Not cow farts. 







__





						Record-breaking June 2021 heatwave impacts the U.S. West
					

An early summer heatwave across the drought-stricken West smashed records in seven states as temperatures cleared 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end.




					www.climate.gov


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.
> ...


I think if it comes to pass it is too late.  Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital.  What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.
> ...



Wrong.
Attempting to prevent global warming does not cost a cent.
We are running out of fossil fuel anyway, so it costs us noting to just try to conserve fossil fuels and save more for our descendants to use as fertilizers.
Solar, wind power, and bio fuels all save money in the long run, and only require a little initial investment.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

The MMGW crowd is a cult.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...


One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 9, 2021)

So, I won't need a new wood burning stove this winter?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > The study is obvious nonsense.
> ...



Obviously the heat wave was temporary weather and not global climate, but something had to have changed in order to make these records possible.  And that had to be climate.  Global warming means more energy in the weather, so you can have more frequent and more powerful storms, more powerful high pressure events that cause heat waves, etc.
Climate is the average of all the local weather, but weather is still driven by climate.
A climate warms, you will have more weather extremes.
When climate cools, weather tends towards being more static.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Just another expression of extremist hate and frustration that has no meaning to normal and rational people.

Is this all being driven by the Trump loss at the ballot boxes and his ridiculous claim that he was cheated?

What is it that's sticking in American craws that has made them into such obnoxious deniers of science?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Wrong.
When the climate was cooler, then the Sahara was a highly populated jungle of swamps.
When fishing boats go out, they don't go to the equator, but to the polar regions.

Humans like warm climate because we are too lean and have no fur.
But almost all other animals prefer colder climates, especially plants and fish.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> So, I won't need a new wood burning stove this winter?



Global warming means more energy into the weather, so it can also produce colder storms as well as hot periods.
There normally are 6 weather bands around the globe.
It has to do with convection circulation of rising air nearer to the equator and falling nearer to the poles, but is prevented from being global due to the speed of the earth's rotation.
Weather normally is fairly confined to within these bands.
But with more heat energy, then weather can break out of these bands and cause wider swings, with polar fronts reaching the equator, and vice versa.
Due to changes climate can make to ocean currents, global warming will make Europe about 10 degrees colder.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Actually the one thing to know is that civilization suffers whenever there is a change since we've adjusted to current conditions.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



Yep, it was always about money and control of the populace.  Same as covid and it's seven merry little variants.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.


So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?
And what other one of a kind disasters would you like to change society over? 
Simply eliminate all coastal societies?
Place canopys over all of society to prevent a one in a billion collision with a comet that no man made
device could prevent anyway?

Sensible precautions are one things. Trying to protect yourself against unforeseeable and unstoppable
disasters are another. Life on this planet is not guaranteed. Ask a brontosaurus, if you can find one.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Guess you don't grow a garden.  My tomatoes prefer the heat, so long as they get watered enough.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


You're wrong, jackass. The Sahara was green during the Holocene climatic optimum period when the climate was  warmer than today.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Just another expression of extremist hate and frustration that has no meaning to normal and rational people.
> 
> Is this all being driven by the Trump loss at the ballot boxes and his ridiculous claim that he was cheated?
> 
> What is it that's sticking in American craws that has made them into such obnoxious deniers of science?


Hahahahahahahahaha!

ORANGE MAN BAD!


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> anthropogenic


Perhaps another stupid made-up meaningless word would help?


----------



## sartre play (Jul 9, 2021)

There are no bomb shells in climate science.


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I was there and snagged this shot of it.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 9, 2021)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.
> ...


We know climate changes, that is not really in question, we need to study and understand it.  

The best guess I've seen if that rising CO2 is making things worse.  There is plenty of low-hanging fruit that would allow us to lessen the amount we put into the air without bankrupting ourselves.  

At the same time we need to have figured out how we can control or at least affect climate change.  Science is our friend here, not our enemy.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 9, 2021)

sartre play said:


> There are no bomb shells in climate science.


Climategate was certainly a bombshell.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> We know climate changes, that is not really in question, we need to study and understand it.
> 
> The best guess I've seen if that rising CO2 is making things worse. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit that would allow us to lessen the amount we put into the air without bankrupting ourselves.
> 
> At the same time we need to have figured out how we can control or at least affect climate change. Science is our friend here, not our enemy.


Your post is sensible and I'm only an enemy of those rigging the game to gain a win for themselves
somehow. I suggest you check out Bjorn Lumborg as a voice of sanity and reason.


----------



## McRib (Jul 9, 2021)

"Bombshell study"  ....


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> > Just another expression of extremist hate and frustration that has no meaning to normal and rational people.
> ...


In fact, the orange man is only the inevitable result of what has been bad with America. Now the orange man has attached the blame to non-white people in America.
That's how Hitler faced the some problem by putting the blame on the Jews.

The blame belongs on the very wealthy in America because neither political party had any real ambition to share the wealth.

And now it's a near certainty that Biden is going to fail.
Did he really honestly attempt to change something by doublecrossing his wealthy benefactors?


----------



## task0778 (Jul 9, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> Liberals will never accept this study. It provides reasonable doubt to their theorem that humans can change the climate.



Sounds like more than a reasonable doubt to me.  It sounds more like reasonable proof.




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Time for the Marxist left to follow the science for once.



The Left only believes in science that supports their political ambitions.




bodecea said:


> Cool...let's do nothing then.



No, but let's not waste trillions of dollars on a fucking high speed train that will never be cost-effective.  There's nothing wrong with trying to reduce air pollution, but it sure as hell is NOT the number one greatest threat to our national security, as some on the Left have claimed.  We need to be smarter with our tax-dollars IMHO.




LordBrownTrout said:


> Yep, it was always about money and control of the populace. Same as covid and it's seven merry little variants.



You know, I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but God Damned if it doesn't feel like you're exactly right.




Donald H said:


> Is this all being driven by the Trump loss at the ballot boxes and his ridiculous claim that he was cheated?



Uh, no.  


What it looks to me like is a giant, global redistribution of wealth scheme, with a lot of FWA included and payoffs to the big party donors.  It has always been bullshit, and the democrats politicized it to their advantage as much as they could, and will continue to spout the same crap:  "In another 10 years we'll all be treading water!"  And the gullibles that vote for them swallow it whole without even a doubt.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Q. What do you call a country whose people forsake modern science in exchange for praying to jesus for help to stop the rising tide?

A. A failed clusterfuk.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Y


Donald H said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Donald H said:
> ...


You are a nutbag.

HTH


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jul 9, 2021)

*FREE YOURSELF FROM THE ILLUSION *that climate change has anything to do with the environment.
*We*, de facto, *spread the world's wealth through "climate change".

^^^^^ *straight from the horse's mouth. The United Nations. They are draining our country dry. And we welcome it...


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 9, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...


Get the nations who do little on anything environmental to change. Otherwise I would support several blue cities vaporized. And many will help the enemy to do it.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Y
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> ...


Maybe, but you're going to hear a lot more from me.

You can face the music or you can be a spammer like uncotare, and the rest of the racist crew.

What's wrong with country's people who would elect a doddering old fool as their president, to replace a totally mad psychopath?


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 9, 2021)

Burgermeister said:


> Facts don't matter in lefty science.



That is because with real science, you FOLLOW where the facts take you, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

Leftwing science is the opposite:  they determine where they want to go to support their beliefs then use science to build the staircase for getting there and justifying them.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2021)

task0778 said:


> The Left only believes in science that supports their political ambitions.


You mean their support for transexuals who are "women" when it serves their purposes?
(like when winning sports trophies or gaining entry to women's prisons and bathrooms?)
That's not "science"! That's craven opportunism!


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Hi


Rigby5 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


How do you explain the record cold this winter?  Oh right…..MMGW caused that too.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...


Now I’m a racist?  Gotta link to a racist post by me?


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Burgermeister said:
> 
> 
> > Facts don't matter in lefty science.
> ...


Rightist science finds facts in Intelligent Design!
Proof that creationist theory and evolutionist theories are both right! 

It's an easy choice!


----------



## Theowl32 (Jul 9, 2021)

Yeap, the left rejecting actual science again and loudly insist world global governments are all trustworthy and never have any other motivation other than the well being of the poor and downtrodden in their respective countries.

Sigh....

How big of a house do we suppose Donald H's house is that his dad pays for?

Got to laugh out loud at the notion that any leftist that "pays their own bills" yelling and screaming for higher taxes and yell for higher gas prices.

As they all gleefully guzzle fossil fuels as they spend their days and nights on the internet.

All free to live like the Amish and all can voluntarily pay more taxes, but curiously never do.

Lol at Their hypocrisy they are either completely unaware of or deliberately ignore.

The World is made for those who are not under the curse of self awareness.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Despite your guess, which highly based on false propaganda and fake news, there is no evidence that rising CO2 is making anything worse.

In fact, higher CO2 levels promote biodiversity by helping plants thrive and even become more drought resistant. Thus making the Earth greener.

CO2 is the green gas.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



"But almost all other animals prefer colder climates, especially plants and fish."

Well not to nitpick, but plants are not animals, different kingdom (plantae). Both are eukaryotes, but I digress. For the most part, plant life primarily thrives where there is adequate moisture, soil composition and exposure to sunlight by chloroplasts to generate ATP for the calvin cycle, rather than as a function of temperature (though some plants have more tolerance to cold temperatures, and some are more tolerant of warm temperatures).

Same with fish, some prefer warmer water in the tropic regions, while some prefer the colder deep water and polar regions.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...


More than half of Americans are racists to some degree.
That being over half puts the onus on you to disprove. 

And being a supporter of Trump, who is obviously a racist, is one strike against you.

Show us some evidence that says you aren't a racist. I could be wrong about you but it's very doubtful.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> In fact, higher CO2 levels promote biodiversity by helping plants thrive and even become more drought resistant. Thus making the Earth greener.
> 
> CO2 is the green gas.


Why is your thinking so fukked up?
Do you think that sort of comment will appeal to any grownups?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jul 9, 2021)

task0778 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals will never accept this study. It provides reasonable doubt to their theorem that humans can change the climate.
> ...



Yeah right?  One barely has to adjust the tin foil anymore to find the truth.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Donald H said:
> ...


No, I don’t have to disprove shit, Dumbass.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...


Go play.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Donald H said:
> ...


I accept your admission you are a lying sack of shit.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

366h34d said:


> Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing  climate change


only an ignorant demofk would think they could control the globe.  It's who they are.  They feel superior to all!  when they are more  ignorant than a rock.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 9, 2021)

I'm heartened by so many here checking the source ... no proof was provided in the paper ... and indeed this is from a site dedicated to science fiction ... this piece of garage in the OP wouldn't even get a rejection letter from a thesis mill ... this is below _National Enquirer_ standards ...

That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...

Flawed beyond redemption ... it's certainly what I'd like to be reading, but that doesn't make it true ... sorry, in this case, I'm going with FAKE NEWS ... so beware ...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Go play.


you project much?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...


So what's the issue?


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

jc456 said:


> 366h34d said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing  climate change
> ...


Only jesus can control the whole globe.

But can he stop tall buildings from falling down?

More important, if HE was real, would he even want to?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> But can he stop tall buildings from falling down?


that's superman, you should reach out.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> More important, if HE was real, would he even want to?


your history lessons weren't any good.  you should go back to school


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jul 9, 2021)

AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet


That Dimbulb is
All
Out
Crazy


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jul 9, 2021)

Climate Change FEAR is a political tool that is used to control and enslave people.


----------



## Donald H (Jul 9, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm heartened by so many here checking the source ... no proof was provided in the paper ... and indeed this is from a site dedicated to science fiction ... this piece of garage in the OP wouldn't even get a rejection letter from a thesis mill ... this is below _National Enquirer_ standards ...
> 
> That being said, the paper does makes a couple of important points ... this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist ... there's several other flaws this paper points out, but just showing the flaws isn't proof ... in science, it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also state what is right ... which this paper doesn't even attempt to address ...
> 
> Flawed beyond redemption ... it's certainly what I'd like to be reading, but that doesn't make it true ... sorry, in this case, I'm going with FAKE NEWS ... so beware ...


Of course it's nonsense. But what motivates them into denying real and mainstream science?
Is it in them seeing science as a challenge to christian beliefs?  This is at least hinted at when we hear suggestions that humans couldn't be a significant influence to climate.

Bearing in mind that the challenge to science has no real substance that is based on attained knowledge, it boils down to just 'denial' for the sake of contrariness. 
Some understanding by the deniers that Trump is a denier and so it's mandatory that they follow the party line.

Americans present some significant amount of denial even now but that makes America the last modern first world country to be the last bastion of denial.

But the question still is: Why is that so?


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

It’s always fun when the “23 Genders” crowd starts bleating about science deniers.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Jul 9, 2021)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> AOC says that if you give her $6 trillion dollars she can control the temperature of the planet



You're off by about $90 trillion.


----------



## Burgermeister (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Burgermeister said:
> ...


Evolution is a great example. Rightist acknowledge the massive problems with the theory, lefties dismiss them and cling to consensus as validation.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Climate Change FEAR is a political tool that is used to control and enslave people.


bendog says slavery doesn't exist.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Of course it's nonsense. But what motivates them into denying real and mainstream science?


show us an experiment from mainstream science that shows man made CO2.


----------



## forkup (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


*Flawed Reasoning: *The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
*Inadequate support: *The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
*Fails to provide correct physical explanation: *The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.
(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).









						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org
				




Seems your "bombshell study" was not published and has some serious flaws.

Care to answer?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

Lesh said:


> Flawed non peer reviewed “study”


Yep, almost certainly, since there are mountains of mutually supportive evidence that the study doesn't even touch.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.


Like all those equatorial countries. Which one will you be moving to?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



Facts say noooo.
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist


This is what terrifies scientists. They don't know if runaway warming will happen. They don't know if there are tipping points. This isn't like hurricane modeling, wherein scientists get 10-20 chances per year to refine their models. There are no do-overs here.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.
> ...



Global warming is neither unforeseeable not unstoppable.
We simply should not be adding 500 trillions tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere every single year.
That fossil fuel we burn is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy accumulated by plants and concentrated by microbes.
It is insane to even consider doing that without huge consequences.

Normal climate change cycles are over 110,000 years long.
We are greatly increasing the temperature range of the natural cycle, and shortening it to about 250 yeats.
There is no way life can easily adapt to changes that quick.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Wrong.
Tomatoes get heat blisters if it is too hot.







The greens of plants need photons, not heat.
Heat is not good for plants.
The only reason why some plants due better in warm climates is that they can't survive frost, not that they like heat.
Here in New Mexico, you always use a shade net to reduce the heat.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Wrong.
The only time was warm during the Holocene was less than 8000 years ago, and the Sahara was been dry longer than that.  The Sahara dried up over 10,000 years ago.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...






 Those crazy humans! What were they thinking wanting affordable energy for heating, cooking and transportation?!!!


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Wanting and expecting no consequences are 2 very different things.
If we just grow more bio fuel instead of digging up ancient sequestered fossil fuel, then we remain carbon neutral, because the bio fuel takes out more carbon while growing, then released back later when burned.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Aside from the fact that there is good reason (as just posted here elsewhere) to believe that climate change is way overblown, there would be no civilization possible without fossil fuel.  Other sources of energy will have to develop as time, practicality and affordability allow.


----------



## excalibur (Jul 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then watch as these charalatans' attempt gets laughed out of peer review.




Peer review is a farce.









						Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job
					

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.




					www.wired.com


----------



## BluesLegend (Jul 9, 2021)

Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



I agree that fossil fuels are something for nothing almost, so are a valuable treasure, that we will have to replace.
But since we only have about 50 years of oil and gas left, we had better start on that alternative.
We have more like 500 years worth of coal, but that is about double the CO2 side effects.
You can't just SAY, "Other sources of energy will have to be develop".
We have to start NOW.
We are running out of time, and the excess CO2 is having serious effects.
If nothing else, melted mountain top glaciers are preventing them from acting as reservoirs.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 9, 2021)

BluesLegend said:


> Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.



No one ever said the predicted ice age would happen quickly.
The full cycle is 110,000 years long normally, and we just crossed over from warming to the start of cooling, so we have over 50,000 years.

And you have frogs and bees mixed up.
The frogs are being killed by fungus, not mites.
It is bees being killed by mites.








						Disappearing Frogs
					






					stri.si.edu
				




And no, it never snowed on global warming.
It is still called global warming, not climate change.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Your ilk told us we would be out of oil already.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry the left will just pivot to the next fabricated 'crisis' and start over. Remember when they told us we are headed for an ice age. Then frogs mutating were proof of man made planet killing pollution, turned out to be a mite infestation. Then global warming and when it snowed on global warming they changed the narrative to climate 'change'. If you listen to the left and their paid shills on government grants you are a blithering idiot.
> ...


I have nothing mixed up fool dumb ass Democrats claimed deformed frogs was due to a hole in the ozone hence massive tax increases and government regulations were needed. Actual scientists then studied the deformed frogs and determined this was due to mites. Don't even get us going on the dumb ass Dems 'save the spotted owl' stupidity. There's nothing dumber than a Democrat, it's been proven. And yes it did in fact snow on Ag Gore's global warming summit in Europe, hilarious. It's almost as if God was messing with him. If you wish to debate the issues with me you better bring your A game and arrive informed.

Speaking of Dem stupidity here's another. OMG all these paper grocery bags are killing all the trees and planet, quick BAN paper grocery bags. Lets use plastic bags. Fast forward 30 years...OMG the plastic grocery bags have created a global pollution disaster quick BAN plastic bags and bring back paper bags. DUMB!


----------



## Lesh (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Because moving is so fucking easy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

excalibur said:


> Peer review is a farce.


No it isn't, you know fuck all about any of this, and that is just part of the steaming pile of lies you pull out whenever science doesn't match your political fetishes.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > One thing we do know is that civilization thrives when the climate is warmer and suffers when the climate is cooler.
> ...


You even admit it’s cold! Can’t make it up


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > this "climate sensitivity" factor touched upon is a complete and utter unknown ... we have absolutely no idea what number we should be using, not even a clue ... the IPCC needs to set this value at the high end, otherwise they would have no reason to exist
> ...


They know nothing


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> excalibur said:
> 
> 
> > Peer review is a farce.
> ...


Sure it is, bubba’s club . Need secret decoder rings


----------



## Skylar (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


So you guys finally found ONE study that backs what you want to believe. Only about 4,000 studies to go to catch up with the papers that affirm that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.









						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## excalibur (Jul 9, 2021)

Still waiting to be told where we can find 'The Magic Thermostat'©™ to set the world's temperature/climate. 

And what is the ideal climate anyway, and where would we place it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2021)

excalibur said:


> Still waiting to be told where we can find 'The Magic Thermostat'©™ to set the world's temperature/climate.


Then you're a moron. Why do you even comment on this topic? Might as well ask a drunken ferret what he thinks about calculus.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 9, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Cool...let's do nothing then.



That's MY Plan!


----------



## fncceo (Jul 9, 2021)

excalibur said:


> Still waiting to be told where we can find 'The Magic Thermostat'©™ to set the world's temperature/climate.



It can't be accessed with out spending mountain-sized piles of this...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2021)

All democrats must move straight to Rwanda effective immediately. Do not pass GO. Straight to Rwanda where no fossil fuels nor police will be allowed. All energy must be generated through windmills and solar panels  and you must live with fatherless black males who will be the only ones allowed to own firearms.
Now_ GIT!!_


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 9, 2021)

Donald H said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I'm heartened by so many here checking the source ... no proof was provided in the paper ... and indeed this is from a site dedicated to science fiction ... this piece of garage in the OP wouldn't even get a rejection letter from a thesis mill ... this is below _National Enquirer_ standards ...
> ...



*But the question still is: Why is that so?*

It's not just these claims of climate disaster defy common sense ... they also defy history ... we've been through periods of global warming like this and none of the disasters have occurred ... it may not be accidental that peak interglaciation was coincident with the agricultural revolution ... if your theory can't be demonstrated, then it's not scientific ...

According to NOAA's numbers, there's been a full degree Centigrade global temperature rise in my lifetime ... and not one single climate anywhere in the world has changed ... no one's noticed ... and no one here will notice the expected 2ºC temperature rise over the next 100 years ... we'll be dead ... and for some of us, so will our children ... it will be our grandchildren who will be old and senile and forgetful of _their_ grandchildren's names ... 

The American Midwest will be receiving adequite rainfall every Summer to grow corn, and California will not ... just like it is today ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 9, 2021)

fncceo said:


> excalibur said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting to be told where we can find 'The Magic Thermostat'©™ to set the world's temperature/climate.
> ...



Been collecting rent this week I see ...


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


----------



## theHawk (Jul 9, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...


Hey dummy, you might find many of us are for clean emissions and taking care of the Earth.  Just stop pushing hokum pseudo-science to push a political agenda.  We see right through it.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jul 9, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Paper has not been peer reviewed and there is a simple reason why? It doesn't have the proper scientific evidence to support their case.

Seriously when has a scientific paper that makes this kind of claim be only 6 pages long...


----------



## 366h34d (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


Ya, Canadian are burning dirty coal 24/7 up here. What are you having??? That is your problem. Canada PM is a "prima-AOC.." Canada is banning this and banning that so that Canada can meet the CO2 goal. In fact, Alb has ~10% unemployment rate when the oil is 75 USD (when Oil was close to this price last time, Alb had 2.5% unemployment rate). YOu know your pt is out of lunch.


----------



## DukeU (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.


Rare July Frost and Record Cold hit Minnesota, S. America ...​*Jul 09, 2021*

Record-cold temperatures grip Northeast Memorial Day ...​*May 30, 2021*

US record cold: These US cities had the coldest morning in ...​*Feb 16, 2021
Hundreds *of *record* low temperatures have been set with the current *cold* blast, and many locations Tuesday morning saw their *coldest* temperatures seen in decades, if ever.

Record cold in eleven states - Ice Age Now​*Feb 18, 2021*


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 9, 2021)

The study was published two years ago.  The fact that low clouds reflect heat during the day and high clouds act as a blanket, is not new and was including in most all the other models as well.  This is just an argument as to how much we're done to increase temperature. Fact is the increase in temperature is simple to small and we don't have sensitive enough instruments to measure what changes, if any, the slight warming attributed to man has done  to the weather patterns much less to change the climate.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Well, I think we have MORE time than that, Rigby, both climatologically and resource wise, but of course we need to develop ALL forms of energy and use them smartly as soon as they become feasible and practical.

Right now, wind power and solar panels, etc., are available to augment our energy needs so are ALREADY cutting back on our carbon footprint, but the reality here that I saw back as far as maybe the 1970s is that coal, oil etc., are not inherently BAD, the REAL problem is GLOBAL HUMAN POPULATION.  We simply have way too many people in countries unable to support themselves and need to tackle the real problem of stopping population growth.

What is there now, maybe 330 million people in the US?  Think how much better it was and would be if we got back to 200 million and kept it there, but that involves that dirty word, cutting folks off once they had 1-2 kids.

Population control is the real solution to a great many of our problems yet no politician will ever want to touch upon that subject.

If there were a third less or half the people on the planet as there is now, there wouldn't be any climate or carbon issue and no need to spend trillions of dollars trying to race toward uncertain and immature forms of energy supply, much less all this talk of draconian restrictions on human living.


----------



## excalibur (Jul 10, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Your ilk told us we would be out of oil already.




And that Manhattan would be underwater years ago.

And back c.1990 that we only had 10 years, and back in 1995 that we only had 10 years, and in 2000 that we only had 10 years, and ... Yeah, that is the crap they've been peddling for decades.









						50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50
					

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...




					www.aei.org


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice


Bogus.

Zero Hedge expanded into ... conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric associated with the US radical right, the alt-right, and a pro-Russian bias. Zero Hedge's non-financial commentary has led to a number of site bans by various global social media platforms...

Zero Hedge in-house content is posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"; the founder and main editor was identified as Daniel Ivandjiiski

Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge, Wall Street's Renegade Blog​








						Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge, Wall Street's Renegade Blog
					

The veil is lifted on a secretive website.




					www.bloomberg.com
				




ZeroHedge's Daniel Ivandjiiski (aka "Tyler Durden") who panders to extremist kooks is actually a Bulgarian-born former analyst and hedge fund employee who was banned from Wall Street for insider trading in 2008.​


----------



## bodecea (Jul 11, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


You should come visit Death Valley.....it's a lovely spot.


----------



## Resnic (Jul 11, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...



Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 11, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Non peer reviewed bullshit from climate deniers.









						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 11, 2021)

Nostra said:


> The MMGW crowd is a cult.


Irony can be pretty ironic.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 11, 2021)

CowboyTed said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...


When no evidence of MMGW is found there is no need to write a long paper since nothing doesn't take long to point out.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 11, 2021)

Here is the MMGW Cult's Genius Leader.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...



How did Humans, Corals survive the Meltwater Pulse?

How come humans and corals that survived rapid sea level rise for thousands of years are now in danger of a tiny sea level rise of today?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



No it was THREE well understood WEATHER events that came together to make this heatwave for the history books, nothing to do with climate.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 12, 2021)

Resnic said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > The study is obvious nonsense.
> ...



We're still in the Ice Age.  The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated.  Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent.  Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



This so called bombshell paper was exposed as garbage by skeptics in 2019, *funny not a single warmist/alarmist HERE tried to disprove the PDF obvious problems.*

No specified data sets source was provided.

What are "low Clouds".....

There are more problems, but this should be enough. It is a presentation that is NON reproducible.

Comment by Willis Eschenbach killed it:

".....The issue is NOT that the data is not “easily available”.

The problem is that we have NO IDEA which of the many global cloud cover datasets he used, or which humidity dataset he is working with. We also have no clue what he is calling “low clouds”.

If you think that this study can be “easily replicated”, how about you do just that and then come back and tell us your results? I mean, after all, since the replication is “easy”, it shouldn’t take you long to do it.

We’ll wait …

w."

LINK


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



FALSE!!!

That is called *Sunscald*, has nothing to do with heat.

Tomato Sunscald: Why Too Much Sun Can Be Hazardous to Your Tomatoes’ Health​
I grow tomatoes every year, never have sunscald because my plants grows very well and generate shade for the tomatoes naturally, I also provide 2 inch grass mulch to help stabilize the soil temperature change rate, which help stop blossom end rot and promote increased foliage growth.

My tomatoes went through daily temperatures above 112F for FIVE full sunny days and two consecutive days of 117F with zero visible damage.

Tomatoes are one of the THE most heat loving vegetable there is, very sensitive to cool nights below 55F.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



FALSE, the Sahara was GREEN from 12,500 BCE to about 2,500 BCE.

PNAS

Early Holocene greening of the Sahara requires Mediterranean winter rainfall​
Abstract​The greening of the Sahara, associated with the African Humid Period (AHP) between ca. 14,500 and 5,000 y ago, is arguably the largest climate-induced environmental change in the Holocene; it is usually explained by the strengthening and northward expansion of the African monsoon in response to orbital forcing. However, the strengthened monsoon in Early to Middle Holocene climate model simulations cannot sustain vegetation in the Sahara or account for the increased humidity in the Mediterranean region. Here, we present an 18,500-y pollen and leaf-wax δD record from Lake Tislit (32° N) in Morocco, which provides quantitative reconstruction of winter and summer precipitation in northern Africa. The record from Lake Tislit shows that the northern Sahara and the Mediterranean region were wetter in the AHP because of increased winter precipitation and were not influenced by the monsoon. The increased seasonal contrast of insolation led to an intensification and southward shift of the Mediterranean winter precipitation system in addition to the intensified summer monsoon. Therefore, a winter rainfall zone must have met and possibly overlapped the monsoonal zone in the Sahara. Using a mechanistic vegetation model in Early Holocene conditions, we show that this seasonal distribution of rainfall is more efficient than the increased monsoon alone in generating a green Sahara vegetation cover, in agreement with observed vegetation. This conceptual framework should be taken into consideration in Earth system paleoclimate simulations used to explore the mechanisms of African climatic and environmental sensitivity.

LINK


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Skylar said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> ...



Consensus isn't science, it is political.

You are a science illiterate too?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Laughing......who says that scientific consensus isn't science? There are literally thousands of studies across the world and over decades that have collected evidence and found climate change is likely caused by people.

And you ignore it all because you don't like what the evidence establishes.

But tell us more about scientific illiteracy. For the giggles.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your reply is a perfect example of your science illiteracy since it is REPRODUCIBLE research not consensus that drives science research.

I stated that the "bombshell" PDF is garbage, are you that ocular impaired here?


----------



## Nostra (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Trump wasn’t President back then.


----------



## Nostra (Jul 12, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Wait. What?  You mean to tell me temps rise as you come out of an ice age?


----------



## Nostra (Jul 12, 2021)

Skylar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Likely?

Then the science isn’t settled.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


You need to ask the people of Doggerland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland​


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

It was brought into existence BECAUSE of Glaciation, thus its demise was a matter of time. I posted this in front of you not long ago, you ignored it, here is the source I used for it:

Doggerland - The Europe That Was​
Excerpt from National Geographic:

Mesolithic people populated Doggerland. Archaeologists and anthropologists say the Doggerlanders were hunter-gatherers who migrated with the seasons, fishing, hunting, and gathering food such as hazelnuts and berries.

Over time, the Doggerlanders were slowly flooded out of their seasonal hunting grounds. Water previously locked away in glaciers and ice sheets began to melt, drowning Doggerland. Around 6,000 years ago, the Mesolithic people were forced onto higher ground in what is today England and the Netherlands.





=====

You left out Corals, which can't walk away from the rising waters, how did they survive  far more rapid rise than they face today?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 12, 2021)

Nostra said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Resnic said:
> ...


What makes you think the Ice Age is ending?  Any Idea why they retreat and or advance?


----------



## Nostra (Jul 12, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Wait.  What?

Are you Cultists back to bleating about an impending ice age?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 12, 2021)

Nostra said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...


One more time.  What makes you think the Ice Age has ended?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


So the Doggerlanders knew their geography and climatology and didn't get trapped by the rising waters?  

What happens to corals when water levels change?  They die.  New ones grow elsewhere but that is not the model I want for my grandchildren.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



No they didn't die, they kept up with the changes, but your ignorance made you say wild things.

The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is about 500,000 years old.

You science illiteracy keeps you dumb.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 12, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted.  We are now in the Anthropocene period.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Resnic said:
> ...


Ha ha, there is no such Anthropocene period, you are being fed nonsense.

We are still in the Holocene too.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Sorry dog.  Its not officially official yet but thats only a matter of paperwork.






						Anthropocene - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*"Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution 12,000–15,000 years ago, to as recently as the 1960s. The ratification process is still ongoing, and thus a date remains to be decided definitively, but the peak in radionuclides fallout consequential to atomic bomb testing during the 1950s has been more favoured than others, locating a possible beginning of the Anthropocene to the detonation of the first atomic bomb in 1945, or the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963."*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2021)

Otto already posted this link, and most of the deniers ignored it. Tommy, to his credit, posted a debunking from WUWT, which was also ignored.









						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org
				




Now here's the really funny part, where I ask the deniers to, in their own words, summarize what that glorious paper supposedly said.

<crickets>

None of them read it, of course. Most of them won't even read their own sources. The cult tells them what's supposed to be right, and they all just BELIEVE. Now, do what you do best, deniers, which is deflect from the really awful "science" of the "paper" with every cult-approved talking point that you know


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...





It has been PROPOSED for years now, this Geologist member stated the following this July 6, 2021:

"As of this morning, the International Commission on Stratigraphy has still not ratified the Anthropocene Epoch. Considering the fact that the Anthropocene Working Group hasn’t come up with a geologically coherent rationale for an Anthropocene Epoch in the 12 years they have been publishing newsletters, it’s a fairly safe bet that we will be living in the Holocene Epoch for the foreseeable future. Simon Turner, co-author of Sarah’s Science Fiction novel is actually a member of the AWG. As of August 2019, they expected to have a proposal ready by 2021. The new target is 2024.

Technically, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) would have to approve it and it would have to be ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).








From Finney & Edwards:  “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”


> The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
> Finney & Edwards, 2016


Finney, Stanley C. & Lucy E. Edwards. “The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?” _GSA Today_, 2016; 26 (3): 4 DOI: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale.

LINK

=====

Anthropocene, it is so stupid.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


The coral species didn't go extinct but individual corals died in great numbers.  Mankind will survive any changes in sea level but individual farmers in low-lying Bangladesh will not fare so well.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.

There are a lot of Corals in various places that survived the rapid rise otherwise we wouldn't see much or none at all, how come you didn't think of it?

You are batting zero so far.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.
> 
> There are a lot of Corals in various places that survived the rapid rise otherwise we wouldn't see much or none at all, how come you didn't think of it?
> 
> You are batting zero so far.


Sounds like you don't think Stalin is such a bad guy since, although he killed 20 million Russians, there are still Russians alive today.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Still no evidence presented, I post evidence that they do survive huge sea level increase.
> ...



Your stupid reply was dead on arrival because you present no evidence at all.

When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself posting endless opinions?

You are STILL batting zero.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Resnic said:
> ...



Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata. 

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off. 









						Anthropocene | National Geographic Society
					

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.




					www.nationalgeographic.org


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.



> The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
> Finney & Edwards, 2016


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2021)

At this point, the debate is moot. Either way. THAT cant be debated. After 20 years of the camps of true believers and skeptics going back and forth, outside of college campuses and internet message boards, nobody is caring about the debate and most importantly, the voters. And frankly, that is all the matters.......if the science cant transcend beyond its own field and into the field of energy, its nothing more than a group navel contemplation exercise.

Heres what we do know.........the whole "97% of climate scientists agree........." has done  *ZERO*  to change western nations energy policies over the past 20 years. Renewable energy is still fringe.........and will be for decades btw...........Annual Electric Power Industry Report, Form EIA-861 detailed data files . Read it and weep if you are a climate crusader.

So we can all have fun going back and forth with the science exercise here ( which btw, gets hilarious for skeptic USMB members in here ) but in the end, its about as sensible as debating about which beer is best.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago.  Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer  We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer.  At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, *it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.*


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch.  I'm not saying it is.  I'm saying we'll never know.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Just sharing some knowledge with people that have the ability to learn.  Its not my job to convince you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years,* it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.*






 You people are that stupid?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Looks like you're just dancing with yourself.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm>  As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal.  But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Now you are simply LYING!
> 
> You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!



"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post.  Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it.  Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too.  Were are still in the current Ice Age.  There have been more than one.  The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are simply LYING!
> ...



You are indeed that fucked up since I never replied to your first post at all.

The last three posts:

1) Sunsettommy

"No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion."

===

2) Blindboo  (sudden deflection)

"Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption."

===

3) Sunsettommy

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

======

This the first post I replied to, it is YOUR post 151:

"Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.






Anthropocene​The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.



www.nationalgeographic.org"

===

My FIRST reply to YOU at post 152 to has nothing to do with ice age stuff at all:

"HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.



> The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
> Finney & Edwards, 2016"



======

You are so fucking stupid since I never talked about Ice age stuff with you in this thread, I am talking about the Anthropocene nonsense the entire time.

Suggest you slink away and take your deflection bull shit with you.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point even further.  Richard.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 15, 2021)

Here is the bottom line, interestingly enough, provided through the USMB.............

*https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/*

The thread above provides 8 years worth of posts/information detailing the woeful lack of progress by the climate change industry over the past 10 years.

The overall theme?

That despite 20 years of bomb throwing by the green OCD's, very little has changed on the energy landscape. Renewable energy is still decidedly fringe ( dont take my word for it........check the above thread ). So.......if the purpose of the bomb throwing was to spur the public to action, it hasnt accomplished dick!    Voters dont care. Energy policy-makers arent caring. Fossil fuels still dominating. 

btw.......the thread above is by miles, the most ePiC in the history of this forum. Views of it are now approaching 1/2 million . Check the number of pages/posts..........yuk....yuk.......

And remember.........in the end, it only matters who is not winning!!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



You as usual fail to be honest in your reply since you DEFLECTED from the Anthropocene argument in the first place and you didn't counter the post that exposed you as a bald faced liar.

I wonder if you have been drinking all morning.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 15, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



There is no argument.  You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 15, 2021)

...


Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


I find it really interesting that the zerohedge link was deleted and/or moved.

You did a great service by copying it here.   









						Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
					

Research teams in Finland & Japan conclude "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after series of studies.




					web.archive.org
				




I have always known that the greatest amount of warming gas was water vapor, and that natural processes contributed far greater amounts of CO2 the human activities.

Thus, the whole theory seemed suspect to me.

Likewise, most intelligent folks know that the natural rise in CO2 always followed the rise in temperature.

Everything about the climate lie is and was as phony as the COVID lie.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 15, 2021)

BlindBoo said:


> There is no argument. You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.




There is, sort of an argument.

All he is doing, is pointing out, that Anthropocene, is a propaganda term. . . it is junk science. 

It is meant to make the masses believe that we have more power over the entire planet's future than we actually do, so that global elite's can convince the plebes to consent to a world government.


And he schooled you as to why the propaganda is nonsense. . .

Stop believing billion dollar transnational corporate lies, dressed up as junk science, in the place of facts.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 15, 2021)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.
> ...


You adapt.  Being adaptable is the reason Homo Sapiens is the apex predator on Earth.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 15, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no argument. You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.
> ...


Then you say we are still in the Holocene? 

Reinventing History again still I C.









						Anthropocene: The journey to a new geological epoch
					

The impact of human beings on the planet is so severe and so enduring that the current geological time period could soon be declared the "Anthropocene".




					www.carbonbrief.org
				




"The announcement was the product of years of work and, arguably, arrived on the shoulders of centuries of scientific and philosophical grappling with the idea of humanity’s role in shaping the world.

*Even so, the Anthropocene is far from becoming a formal piece of the geological jigsaw*. While the idea has been seized enthusiastically by many in the fields of science and beyond, there are some who question the validity of naming a new epoch after humanity.

History​Antonio Stoppani is often cited as the first person to suggest that the current geological epoch should be defined by the influence of humans. Formerly a Catholic priest, the Italian professor had turned to geology after he was expelled from the seminary where he taught grammar for his political fervour.

Stoppani saw the footprints of humanity everywhere: it had carved the paths of rivers, mined the Alps, dammed the ocean and built cities. “The Anthropozoic era has begun: geologists cannot predict its end at all,” he wrote in his 1873 work _Corso di Geologia. _And while the so-called Anthropozoic era might have only lasted a “handful of centuries” so far, he predicted that our species’ influence would continue long into the future.

His ideas may have been influenced by American conservationist George Perkins Marsh, who was ambassador to Italy at the time, although Marsh himself acknowledges that Stoppani went further than he ever did.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, more geologists played with the idea of introducing humanity into the sequence of geological time periods."

...............

One thing I am certain of, if it is, we will never know if it is or not.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 19, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then watch as these charalatans' attempt gets laughed out of peer review.


Why do you call them charlatans?

Just because you dont like their science?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 22, 2021)

Nostra said:


> Your ilk told us we would be out of oil already.



In the 60s, some US cars only got 10 mpg.
It is likely the fact cars mostly now get over 30 mpg that slowed the use of oil.
Mass transit as well.
{...  (Amtrak was) Founded in 1971 as a quasi-public corporation to operate many U.S. passenger rail routes. ...}
Imagine if people had not been pushing for higher CAFE standards?
And while the US may not have done that much, the rest of the world has done a lot more, and they likely are the ones who pushed back the date as to when we will be out of oil.
Another factor is we are now also doing deep ocean drilling of oil that no one anticipated we would ever be able to do.

But regardless of when, clearly we have to run out of fossil fuel eventually.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 22, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> We knew the left would celebrate over the high temperatures in the west. So, the GLOBAL WARMING has caused record temperatures in a SPECIFIC AREA on the globe and NOT OTHER AREAS?
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...



You are only describing weather.
And weather is a product of energy, which is greatly effected by climate, such as global warming.

If your point is that it is hard to prove a correlation between a change in weather and a change in global climate, that is true.
But the graphs of the weather over the last century show a marked global warming trend that is much faster than any normal or natural trend.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 22, 2021)

Reducing our use of fossil fuels, whether it helps to slow climate change or not isn't as relevant as keeping the environment clean. 

The left needs to focus on more urgent issues right now like the growing emergency water shortages in the SW.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jul 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> In the 60s, some US cars only got 10 mpg.
> It is likely the fact cars mostly now get over 30 mpg that slowed the use of oil.
> Mass transit as well.
> {...  (Amtrak was) Founded in 1971 as a quasi-public corporation to operate many U.S. passenger rail routes. ...}
> ...


Peak Oil was always a major canard.  Just like the climate tipping point, a moving target.


----------



## TRUGRIT (Aug 6, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters.  If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.


It matters because if the new studies are correct global warming is a natural event and not manmade. So therefore there is nothing we can do to affect the effects.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You are only describing weather.
> And weather is a product of energy, which is greatly effected by climate, such as global warming.
> 
> If your point is that it is hard to prove a correlation between a change in weather and a change in global climate, that is true.
> But the graphs of the weather over the last century show a marked global warming trend that is much faster than any normal or natural trend.



No isn't must faster than any normal or natural trend, gee that un sourced chart that ends in year 2010 has only 130 years out of 1 BILLION years of weather/Climate to draw from.



Meanwhile Dr. Jones doesn't agree with you:

BBC

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones​
Saturday, 13 February 2010

*A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?*

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

=====

You are clearly wrong and you seem oblivious to the fact that it has been cooling for years now, how come you are that unaware of it?


----------



## TRUGRIT (Aug 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


You can't actually be that stupid. Every year the earth moves closer to the sun ( which is a measurable phenomenon ). The closer we get the stronger the cosmic rays become. So how do you explain while parts of the world are experiencing higher  than normal temperatures other parts are experiencing lower than normal temperatures? If it were global warming then the whole planet should be being affected equally.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2021)

TRUGRIT said:


> It matters because if the new studies are correct global warming is a natural event and not manmade. So therefore there is nothing we can do to affect the effects.


So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?  We shouldn't put out fires if they start naturally?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 6, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?  We shouldn't put out fires if they start naturally?



The problem is that environmentalists fight new dam construction for various reasons, and fires used to fade away naturally, now we fight them and too often we don't do the work to thin out dead trees thus the fires are more destructive than it used to be.

Many fires start naturally which destroy many homes that are built in forested areas, then blame it on global warming.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 6, 2021)

TRUGRIT said:


> You can't actually be that stupid. Every year the earth moves closer to the sun


One of these statements is true.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 6, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> The problem is that environmentalists fight new dam construction for various reasons,


Completely besides the point, an obvious deflection.  Care to actually answer the question: So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 6, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Completely besides the point, an obvious deflection.  Care to actually answer the question: So we shouldn't build dams or levees when flooding is natural?


I didn't because you made a LOADED Question, not going to play your bullshit game, my reply was good enough.

"A _loaded question_ is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with."

===

Most dams are built for Shipping and Agriculture. Flood control, Recreation are incidental.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Attempting to prevent global warming does not cost a cent.



That must be why the Green New Deal has a $51 trillion (at least) price tag.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 14, 2021)

366h34d said:


> Of course, there is none. Only leftist dolts believe humans causing  climate change


You need to watch your mouth, boy. Clearly anyone ignoring human devastation of the environment would classify as a dolt.

You white-rights are a blight on this planet, environmentally, socially, culturally. Let's hope your denial of science extends to vaccines and so you didn't get one. Stay away from children until you're dead, please.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 14, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> We knew the left would celebrate over the high temperatures in the west. So, the GLOBAL WARMING has caused record temperatures in a SPECIFIC AREA on the globe and NOT OTHER AREAS?
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...


Why dso you presume to pontificate on this matter when you understand virtually no science? If a heat wave doesn't occur simultanously everywhere, then there is no global warming? That is your contention?

Do you drool on your shoes?


----------



## Sinajuavi (Aug 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That must be why the Green New Deal has a $51 trillion (at least) price tag.


Green New Deal addresses a lot more than climate change.

I fail to understand how one can remain willfully stupid and think they are a patriot? Doesn't compute.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Not all of us get our climatology guidance from politicians.



“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 14, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Why dso you presume to pontificate on this matter when you understand virtually no science? If a heat wave doesn't occur simultanously everywhere, then there is no global warming? That is your contention?
> 
> Do you drool on your shoes?


Yet you do nothing about it other than hating white American capitalists well enough, and being a good enough socialist as you PONTIFICATE AND CHIDE down from your hypocritical lofty little platitude with the other woke hypocrites.

As all of you are perfectly free to live like the Amish do and Yet of course you don't. Banging away on your little phone or computer or iPad that was produced and manufactured and delivered to you and completely and totally reliant on the fossil fuels (oil ooo how icky).

"WOKE FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME." Says every left hypocrite like you.

Meanwhile I provided extensive scientific data that shows how the human cause of GLOBAL WARMING is minimal. 

Just ignore the coldest winter Brazil has had in 65 years. Don't worry though. There are the majority of you leftists that live along the coasts that when the sea levels do rise, there won't be very many of you left. 

Now, go tell your woke hypocrites that use as many fossil fuels as any white righty in America and let them know how you dealt with a racist as you just assume I am white. 

You have zero debate skills.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III


"Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position."   - Ottmar Edenhofer


----------



## Flash (Aug 14, 2021)

The earth is in a post glacial warming cycle.  The earth is warming naturally.  Historically the most common state of the earth is to be warmer than it is now.

AGW is a scam.  If it wasn't a scam then there would have been no need for all the fraudulent data that we have seen from the Environmental Wackos.   Also, their dire predictions would have come true instead of being a bust.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Green New Deal addresses a lot more than climate change.



And so little of it makes sense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position."   - Ottmar Edenhofer



“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III


----------



## 366h34d (Aug 14, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You need to watch your mouth, boy. Clearly anyone ignoring human devastation of the environment would classify as a dolt.
> 
> You white-rights are a blight on this planet, environmentally, socially, culturally. Let's hope your denial of science extends to vaccines and so you didn't get one. Stay away from children until you're dead, please.


Hey, my fd, I am not Joe Biden. Also, I am not white, and I am not right-wing. I am just a simple man with a simple logical mind   . Human devastation of the environment is not equal to leftist dolts' climate change. Only dolts will believe EV is a better solution.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 14, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III


Obviously cherry-picking quotes is not the path to enlightenment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Obviously cherry-picking quotes is not the path to enlightenment.



IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - The Global Warming Policy Forum

"*De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.*

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. *Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2021)

Flash said:


> The earth is in a post glacial warming cycle.  The earth is warming naturally.  Historically the most common state of the earth is to be warmer than it is now.
> 
> AGW is a scam.  If it wasn't a scam then there would have been no need for all the fraudulent data that we have seen from the Environmental Wackos.   Also, their dire predictions would have come true instead of being a bust.


Man, are you full of shit. The Earth has been cooling slowly for the last 6000 years. We hit the highest natural temperatures for this interglacial about 8000 years ago. 




https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2021)

366h34d said:


> Hey, my fd, I am not Joe Biden. Also, I am not white, and I am not right-wing. I am just a simple man with a simple logical mind   . Human devastation of the environment is not equal to leftist dolts' climate change. Only dolts will believe EV is a better solution.


Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.


----------



## Flash (Aug 15, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.




We should all ignore the fraudulent bullshit the Environmental Wackos have been using for decades to facilitate the AGW scam.

The Environmental Wackos have poured tons of money and the researchers have been all too willing to give them the bullshit they paid for.

The earth is warming naturally and humans will have to deal with the climate change.  That is the typical state for earth, changing climate.  

Humans are bad about polluting the earth.  Seven billion humans living a modern life creates a lot of pollution.  However, there is no credible proof that human activity is changing the earth's climate to any significant degree.  That is why the Environmental Wackos are having to create the fraudulent data and their dire predictions never come true.

The stupid uneducated Moon Bats have adopted AGW as their religion and that is really pathetic.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - The Global Warming Policy Forum
> 
> "*De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.*
> 
> First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. *Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."


OK but the same man you are quoting, Ottmar Edenhofer, also said "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position".  How do you reconcile the two statements or do we just ignore the one we don't like?


----------



## 366h34d (Aug 15, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Leftist dolts climate change. However you label yourself, you are an idiot. Only an idiot, or the hopeless Trumpanzees can ignore the obvious evidence of a changing climate. And the science is very clear and has been since 1859.


when did I say I do not believe the climate is changing? Only dolts will believe the climate is static. Believing that we are the cause is dolt too


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2021)

Flash said:


> We should all ignore the fraudulent bullshit the Environmental Wackos have been using for decades to facilitate the AGW scam.
> 
> The Environmental Wackos have poured tons of money and the researchers have been all too willing to give them the bullshit they paid for.
> 
> ...


Lordy, lordy. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Only willfully ignorant asses like you dispute the observations and evidence. 





						The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
					






					history.aip.org


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2021)

366h34d said:


> when did I say I do not believe the climate is changing? Only dolts will believe the climate is static. Believing that we are the cause is dolt too








						The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
					






					history.aip.org


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> OK but the same man you are quoting, Ottmar Edenhofer, also said "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position".  How do you reconcile the two statements or do we just ignore the one we don't like?



Of course he's going to call "deniers" his enemies.  What's that's prove? He stated the true agenda of IPCC and the AGW scam: it's economics. You can find nice quotes from Hitler Mao and Stalin speaking favorably of puppies, what does that change?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Of course he's going to call "deniers" his enemies.  What's that's prove? He stated the true agenda of IPCC and the AGW scam: it's economics. You can find nice quotes from Hitler Mao and Stalin speaking favorably of puppies, what does that change?


It changes nothing, as he said, and you seem to accept he is some kind of authority, we cannot ignore climate change.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> It changes nothing, as he said, and you seem to accept he is some kind of authority, we cannot ignore climate change.



So China is wealthy and far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet, let me know when they take you seriously


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So China is wealthy and far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet, let me know when they take you seriously


So you think the US should be among the worst of nations?  I think we should be among the best.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 15, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


When I was researching the history of co2 etc.. I did read an article that there was a climate model used to predict this so called man made climate change. They inputted the data from 150 years ago and asked it to work forwards to predict today's temperature. It's prediction was double of what it is now. All these scientists just seem to be clambering for the finance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So you think the US should be among the worst of nations?



Worst?
Our emissions per capita are down by almost 30% since 2000.
Which countries are better?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Worst?
> Our emissions per capita are down by almost 30% since 2000.
> Which countries are better?


I don't disagree but CrusaderFrank mentioned in post #209 that China is far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better.  I'm glad our bar is higher than China's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> China is far and away the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet



That's true. 

*as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better. *

How many trillions should we waste cutting our CO2 if Indian and Chinese increases will
swamp our reduction?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 15, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's true.
> 
> *as if that meant we needed to do nothing until they did better. *
> 
> ...


So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow?  I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best.  Hope is not a plan.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow?  I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best.  Hope is not a plan.



*So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow? *

Sure. How much should we spend? $20 trillion? $30 trillion? But what if they never follow?

* I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best. *

We could build reliable, large scale nuclear. How many new plants? 100? 200?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So we shouldn't cut our CO2 or should we do the right thing and trust the Indians and Chinese will eventually follow? *
> 
> Sure. How much should we spend? $20 trillion? $30 trillion? But what if they never follow?


Some things are easy some things are hard.  We should at least start with the easy things.  One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy.  The Chinese invested in solar power and now we buy our solar cells from them.  If we continue on our own path the rest of the world will just pass us by.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * I don't believe the problem is so big we should just throw up our hands and just hope for the best. *
> 
> We could build reliable, large scale nuclear. How many new plants? 100? 200?


We could and we should but we need to find a repository first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Some things are easy some things are hard. We should at least start with the easy things.



Spending $20 or $30 trillion on less reliable, more expensive energy is easy?

*One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy. *

When it makes economic sense, we will too.

*The Chinese invested in solar power and now we buy our solar cells from them.*

No kidding, it's a dirty manufacturing process. It's a lot cheaper if
you don't care about pollution.

*If we continue on our own path the rest of the world will just pass us by.*

Pass us by? By harming their economy with expensive, unreliable energy?
If they insist, we should let them pass us by with that.

*We could and we should but we need to find a repository first.*

What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?
So how many new nuke plants should we build, using Yucca Mountain?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 16, 2021)

Message to tree huggers, sort out the co2 problem that's in your head without taxing anyone.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> When I was researching the history of co2 etc.. I did read an article that there was a climate model used to predict this so called man made climate change. They inputted the data from 150 years ago and asked it to work forwards to predict today's temperature. It's prediction was double of what it is now. All these scientists just seem to be clambering for the finance.


So, you did 'research' and found one model that was off. That is called cherry picking, not research. And now anyone that has any intellect at all realizes that you are not a credible source.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Message to tree huggers, sort out the co2 problem that's in your head without taxing anyone.


Yes, of course. I think that we should go back to the good old days, and re-instate the tax code we had under that Republican President, Eisenhower. Under that tax code we built the Interstate System and many other huge infrastructure projects that enriched our nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Spending $20 or $30 trillion on less reliable, more expensive energy is easy?
> 
> *One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy. *
> 
> ...


Spending $20 or $30 billion on less reliable, more expensive energy is easy? Well said. Since fossil fuel energy is now more expensive now than either wind or solar, and nuclear is far more expensive, it makes no sense at all to invest any more in that type of energy. In fact, it makes sense to divest in it, shutting down those sources as soon as they can be replaced with wind or solar. And use their grid connections for massive grid scale batteries that will make the grid far more dependable and stable than existing power plants. We have seen that in South Australia with the first of Tesla's megawatt batteries. 












						Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen
					

Lazard, the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.




					www.lazard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Since fossil fuel energy is now more expensive now than either wind or solar



That's funny! And wrong.

*it makes no sense at all to invest any more in that type of energy. In fact, it makes sense to divest in it, shutting down those sources as soon as they can be replaced with wind or solar.*

Germans pay triple what Americans do for electricity.
Is that just more evidence that wind and solar is cheaper than fossil fuel and nuclear?

*And use their grid connections for massive grid scale batteries that will make the grid far more dependable*

How massive do the batteries need to be to power Chicago for a week in a snowy January?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's funny! And wrong.
> 
> *it makes no sense at all to invest any more in that type of energy. In fact, it makes sense to divest in it, shutting down those sources as soon as they can be replaced with wind or solar.*
> 
> ...


Tell me, oh stupid one, will the peaker plants you have for Chicago supply the city with power for a week? And are you going to tell me that there is not wind in Chicago in January? You do realize that the electricity that Chicago uses comes from many different states, right? The new Iron-air batteries will store enough energy for a long enough time to give some hours of repair time for major outages, when used in tandem with lithium ion, for quick response and grid stabilization, will eliminate the need for peaker plants.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Tell me, oh stupid one, will the peaker plants you have for Chicago supply the city with power for a week? And are you going to tell me that there is not wind in Chicago in January? You do realize that the electricity that Chicago uses comes from many different states, right? The new Iron-air batteries will store enough energy for a long enough time to give some hours of repair time for major outages, when used in tandem with lithium ion, for quick response and grid stabilization, will eliminate the need for peaker plants.



*Tell me, oh stupid one, will the peaker plants you have for Chicago supply the city with power for a week? *

Why? Are the nuclear, nat gas and coal plants going away?

*And are you going to tell me that there is not wind in Chicago in January?*

You want to install wind turbines in Chicago?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Spending $20 or $30 trillion on less reliable, more expensive energy is easy?
> 
> *One thing to keep in mind is that the world is moving toward renewable energy. *
> 
> When it makes economic sense, we will too.


So much for America being a world leader.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We could and we should but we need to find a repository first.*
> 
> What's wrong with Yucca Mountain?
> So how many new nuke plants should we build, using Yucca Mountain?


NIMBY.  Yucca was the perfect place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So much for America being a world leader.
> 
> 
> NIMBY.  Yucca was the perfect place.



*So much for America being a world leader.*

Is Germany a world-leader in green energy?

Is that why they pay triple what we do for electricity?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So much for America being a world leader.*
> 
> Is Germany a world-leader in green energy?
> 
> Is that why they pay triple what we do for electricity?


They a lot more for gas too, I guess that is why they are more energy efficient than we are.  I don't think their standard of living has suffered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I don't think their standard of living has suffered.



How does paying $7 for gasoline and triple for electricity not hurt their standard of living?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does paying $7 for gasoline and triple for electricity not hurt their standard of living?


Doesn't seem to and I've been there many times.  They seem to be a happier country than we are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Doesn't seem to and I've been there many times.



I don't think you understand what "standard of living" means.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't think you understand what "standard of living" means.


I think it means more than big cars and big houses.  Anyway, I'd rather be happy than rich.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think it means more than big cars and big houses.



It also means being able to afford to heat, cool and light your home.
*
Anyway, I'd rather be happy than rich.*

Ask some Germans if they're happy with their electricity costs.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It also means being able to afford to heat, cool and light your home.
> 
> *Anyway, I'd rather be happy than rich.*
> 
> Ask some Germans if they're happy with their electricity costs.


The Germans I met were quite comfortable and, as I said, are generally happier than Americans.  Of course it could just be they have the best beer in the world.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Tell me, oh stupid one, will the peaker plants you have for Chicago supply the city with power for a week? *
> 
> Why? Are the nuclear, nat gas and coal plants going away?
> 
> ...


How many natural gas peaker plants, nuclear plants, and coal fired plants do you have within the Chicago city limits?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't think you understand what "standard of living" means.


Quality of life rankings. Germany is #9, we are #15.


			Standard of Living by Country | Quality of Life by Country 2022


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 17, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> So, you did 'research' and found one model that was off. That is called cherry picking, not research. And now anyone that has any intellect at all realizes that you are not a credible source.


No


----------



## Captain Caveman (Aug 17, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, of course. I think that we should go back to the good old days, and re-instate the tax code we had under that Republican President, Eisenhower. Under that tax code we built the Interstate System and many other huge infrastructure projects that enriched our nation.


Funny how tree huggers like yourself have also used fossil fuels over the years, and still do, but somehow feel you're in some kind of position to preach to others. Jordan Peterson called it Pseudo Moralistic Stances.

"_People have things more on their personal purview that are more difficult to deal with and that they are avoiding and generally that the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large scale social issues that it makes them look good to your friends and neighbours_."

So you're struggling with general personal issues and so in order to look fantastic to your friends and neighbors, you've jumped on the climate bandwagon. He was spot on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> How many natural gas peaker plants, nuclear plants, and coal fired plants do you have within the Chicago city limits?



Is it more than the number of grid batteries?





__





						Southeast Chicago Energy Project
					






					www.exeloncorp.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Quality of life rankings. Germany is #9, we are #15.
> 
> 
> Standard of Living by Country | Quality of Life by Country 2022



Quality of life index? Does paying triple for electricity make that index higher or lower?


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Have you noticed that this "bombshell study" was put up on Arxiv in June of 2019 and has yet to be published anywhere?  As I'm certain you've been told a thousand times, Arxiv is a pre-print resource.  As written, this paper has been through NO peer review.  That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review.  Here is a quick one pointing out a few of this "study's" significant flaws:









						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org
				




*Flawed Reasoning: *The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
*Inadequate support: *The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
*Fails to provide correct physical explanation: *The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review.



If they used Mike's Nature Trick would they be more likely, or less likely, to be published?


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> Have you noticed that this "bombshell study" was put up on Arxiv in June of 2019 and has yet to be published anywhere?  As I'm certain you've been told a thousand times, Arxiv is a pre-print resource.  As written, this paper has been through NO peer review.  That it has not been published in more than two years time tells us that it has not been able to survive such review.  Here is a quick one pointing out a few of this "study's" significant flaws:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yet that study was done by scientists and no peer review only indicates something a bit nefarious with a global movement.

What is true is nearly every prediction made by environmentalists have actually been proven false over the last 50 years.

It was supposed to be global cooling that would bring about the new ice age as predicted 50 years ago.

Then, acid rain was supposed to create a world wide famine as predicted by environmentalists in 80s.

Then, the hole in the ozone, which was what was actually causing THE global warming has been "fixed." How? Cause of the Montreal Protocol. Yes, you would think that would be bigger news, but it isn't.

Being that the hole ozone layer is fixed, and the world did not turn into a big block of ice, now it is ALL CLIMATE CHANGE.

I guess learning that they cannot be specific cause when something specific doesn't happen, people like me can ask.....some questions.

So, with something ambiguous like CLIMATE CHANGE (which a constant) they (or you) can point to every single last thing, from big snow storms, to heat waves, to tornadoes, and hurricanes (everything in the climate and weather) can be crowed about by the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left.

Either way, the left who preach these things still do NOTHING ABOUT IT other than yelling and pointing and seeing YOU SEEEEE!!!!!!

Not much different from someone preaching faith and not living it. Hypocrisy on both sides.

So, what's my point? Well there is a point there. Isn't there?


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Yet that study was done by scientists and no peer review only indicates something a bit nefarious with a global movement.


It was done by two physicists with apparently no experience in climatology.  The errors they made were basic and fundamental.


Theowl32 said:


> What is true is nearly every prediction made by environmentalists have actually been proven false over the last 50 years.


That statement is meaningless.  Who are "environmentalists"?  If you'd like to restrict yourself to the work of the IPCC, I can clearly demonstrate that almost every measure of global warming has proceeded more rapidly than the projections the politically stifled IPCC scientists have made.


Theowl32 said:


> It was supposed to be global cooling that would bring about the new ice age as predicted 50 years ago.


This is bullshit.  The number of peer reviewed papers predicting a new ice age may be counted on the fingers of one hand and none have appeared in decades.  The number of papers whose conclusions support AGW number in the tens of thousands.


Theowl32 said:


> Then, acid rain was supposed to create a world wide famine as predicted by environmentalists in 80s.


Again, who are "environmentalists"?  Famine as a result of acid rain was the prediction of Dr Paul Ehrlich, a biologist with a few popular books to sell.  Acid rain was real and was mitigated primarily by increased restrictions on the emission of sulfur dioxide and related compounds that were causing pH changes to rainfall.


Theowl32 said:


> Then, the hole in the ozone, which was what was actually causing THE global warming has been "fixed." How? Cause of the Montreal Protocol. Yes, you would think that would be bigger news, but it isn't.


The loss of ozone did increase global warming and the Montreal Protocol was effective.  It was big news.  Perhaps you were too young to notice.


Theowl32 said:


> Being that the hole ozone layer is fixed, and the world did not turn into a big block of ice, now it is ALL CLIMATE CHANGE.


The primary motivation behind the Montreal Protocol was not warming but the increased cancer rates that would result from increased UV radiation.  No one was predicting that eliminating polyfluorochlorocarbons would decrease global temperatures.


Theowl32 said:


> I guess learning that they cannot be specific cause when something specific doesn't happen, people like me can ask.....some questions.


Global temperatures increasing steadily for the last 150 years IS something specific happening.  And the work of tens of thousands of scientists all over the planet have clearly and unequivocally shown that it has a specific primary cause: human greenhouse gas emissions.



Theowl32 said:


> So, with something ambiguous like CLIMATE CHANGE (which a constant) they (or you) can point to every single last thing, from big snow storms, to heat waves, to tornadoes, and hurricanes (everything in the climate and weather) can be crowed about by the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left.
> 
> Either way, the left who preach these things still do NOTHING ABOUT IT other than yelling and pointing and seeing YOU SEEEEE!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Increasing fuel efficiency in the world's automotive fleet.  The increasing acceptance of hybrid and fully electric vehicles.  Several large automobile makers phasing out ICE altogether.  The increasing use of wind, solar PV and other alternative technologies for the generation of power world wide.  The publication and assessment of the work of thousands of scientists identifying the causes of the observed warming, what that warming unchecked will do to the human race and every other species on the planet and, finally, what can and must be done to stop it.  It looks to me as if all manner of things are being done.  Not enough, but at least we are trying to move in the right direction.  If you wish to continue to demonstrate your ignorance here, please carry on.  I suspect the net result of any conversation between the two of us will be a boon to my side of this argument.  Try to remember that you are making the same arguments as several posters here famed for their idiotic lunacy.  

It is not easy to win an argument when the facts simply do not support your position.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> Global temperatures increasing steadily for the last 150 years IS something specific happening.  And the work of tens of thousands of scientists all over the planet have clearly and unequivocally shown that it has a specific primary cause: human greenhouse gas emissions.


Ok, yes. From what I understand the earth came out of the little ice age around 1850. Somewhere around that time. 

That was before any combustion engine was invented. There was mass burning of fossil fuels though and there was mass burning of fossil fuels since we climbed out of the stone age. 

You aren't proposing we should go back to the stone age are you? No fossil fuels would be burned, except of course when mass forest fires happen or volcanoes explode.


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 22, 2021)

Chaos + AGW = Chaos

Now do the inversion.


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Ok, yes. From what I understand the earth came out of the little ice age around 1850. Somewhere around that time.
> 
> That was before any combustion engine was invented. There was mass burning of fossil fuels though and there was mass burning of fossil fuels since we climbed out of the stone age.
> 
> You aren't proposing we should go back to the stone age are you? No fossil fuels would be burned, except of course when mass forest fires happen or volcanoes explode.


The Little Ice Age was not an ice age and it was not even global.  Current warming is NOT related to the Little Ice Age.  The denier tactic accusing advocates of mainstream science of trying to return humanity to the Stone Age makes no sense from any standpoint. But if you'd like to see a little of what the Stone Age was like, just wait till social order has collapsed from the costs of dealing with an extra meter of seawater at the coasts and the consequences of trying to relocate several hundred million people all in the midst of droughts, floods, food shortages and pandemics of resistant viral strains. I rather hope I'll be gone by then but it would only be fitting if every one of you fucking deniers lived long enough to see how wrong you've been and what your ignorant reticence has cost everyone.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> The Little Ice Age was not an ice age and it was not even global.  Current warming is NOT related to the Little Ice Age.  The denier tactic accusing advocates of mainstream science of trying to return humanity to the Stone Age makes no sense from any standpoint. But if you'd like to see a little of what the Stone Age was like, just wait till social order has collapsed from the costs of dealing with an extra meter of seawater at the coasts and the consequences of trying to relocate several hundred million people all in the midst of droughts, floods, food shortages and pandemics of resistant viral strains. I rather hope I'll be gone by then but it would only be fitting if every one of you fucking deniers lived long enough to see how wrong you've been and what your ignorant reticence has cost everyone.


You had just said the global temperatures have been increasing over the last 150 years (or so.) 

Those are your words and I pointed out that I read where the world (or region) came out of the little ice age (that is what it was called and did exist) around 1850. 

That is about that time line and that was at least two decades before the combustion engine was invented. 

So, what caused those temperatures to begin rising. Wasn't because of combustion engines. That is what that means. 

Farts? Human farts? Cow farts? Human belches? 

Ok, what do the warmers think? White people? Seriously. In all seriousness. What? America? Capitalism? The Boston tea party? 

Tell us YOUR SOLUTION. Tell me why the left get all upset when someone like points out the fossil fuel guzzlers on the left who DO NOTHING FOR THE PLANET other than hating America and capitalism well enough and being a good enough socialist.

If every NON DENIER lived out the lives they preach about, then what? I guess it is similar rhetorical question on why so many NON DENIERS live along oceans around the world.

No point answering those since they are rhetorical and actually comments. 

So, back to the FACT that combustion engines not having anything to do with the rising temperatures..

Waiting for your detailed plan. Include all logistics implementation of your plan. 

Thanks


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2021)

You fail basic history?  Sit down somewhere quiet and read the article at this link:  Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 22, 2021)

Crick said:


> You fail basic history?  Sit down somewhere quiet and read the article at this link:  Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia


So you agree that the combustion engine had nothing to do with rising temperatures?

Cannot tell. Your timeline of 150 years (actually about 170) is before that was invented.

Ok...

So my rhetorical questions had no effect eh? Yeah, but the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

Ok

There was no electricity, no combustion engines, no gasoline, no cars, ships still run by wind and currents, less people farting and belching, less cow farts, (far less) so tell us how Americans started THE global warming.

Does it have anything to with Native Americans not having a word for wheel? No?

Huh

What is your conclusion about the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION that you benefit from now, attack it incessantly and continue to chide down from your hypocritical platitude?


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2021)

I tire of providing the needed education of someone who seems to think of themselves as a wise owl.  I think most 7th graders can accurately describe the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, particularly pertaining to increasing GHG emissions.

We have, of course, all benefitted from the Industrial Revolution.  But that benefit has come with costs.  Some we could see more easily than others: the razing of the world's forests, paving tens of thousands of square miles of open land to accelerate transportation, mining for coal, metals, drilling for oil, air, land and water pollution from the waste products and by-products of these processes.  And, finally, the more subtle process, essentially invisibly to the human sense: the relentless warming of the planet as we burn fossil fuels and cook limestone for cement leading to the unprecedented growth of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere..

PS, Perhaps I should be flattered by your attempt, but your final phrase indicates you don't actually know the meaning of the words "chide" or "platitude", Mr Owl.


----------



## Theowl32 (Aug 23, 2021)

Crick said:


> I tire of providing the needed education of someone who seems to think of themselves as a wise owl.  I think most 7th graders can accurately describe the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, particularly pertaining to increasing GHG emissions.
> 
> We have, of course, all benefitted from the Industrial Revolution.  But that benefit has come with costs.  Some we could see more easily than others: the razing of the world's forests, paving tens of thousands of square miles of open land to accelerate transportation, mining for coal, metals, drilling for oil, air, land and water pollution from the waste products and by-products of these processes.  And, finally, the more subtle process, essentially invisibly to the human sense: the relentless warming of the planet as we burn fossil fuels and cook limestone for cement leading to the unprecedented growth of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere..
> 
> PS, Perhaps I should be flattered by your attempt, but your final phrase indicates you don't actually know the meaning of the words "chide" or "platitude", Mr Owl.


Oh, so all that and you still have not provided your comprehensive plan. Also, can you tell me all of the things YOU ARE DOING to offset......your CARBON FOOTPRINT?

Also, being that the warming began before the combustion engine was invented....

Ok, ignore that. You have to. Right? The industrial revolution. Ok, so....

There were no oil refineries. There was no electricity. Ships still made their way by wind and currents. Don't think there were steel buildings being built yet. Far less people in the world.

So, what were the humans doing that caused the temperature to rise? Burning of coal...for iron and steel.

Is that what you are suggesting caused it? Cause humans have been that since the stone age. Cannot tell if you are denying this or not.

Also, CHIDE: intransitive verb. : *to speak out in angry or displeased rebuke* is quick to chide against the mayor for his negligence. transitive verb. : to voice disapproval to

PLATITUDE: noun
Definition of Platitude. something that has been said so often that it is not interesting anymore.

The left (you) chide down from your little platitudes as if any of you actually do anything for the planet.

Tell me, just curious here. Did you purchase carbon credits from al gore? Can you tell me the size of your carbon footprint?

Every last one of you that chide down from your platitudes about the environment are ALL FREE TO LIVE LIKE THE AMISH, but do any of you?

I btw don't doubt your knowledge. Seems you are full of that. What I don't see are your solutions. We cannot tell what you are suggesting we do and what's more I don't really see any of you doing anything.

Will socialism and large amounts of taxes save us? Btw, do you voluntarily pay more taxes? Every left winger I know take tax breaks.

I mean you can pay more you know. You know that, right? Do you?

Hello?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Oh, so all that and you still have not provided your comprehensive plan. Also, can you tell me all of the things YOU ARE DOING to offset......your CARBON FOOTPRINT?
> 
> Also, being that the warming began before the combustion engine was invented....
> 
> ...


First the English lesson.  You probably should have assumed that I would not have made that comment if I did not know the definition of "chide" and "platitude".  Your error was to add the preposition "down" to the former and to treat "platitude" as a place.  But, since you failed to see that - chose instead to double down on your mistake - there is no point in carrying on.

The more important point, for this thread and this forum, is that my personal behavior (and that of others) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of AGW theory and that your continued attacks (and that of others) on individual's behavior is just one more indication that you lack the facts, the evidence, the reasoning or the logic to in any way refute the almost universally accepted theory.  Anthropogenic Global Warming is supported by absolute mountains of evidence: tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers describing the results of tens of thousands of studies and experiments.  It's support among those with advanced science educations is very near universal.

As to my personal conduct and what I would recommend we can all do to help: buy high mileage, hybrid or EV automobiles.  Consider installing EV panels and/or solar water heaters at home.  Ride a bike or walk whenever you can.  Take public transportation whenever possible.  Turn out your lights (which should all be LED by this point) when you leave a room. Try to reduce the amount of disposable and even recyclable plastic you purchase.  Recycle as much of your waste as you can and urge your local recycling authorities to improve their efficiency.  Make your property as diverse as possible with native plants and flowers.  Finally, do the one thing that I and millions of our fellow Americans have done that will do more to fight AGW than any other act: vote for political candidates that accept the science and the threat and the immediate and urgent need to act now.  No one who voted for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden need to feel the least bit shamed by these pointless, ad hominem, denier attacks.  Keeping forever out of office Donald Trump and any other politician whose opinions re AGW even vaguely resemble his is more than enough good for any one person to do.  Vote like the lives of you and your family depend on it, because they do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> First the English lesson.  You probably should have assumed that I would not have made that comment if I did not know the definition of "chide" and "platitude".  Your error was to add the preposition "down" to the former and to treat "platitude" as a place.  But, since you failed to see that - chose instead to double down on your mistake - there is no point in carrying on.
> 
> The more important point, for this thread and this forum, is that my personal behavior (and that of others) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of AGW theory and that your continued attacks (and that of others) on individual's behavior is just one more indication that you lack the facts, the evidence, the reasoning or the logic to in any way refute the almost universally accepted theory.  Anthropogenic Global Warming is supported by absolute mountains of evidence: tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers describing the results of tens of thousands of studies and experiments.  It's support among those with advanced science educations is very near universal.
> 
> As to my personal conduct and what I would recommend we can all do to help: buy high mileage, hybrid or EV automobiles.  Consider installing EV panels and/or solar water heaters at home.  Ride a bike or walk whenever you can.  Take public transportation whenever possible.  Turn out your lights (which should all be LED by this point) when you leave a room. Try to reduce the amount of disposable and even recyclable plastic you purchase.  Recycle as much of your waste as you can and urge your local recycling authorities to improve their efficiency.  Make your property as diverse as possible with native plants and flowers.  Finally, do the one thing that I and millions of our fellow Americans have done that will do more to fight AGW than any other act: vote for political candidates that accept the science and the threat and the immediate and urgent need to act in response.  No one who voted for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden need to feel the least bit shamed by these pointless, ad hominem, denier attacks.  Keeping forever out of office Donald Trump and any other politician whose opinions re AGW even vaguely resemble his is more than enough good for any one person to do.  Vote like the lives of your family depend on it, because they do.



And support Nobel Prize winners, even if they molest the data.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

Trump was only nominated.  Don't fret.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 24, 2021)

It's too late to do anything anyways.....enjoy.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

That is NOT true.  It is too late to prevent SOME bad things from happening, but acting now will prevent even WORSE things from also happening. Sitting back and doing nothing is surrendering to a complete disaster.  I certainly hope that is not where we're going.  I have children, one of whom is soon going to have our first grandchild.  I am very concerned about what they and their children will have to deal with as they grow.  I would hope you are too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> Trump was only nominated.  Don't fret.



I'm talking about the hockey stick guy........


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm talking about the hockey stick guy........


The IPCC won the award, not Mann.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> The IPCC won the award, not Mann.



I know......can you believe that POS was claiming that _he_ was a Nobel Laureate?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.



Should we just call him a blatant liar?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist.  Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty.  And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist.  Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty.  And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.



*I would simply call him a well-known and respected scientist.*

Well respected?

Did Mike's Nature Trick make him more or less respected?

What about when he lied about the Nobel Prize?

*Of what data manipulation and lying do you believe him guilty.*

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

*And if you mention Mike's Nature trick I'm going to treat you to some projectile vomiting.*

You are very delicate when the flaws of your idols are exposed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> What I do not believe is that he deserves to be called a POS.



Before.....








			https://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mann-psu-bio-before-libel1.jpg
		


After......







			https://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mann-bio-after-nobel-bombshell1.jpg


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

I have seen no flaws.  I am not bothered by either comment about the Nobel prize.  Why should it bother you?  I'd think you'd be upset that the IPCC got the award.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

In neither one did he say " I am a Nobel laureate", as you earlier suggested.  In both he made clear that it was the IPCC that actually got the award and it both he shared credit with all the other scientists involved in the work of the IPCC.


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Not all of us get our climatology guidance from politicians.


Just leftist morons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> Why should it bother you?



It doesn't bother me that Michael Mann is a lying POS.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> In neither one did he say " I am a Nobel laureate",



He said he shared the prize. Did he?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> I have seen no flaws.  I am not bothered by either comment about the Nobel prize.  Why should it bother you?  I'd think you'd be upset that the IPCC got the award.



*I have seen no flaws.*

When you keep your eyes closed, how can you see anything?

Meanwhile.......

Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

Todd, I really don't care for rhetoric.  Please just tell us what you think he has done and what your references might be.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 24, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Just leftist morons.


So where do you get you climatology information?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> Todd, I really don't care for rhetoric.  Please just tell us what you think he has done and what your references might be.



Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
Trees are still growing since 1999, right?

Or do you just have no clue what he's done?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



Follow the scien... Shut the Fuck UP!  Global Warming is manmade!!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did he ever use any proxy data "upside-down"?
> Did he ever add proxy temperature data and real temperature data?
> Is hiding the failure of the tree ring data honest or dishonest?
> Has he updated the tree ring data since his first hockey stick?
> ...


Apparently I'm not as fixated on him as are you. So, again, please tell us what you think he has done and why you think so.  And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain what relevance it has to the validity of AGW theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2021)

Crick said:


> Apparently I'm not as fixated on him as are you. So, again, please tell us what you think he has done and why you think so.  And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain what relevance it has to the validity of AGW theory.



We've been talking about his fake hockey stick.

And his fake data. And his fake Nobel.

Do you usually get confused when the sun sets?


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So where do you get you climatology information?


Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We've been talking about his fake hockey stick.
> 
> And his fake data. And his fake Nobel.
> 
> Do you usually get confused when the sun sets?


That is nothing fake about the hockey stick graph.  It has been verified numerous times by numerous researchers.  What other data of his do you believe to be fake?  You claimed he would not reveal it but I showed you that he had released all of it years ago.  You showed me his two comments about the Nobel prize and I told you I found neither one objectionable.

So, Todd, what is your problem with Dr Mann?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Thanks for the confirmation.


If you are looking for information about global warming, there is no place better than the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) at www.ipcc.ch.  The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is a good place to start, particularly if you do not have a firm science footing.  Unfortunately, the SPM, which will be included in AR6's Synthesis Report, will not be released till early 2022.  You can download the Summary for Policy Makers for the Fifth Assessment Report along with the rest of the AR5 Synthesis Report, from 2014, at AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC.  The science behind the IPCC's _latest _conclusions, derived from hundreds of peer reviewed, published scientific studies, is presented in The Physical Science Basis  at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> That is nothing fake about the hockey stick graph.



You like mann's hockey stick?

He didn't leave anything out?

Didn't put any bad data in?

Adding real temps to proxy temps doesn't bother you?

*So, Todd, what is your problem with Dr Mann?*

What's not to like?

He tried to stop people he disagreed with from getting published, lied about the Nobel and still owes legal fees to a couple a guys he sued. 

He's swell!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> What other data of his do you believe to be fake? You claimed he would not reveal it but I showed you that he had released all of it years ago.



He should have told that to the judge, maybe he wouldn't have had his court cases tossed?


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> If you are looking for information about global warming, there is no place better than the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) at www.ipcc.ch. The Summary for Policy Makers


Yeah, that's what I want to do, follow "the science."  FOR POLICY MAKERS.  You're a moron who cannot understand that the end game is "population control."  Fuck off lemming, you're an idiot.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Yeah, that's what I want to do, follow "the science."  FOR POLICY MAKERS.  You're a moron who cannot understand that the end game is "population control."  Fuck off lemming, you're an idiot.


What's "end game" do you believe to be population control?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 25, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Thanks for the confirmation.


And thank you for your confirmation that you don't get your climatology information from climatology scientists.


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> And thank you for your confirmation that you don't get your climatology information from climatology scientists.


Comprehension isn't big on your list either.  However you DID comfirm that you are a leftist moron.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 25, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Comprehension isn't big on your list either.  However you DID comfirm that you are a leftist moron.


It is obvious you are a rightist, but I'm still awaiting evidence of intelligence...


----------



## Concerned American (Aug 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> It is obvious you are a rightist, but I'm still awaiting evidence of intelligence...


You'll never be able to recognize that which you are devoid of.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Adding real temps to proxy temps doesn't bother you?


Why would it bother any honest person?

Proxy temps don't extend to the present. Thermometer temps don't extend to the distant past. It's common sense and common practice to splice them together, using the overlap to calibrate.

I think you're just butthurt that Mann is such a success, while the people you worship are all frauds and incompetents. Mann's
success makes your side's faceplants look that much more pathetic, so you've been instructed to let the hate flow, and to lie like you've never lied before.

And no, Mann did not use upside down data. That's a fake story that your cult pushed.









						Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust
					

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV...




					www.pnas.org
				












						Tiljander
					

Note (September 8, 2016): The article below contains some false statements. I have overlined the false parts. See the discussion below for further information. Arthur Smith wrote about the Mann/Til…




					agwobserver.wordpress.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Why would it bother any honest person?
> 
> Proxy temps don't extend to the present. Thermometer temps don't extend to the distant past. It's common sense and common practice to splice them together, using the overlap to calibrate.
> 
> ...


*
Why would it bother any honest person?*

Because it's dishonest.......kind of Mann's thing, eh?

*Proxy temps don't extend to the present. *

Really? You can measure trees rings going back hundreds.....thousands of years, but you can't measure them after 1998? DURR.

* It's common sense and common practice to splice them together, using the overlap to calibrate.*

And when they start to diverge.......you lie.

*I think you're just butthurt that Mann is such a success, *

Yeah, they'll never take away his Nobel Prize.........

*Mann's success makes your side's faceplants look that much more pathetic,*

How are his courtroom successes looking?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because it's dishonest.......kind of Mann's thing, eh?


"WAAAAAA! EVERYONE IS A LIAR BECAUSE MY CULT SAYS SO!"

 Cultists don't handle it well when you let reality leak into their SafeSpace.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Really? You can measure trees rings going back hundreds.....thousands of years, but you can't measure them after 1998? DURR.


So you're claiming to be an expert, yet you don't know about the divergence problem. You're ignorant of the basics. That makes you uninteresting. All you bring to the discussion is butthurt, and that's boring.

Now, how does your cult say to respond to that? You'd best run and check. While you're there, ask them why they lied about the upside-down thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> "WAAAAAA! EVERYONE IS A LIAR BECAUSE MY CULT SAYS SO!"
> 
> Cultists don't handle it well when you let reality leak into their SafeSpace.
> 
> ...



*"WAAAAAA! EVERYONE IS A LIAR BECAUSE MY CULT SAYS SO!"*

Did Michael Mann really win a Nobel Prize?
*
So you're claiming to be an expert, yet you don't know about the divergence problem.*

You mean proxies don't work now because.............?

* All you bring to the discussion is butthurt*

That reminds me, how's Mann doing in court?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

Todd,

Why does Mann transitioning from tree ring data to thermometer data bother you?  What about it do you consider dishonest?  He clearly labeled his plots and explained what he was doing?  Do you think he pushed some falsehood?  What is the lie you believe he is putting out?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> Todd,
> 
> Why does Mann transitioning from tree ring data to thermometer data bother you?  What about it do you consider dishonest?  He clearly labeled his plots and explained what he was doing?  Do you think he pushed some falsehood?  What is the lie you believe he is putting out?



Transitioning? LOL!

*He clearly labeled his plots and explained what he was doing? *

He clearly explained "Mike's Nature Trick", on the chart?

*Do you think he pushed some falsehood? *

Was "sharing a Nobel Peace Prize"......truthful?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

He did clearly label his plots and did explain what he was doing.  Mike's Nature trick was a well known technique in the field and was never intended to push a falsehood.  Along with everyone else involved in the production of the work of the IPCC, he DID share a Nobel prize.  Your anger here seems really inappropriate.  How could you possibly care about any of this?  Does his transitioning from tree ring to thermometer affect your day to day life in any way?  Have you had to explain Mann's comments about the Nobel prize to your young child?  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot dude.  Why do you care about any of this?  Do you think that if Mann could be shown to have incorrectly made that transition and to have had nothing to do with the IPCC's Nobel, that AGW theory would collapse?  That governments would stop moving away from fossil fuels?  You've worked yourself into a tizzy about a complete nothing burger.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> He did clearly label his plots and did explain what he was doing.  Mike's Nature trick was a well known technique in the field and was never intended to push a falsehood.  Along with everyone else involved in the production of the work of the IPCC, he DID share a Nobel prize.  Your anger here seems really inappropriate.  How could you possibly care about any of this?  Does his transitioning from tree ring to thermometer affect your day to day life in any way?  Have you had to explain Mann's comments about the Nobel prize to your young child?  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot dude.  Why do you care about any of this?  Do you think that if Mann could be shown to have incorrectly made that transition and to have had nothing to do with the IPCC's Nobel, that AGW theory would collapse?  That governments would stop moving away from fossil fuels?  You've worked yourself into a tizzy about a complete nothing burger.



*He did clearly label his plots and did explain what he was doing. *

Link?

*Along with everyone else involved in the production of the work of the IPCC, he DID share a Nobel prize.*

That's weird, he's not on the list of Nobel laureates.

*Your anger here seems really inappropriate. *

Anger? Where?

*Does his transitioning from tree ring to thermometer affect your day to day life in any way? *

Don't scientific lies affect your life?

*Do you think that if Mann could be shown to have incorrectly made that transition *

He didn't?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did Michael Mann really win a Nobel Prize?



It's not just your butthurt driving you. Cults need enemies for the faithful to hate. Since your fraud cult is dying, they _really_ need enemies.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> That reminds me, how's Mann doing in court?


What's that got to do with the science?

If you could debate the science, you would. You can't. That's why you're in constant deflection mode.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> What's that got to do with the science?



You're the one whining about butthurt.......Mann pay those legal fees yet? LOL!


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He didn't?


Seriously? Made up charts now?

Admit it. You have no idea what the trick was. You're as clueless about that as you are about every aspect of the scinece. You just bleat what you're told to bleat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Seriously? Made up charts now?



Seriously.

Added proxy data and real data.....to "hide the decline". DURR.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're the one whining about butthurt.......Mann pay those legal fees yet? LOL!


Libel has an extremely very high bar to prove, and Mann didn't have enough. That's all it means. And it's funny that you think it means somnething..

You used to be sort of normal. Not anymore. Your cult has really done a number on you.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Seriously.
> 
> Added proxy data and real data.....to "hide the decline". DURR.


Again, you're just babbling buzzwords from  the cult. 

And that's all you've ever been capable of.

Have you thought of getting a different hobby?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Libel has an extremely very high bar to prove, and Mann didn't have enough.



Not only, "didn't have enough", he owes legal fees to Tim Ball, one of the guys he sued. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Again, you're just babbling buzzwords from  the cult.
> 
> And that's all you've ever been capable of.
> 
> Have you thought of getting a different hobby?



Do I need to explain "Mike's Nature Trick" and "Hide the Decline"? LOL!


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

I would like to hear you explain them Todd, because I think you're suffering from a few misunderstandings.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He should have told that to the judge, maybe he wouldn't have had his court cases tossed?


It looks to me as if Steyn and Simberg are still in legal trouble and that CEI and National Review getting excused had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mann did.









						Judge Scales Back Climate Scientist's Case Against Bloggers - Inside Climate News
					

A Washington, D.C. judge has ruled that the conservative think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute cannot be held responsible for an outside blogger’s 2012 online attack on a prominent climate scientist. At the same time, the judge decided that a jury should decide whether the blogger...




					insideclimatenews.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2021)

Crick said:


> It looks to me as if Steyn and Simberg are still in legal trouble and that CEI and National Review getting excused had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mann did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_If you've not been keeping track of the litigious Mann's courtroom score card, here's how it stands after last week's ruling:
_


> _~Mann vs Professor Timothy Ball (British Columbia Supreme Court):
> Case dismissed; Mann loses (and has been ordered to pay costs, which the bum and deadbeat has declined to do);
> ~Mann vs National Review (District of Columbia Superior Court):
> Case dismissed; Mann loses;
> ...











						You're Once, Twice, Three Times a Loser...: Michael E Mann, Loser (Again) (and Again)
					

Programming note: Today, Monday, I'll be back in the anchor chair for a full hour on America's Number One cable show, Tucker Carlson Tonight. Tucker's quiet fishing trip didn't quite turn out as uneventful as planned, at least for those who make the




					www.steynonline.com


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2021)

My article is one day later than yours


Toddsterpatriot said:


> _If you've not been keeping track of the litigious Mann's courtroom score card, here's how it stands after last week's ruling:_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you jibe your article with the conclusion of mine:

The judge’s ruling, if it stands and the case proceeds to trial, means that the bloggers will have to defend the accusation that they recklessly ignored those reports. But for now, the publishers who gave the bloggers a platform have succeeded in their bid to avoid liability, by virtue of the arm’s length relationship they maintained with the authors who wrote under their banner.

As I stated earlier, CEI and the National Review have been released from the suit, but Steyn and Simberg are headed for a trial since Mann has clearly stated he is not giving up this case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2021)

Crick said:


> The judge’s ruling, if it stands and the case proceeds to trial, means that the bloggers will have to defend the accusation that they recklessly ignored those reports.



So what?

What's Mann's record to date?

Is it 0-3?

Is he ever going to pay the legal fees he owes? Why is he a deadbeat?

*As I stated earlier, CEI and the National Review have been released from the suit, but Steyn and Simberg are headed for a trial since Mann has clearly stated he is not giving up this case.*

Do you feel I denied your earlier statement?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann.  And, as seems to be the case with every debate I have with AGW deniers, this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.  Or do you think otherwise?  Do you believe its validity rests on whether or not Steyn and Simberg defamed Mann?  Is that the criteria?  If they lose will you accept AGW as valid?  If they win, do you expect me to cast it aside?  Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd?  I never thought I'd say this of you, Todd, but you seem to be moving toward irrelevancy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann.  And, as seems to be the case with every debate I have with AGW deniers, this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.  Or do you think otherwise?  Do you believe its validity rests on whether or not Steyn and Simberg defamed Mann?  Is that the criteria?  If they lose will you accept AGW as valid?  If they win, do you expect me to cast it aside?  Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd?  I never thought I'd say this of you, Todd, but you seem to be moving toward irrelevancy.



*As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann. *

Where have I denied that? Ever?

Mann has lost 3 cases, so far, and owes legal fees to Tim Ball. Which the deadbeat still hasn't paid.
Do you deny that?

*this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.*

It has to do with the fraud that is Michael Mann.

*Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd?*

I think it started with you saying the hockey stick has never been disproven (or something of that nature, not an exact quote of your defense).


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

Steyn and Simberg have nothing to do with anything I am here to debate.  Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified.  The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data, was corrected in the 2000 version and has never been repeated.  His results have never been refuted despite numerous denier efforts to do so. So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?



(cough) Nobel Prize (cough)

If you think Mike's Nature Trick, Hiding The Decline, trying to stop critics from being published, dragging out lawsuits against bloggers, publishers, professors for 10 years and then not paying court ordered legal fees is evidence of an upstanding member of the scientific community, 
I'm gonna have to laugh at you some more.

*Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified. *

Mann's original hockey stick was bullshit.

*The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data*

What flaw? Post it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

I asked you several posts back to give me your understanding of Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline. You have not done so.

Here is MBH 1998 compared to Wahl-Amman 2008






Where, exactly, do you see "bullshit"?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

and




Green dots show the 30-year average of the new [2013] PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

Where, exactly, do you see bullshit?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

Your turn Todd.  Show us a temperature reconstruction of the last 1-2 thousand years that refutes MBH 2000.  And I would still very much like to hear YOUR understanding of Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> Steyn and Simberg have nothing to do with anything I am here to debate.  Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified.  The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data, was corrected in the 2000 version and has never been repeated.  His results have never been refuted despite numerous denier efforts to do so. So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?



*The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data*

What flaw? Post it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

Why?  Do you not know what it was?  Everyone else does.  You seem to claim that Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline are hard evidence of fraud.  I would say that is simply a clear indication that you do not know what Mike's Nature Trick was or what Hide the Decline actually did because neither were fraudulent.  But we need you to explain it to us.  If we start accusing people of crimes without providing evidence, we will have sunk to another new low.  Please explain your evidence that Mann has been fraudulent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> Why? Do you not know what it was?



You know what it was, post it.

Yes, adding real temperature measurements to proxy ones is fraudulent.

If he was being honest, he'd post them side-by-side, with an explanation.

Adding them together to hide the decline is horrible science.

Why is Mann such a deadbeat? Pay your court ordered legal fees already. LOL!


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

Your understanding is incorrect.  I'm certain the folks at Skeptical Science aren't your favorites, but they have a brief and concise (and correct) explanation of both Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline at Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'.  It's one page Todd.  Please read it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> Your understanding is incorrect.  I'm certain the folks at Skeptical Science aren't your favorites, but they have a brief and concise (and correct) explanation of both Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline at Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'.  It's one page Todd.  Please read it.



Where did I say hiding the decline was about temperatures?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

Right here in your very last post.  "Adding them [instrument and proxy temperatures] together to hide the decline is horrible science."

The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud.  You need to withdraw your accusation because you've got nothing on which to base it.

Are you smoking Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> Right here in your very last post.  "Adding them [instrument and proxy temperatures] together to hide the decline is horrible science."
> 
> The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud.  You need to withdraw your accusation because you've got nothing on which to base it.
> 
> Are you smoking Todd?



They added the real temperatures to the proxies, to hide the decline in the proxies. 
I even posted a picture on Wednesday, post #296.










__





						Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
					

That is nothing fake about the hockey stick graph.   You like mann's hockey stick?  He didn't leave anything out?  Didn't put any bad data in?  Adding real temps to proxy temps doesn't bother you?  So, Todd, what is your problem with Dr Mann?  What's not to like?  He tried to stop people he...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





*The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud. *

The proxies stopped working, they should have just said that. Shown that.

How do you feel about Mann trying to stop skeptics from getting published?

Is that what scientists do who are winning the debate?

If I was smoking, would I stop noticing Mann's fraud?


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2021)

The proxies did not stop working.  As I have already explained - and as I am quite certain you have read before - the relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature changed for high altitude trees in the 1960s.  One is corrected and one is not.  Or are you under the impression that temperatures in the last century have plummeted?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2021)

Crick said:


> The proxies did not stop working.  As I have already explained - and as I am quite certain you have read before - the relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature changed for high altitude trees in the 1960s.  One is corrected and one is not.  Or are you under the impression that temperatures in the last century have plummeted?


*
The proxies did not stop working..... the relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature changed for high altitude trees in the 1960s. *

LOL!

*Or are you under the impression that temperatures in the last century have plummeted?*

Are you under the impression that I am?


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2021)

Get back to me when you actually have something to say.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2021)




----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2021)

This was December 8th, 2015.  The list below were the highpoints I caught of this exchange.  Did you want to talk about any of this in particular or would you like to go over all of them?

Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years
Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950
Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
Curry, speak about a survey of AMS, asking if recent changes are natural or human caused.  52% said human-caused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2021)

Crick said:


> This was December 8th, 2015.  The list below were the highpoints I caught of this exchange.  Did you want to talk about any of this in particular or would you like to go over all of them?
> 
> Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
> Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
> ...



Yeah, Markey looked like an idiot. 
No surprise.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2021)

So, what did you intend to convey with that clip?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2021)

Crick said:


> So, what did you intend to convey with that clip?



Markey is an idiot.
The claim that there is consensus is idiotic.

If you want to refute any of the points in post #328, feel free.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2021)

Your video said nothing about consensus.  That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.

Q)  Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.

A) Unfortunately, Antarctica has been losing ice for the last five years so her point has become moot.  I understood the explanation for increasing ice mass prior to this was from increased precipitation due to warmer air and seas.

Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.

From the EPA




Well...




I still don't see it.  Global warming started about 1850.  Sea level would have been rising from rising temperatures.  Besides, sea level looks to have been rising slowly for the last 7-8,000 years.

Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years

A) The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840.  Prior to the IR, the world was slowly getting colder.  So I don't know what she's talking about.

Q) Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950

A) By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter.  And, of course, she was only computing up to 2015.  Currently, the global temperature would plot above the title text of this graph at +1.46C




Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.

A) It didn't.  There was no hiatus.  See Karl, Thomas R.; Arguez, Anthony; Huang, Boyin; Lawrimore, Jay H.; McMahon, James R.; Menne, Matthew J.; Peterson, Thomas C.; Vose, Russell S.; Zhang, Huai-Min (26 June 2015). "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". _Science_. *348*(6242): 1469–1472. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5632. PMID 26044301.American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?

A)  Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming.  Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding (though senators have never had a problem interrupting their guests).  Steyn said nothing of value.

Q) Curry, speaking about a survey of AMS members that asked if recent changes were natural or human caused. 52% said human-caused.

A)  The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists.  It perhaps should be taken into account that very few of its members possess advanced degrees or are actually research scientists.  There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW.  However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW.  From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, here is a more current statement of the AMS official position on global warming, emphases mine:

American Meteorological Society​The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:



> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.


A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.

How's that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2021)

Crick said:


> Your video said nothing about consensus.  That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.
> 
> Q)  Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
> 
> ...



*That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.*

There is a very strong consensus in the Mafia.
What happens when you publicly disagree with Tony Soprano?

* The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840. *

That's funny.

* By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter.*

Wait, no warming for almost 20 years? Did AGW stop working? CO2 decrease? Weird.

*Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.

A) It didn't.  There was no hiatus. *

Because there was no hiatus? Or because they adjusted it away like Mann hid the MWP and LIA?
*
Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something *

Yeah, Markey is a moron. Curry said nothing about God. I guess Markey felt if you didn't believe it was AGW it couldn't be natural reasons, so say it was God. 

*Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?*

And Markey had no answers. Do you?

* Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming. *

Neither does Markey.

*Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding*

It was awesome. 

*Steyn said nothing of value*

Deflating that pompous windbag was awesome! Senators should be questioned like that when 
their ignorance becomes that obvious.

* The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists. *

Impossible......there is consensus. Like Markey said, 97%.

* There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW. *

Kind of like all the other scientists, eh?

*However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW. *

The consensus that man caused some (unmentioned) portion of the warming.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.*
> 
> There is a very strong consensus in the Mafia.
> What happens when you publicly disagree with Tony Soprano?


Unresponsive


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840. *
> 
> That's funny.


Unresponsive


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter.*
> 
> Wait, no warming for almost 20 years? Did AGW stop working? CO2 decrease? Weird.


Likely aerosol effects on the planet's albedo from WWII and its economic aftermath


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
> 
> A) It didn't.  There was no hiatus. *
> 
> Because there was no hiatus? Or because they adjusted it away like Mann hid the MWP and LIA?


There was no hiatus


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something *
> 
> Yeah, Markey is a moron. Curry said nothing about God. I guess Markey felt if you didn't believe it was AGW it couldn't be natural reasons, so say it was God.


I believe Markey was trying to say that Curry thought global warming was the result of "acts of god", environmental effects that did not involve human action.  I Markey is not a moron.  Mark Steyn, on the other hand, is a club-footed charlatan.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
> Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
> Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
> Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?*
> ...


Yes and I imagine Markey did as well.  He simply chose not to reward Steyn for being an asshole.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming. *
> 
> Neither does Markey.


I'm afraid that as a senator on the committee holding the hearing, he most certainly did have the qualifications to speak.  And I'm sure some republican member invited Steyn to come, so he was at least permitted to be in the room.  But his grasp of parliamentary procedures were obviously lacking, as were his basic manners.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding*
> 
> It was awesome.


I guess then that you're impressed by people acting like assholes.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Steyn said nothing of value*
> 
> Deflating that pompous windbag was awesome! Senators should be questioned like that when
> their ignorance becomes that obvious.


What did he say that made you think he needed to be hectored like that?


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists. *
> 
> Impossible......there is consensus. Like Markey said, 97%.


Probably a good number for 2015, but its higher now.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW. *
> 
> Kind of like all the other scientists, eh?


No.  That was the point.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW. *
> 
> The consensus that man caused some (unmentioned) portion of the warming.


Essentially all of it.

You know, all you deniers have a similar practice: you get some bug up your ass when you hear one of your heroes make what you believe to be a clever quip and you all pick it up and use it as if it were the unconquerable secret weapon to overthrow your enemies.  Recently, it seems to have been to ask mainstream science types what percentage of global warming is being caused by man.  You think that question will embarrass us so badly that we will slink away and hide under a rock.  I'm sorry to disappoint you but that is not what's going to happen.  ONE, the answer is "almost all the warming" and TWO, the inability to provide some exact answer to many decimal places does not weaken the argument for the validity of AGW, it simply shows that you and yours STILL fail to understand the workings of basic science, particularly concerning systems as large and complex as the Earth's climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2021)

Crick said:


> Unresponsive
> 
> Unresponsive
> 
> ...



*Likely aerosol effects on the planet's albedo from WWII and its economic aftermath*

Aerosol effects caused the temperature to spike in 1950 and then cool for 20 years?
Is that your theory?

*I believe Markey was trying to say that Curry thought global warming was the result of "acts of god",*

I know, trying to put words in her mouth. Disgraceful.

*Mark Steyn, on the other hand, is a club-footed charlatan.*

From kicking Mann's ass so much?

*Yes and I imagine Markey did as well.  He simply chose not to reward Steyn for being an asshole.*

By failing to answer, he did reward Steyn.

*I'm afraid that as a senator on the committee holding the hearing, he most certainly did have the qualifications to speak. *

Don't let me stop you from listing those qualifications. 

*You know, all you deniers have a similar practice: you get some bug up your ass when you hear one of your heroes make what you believe to be a clever quip*

Poor self-conferred Nobel Laureate Michael E Mann.....everybody is picking on him.

*I guess then that you're impressed by people acting like assholes.*

No, Mann and his buddies trying to stop skeptics from publishing did not impress me.

*What did he say that made you think he needed to be hectored like that?*

He called Curry a science denier.
Claimed that the only cause must be AGW, not natural variation.
Not answering the previous questions.

*No. That was the point.*

Really? Only conservatives let their politics influence their stand on AGW?

*Essentially all of it.*

You have any polls of climate scientists that ask that question?

"Is current global warming essentially all caused by human actions"?

Or 

"What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?

Instead of "Are humans causing global warming"?

*Recently, it seems to have been to ask mainstream science types what percentage of global warming is being caused by man.*

If you're pushing for trillions in green spending, it seems like an important question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2021)

Crick said:


> Unresponsive
> 
> Unresponsive
> 
> ...








_The apparent observed slowing or decrease in the upward rate of global surface temperature warming has been nicknamed the “hiatus.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998 to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012.

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014—the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.






						The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
					

Scientists report that surface temperature data no longer support the idea that the rate of global warming has slowed.




					www.ncdc.noaa.gov
				



_
They adjusted the data?
LOL!


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2021)

A correction.  But, hey, you go ahead through life and assume that every statement that you don't like is a lie.  I'm certain that will guarantee your life will be a bed of roses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2021)

Crick said:


> A correction.  But, hey, you go ahead through life and assume that every statement that you don't like is a lie.  I'm certain that will guarantee your life will be a bed of roses.



They "corrected" the data? Did Mann show them how? 

LOL!


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2021)

Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working on global warming, including those that lean towards your way of thinking Todd, how many are still claiming that warming stopped in 2000?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2021)

Crick said:


> Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working on global warming, including those that lean towards your way of thinking Todd, how many are still claiming that warming stopped in 2000?



How could they.....the data has been "adjusted".


----------



## justoffal (Aug 30, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


I absolutely believe this article simply because it's completely impossible to claim that we are aware of all the CO2 and inputs into our atmosphere from the Earth. For example there are numerous undersea volcanoes ( that we know of and most likely many that we don't ) that spew  hundreds of thousands of tons constantly into the ocean waters which then becomes dissolved into the water and later on expelled or re-absorbed as the temperature of the water either cools down or heats up.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2021)

If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes? 

Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
1) Simple book keeping.  It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution.  Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere can show us directly what portion was produced by fossil fuels and what was not.

Both tell us the exact same thing:  that humans are responsible for just about every single speck of CO2 above 280 ppm.


----------



## The Original Tree (Sep 13, 2021)

bodecea said:


> Cool...let's do nothing then.


*Maybe places like California run by idiots should build reservoirs instead of dumb ass high speed railroads.*









						California’s $100 Billion Nightmare High-Speed Rail Project
					

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has caused a fiscal nightmare for the state.




					www.cagw.org


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The sea level isn't rising...do you know how I know?
> 
> the high priests of the man made global warming religion are buying up all the beachfront mansions........


There are no forest fires.  Do you know how I know?  Rich people still buy expensive houses in the woods.
There are no hurricanes.  Do you know how I know?  Rich people still buy ocean front property.
There


Crick said:


> If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes?
> 
> Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
> 1) Simple book keeping.  It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution.  Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
> ...


So, no one cares to attempt to refute either of the measurements indicating that humans are completely responsible for the elevated CO2 levels.  And no one can deny that the absorption spectrum of CO2 vis-a-vis that of water vapor and the other gases in the Earth's atmosphere provide a framework by which solar energy is trapped in our atmosphere raising the planet's equilibrium temperature.  Global warming is real, it is caused by increasing CO2 and that CO2 is increasing because of human combustion of fossil fuels.  Period.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2021)

Crick said:


> Global warming is real, it is caused by increasing CO2



Except for tree CO2. It's transparent to LWIR.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
> Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.


I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 7, 2021)

Crick said:


> There are no forest fires. Do you know how I know? Rich people still buy expensive houses in the woods.


Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.

-


----------



## themirrorthief (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


dude  canada  is  one  cold  fucking  place


----------



## themirrorthief (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.
> 
> -


if  youre  rich  you  dont  need  to  b smart


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Except for tree CO2. It's transparent to LWIR.


Now you have posted a lot of dumb ass posts, but that is a lulu. While trees do emit CO2 sometimes, they absorb far more than they ever emit. Not only that, but most of the mass in a tree is the result of it building lignin and other molecules from the CO2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.
> 
> -


Milankovitch Cycles, John Tyndall's experiment, the total amount of fossil fuels we have burned. You really need to learn something about a subject before flapping yap on it. 





						The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
					






					history.aip.org
				




Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.


----------



## task0778 (Nov 7, 2021)

_Rigby:  At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming._

It could be that GW exists and that human activity is a reason.  But only a fool would declare that it is the only reason, or even the strongest factor.  That is absolutely unknown, no one knows the extent to which GW is caused by us.  To state otherwise is a lie.


_Rigby:  Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat._

Now this is a bald-faced lie, both parts.  there's no way the temps anywhere in Canada ever got even close to 130 degrees, nor is it anywhere near true that hundreds have died from the increased heat.  You sir are a liar.


----------



## abu afak (Nov 7, 2021)

`
Non-Peer-Reviewed manuscript Falsely claims Natural Cloud changes can explain Global Warming​
CLAIM​During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.​​VERDICT​

​SOURCE: Jyrki Kauppinen, Paul Joseph Watson, Pekka Malmi, Fox News, Sky News Australia, Summit.news, Zero Hedge, 11 July 2019​​DETAILS​*Flawed Reasoning: *The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​​*Inadequate support: *The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​​*Fails to provide correct physical explanation: *The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​​KEY TAKE AWAY​Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature.​​







						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org
				




`


`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> Now you have posted a lot of dumb ass posts, but that is a lulu. While trees do emit CO2 sometimes, they absorb far more than they ever emit. Not only that, but most of the mass in a tree is the result of it building lignin and other molecules from the CO2.



CO2 from burning trees doesn't contribute to global warming.

At least according to Crick.

That CO2 must be transparent to LWIR.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How could they.....the data has been "adjusted".


Yessirreeeeeeeeeeee  Bob, them thar reptilians done skewed the data. And they prevented JFK Jr. from appearing Dallas this week, also. How long did you wait until you realized he wasn't going to show, Toddster?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

task0778 said:


> _Rigby:  At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming._
> 
> It could be that GW exists and that human activity is a reason.  But only a fool would declare that it is the only reason, or even the strongest factor.  That is absolutely unknown, no one knows the extent to which GW is caused by us.  To state otherwise is a lie.
> 
> ...


The cooler weather is a welcome reprieve. The entire town — and much of the surrounding countryside — burned to the ground on June 30, just days after hitting 49.6 C, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Canada. Like hundreds of others, Glasgow and his wife Tricia Thorpe saw their home razed, and lost dozens of animals to the fire.


			https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-sept-7-2021-1.6166608/2-months-after-lytton-b-c-was-destroyed-by-fire-its-future-is-still-unclear-1.6171191
		


That is 121 F. 

New figures released Monday said the deaths of *595 people* between June 18 and Aug. 12 were related to the heat. The majority of those deaths — 526 — happened during the "heat dome" that created temperatures above 40 C from late June to early July.6


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-heat-dome-sudden-deaths-revised-2021-1.6232758#:~:text=New%20figures%20released%20Monday%20said,late%20June%20to%20early%20July.
		


595 people not in the whole of Canada, just in the province of British Columbia. 

You owe someone an apology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 from burning trees doesn't contribute to global warming.
> 
> At least according to Crick.
> 
> That CO2 must be transparent to LWIR.


And what is your point here? The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles. Yes, that puts huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the chance of large fires because of higher temperatures and more extreme weather. We created this feedback loop with the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> And what is your point here? The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles. Yes, that puts huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the chance of large fires because of higher temperatures and more extreme weather. We created this feedback loop with the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere.



*And what is your point here?*

That Crick was wrong.

*The GHG's we have put into the atmosphere has increased the conditions that are ideal conditions for very large fires, like measure in a thousand square miles.*

Baloney.


----------



## wamose (Nov 7, 2021)

Democrats need a fantasy to get excited about. They love chasing their tails.


----------



## justoffal (Nov 7, 2021)

Crick said:


> If, as you claim, it is "completely impossible" that we should be aware of all the significant CO2 inputs to our atmosphere, how is it that YOU know of these apparently otherwise unknown volcanoes?
> 
> Two separate lines tell us that almost every single molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere above the 280 ppm that was there at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and many thousands of years prior) originated from the combustion of fossil fuels:
> 1) Simple book keeping.  It is possible to make an accurate estimation of the total quantity of coal and oil that man has burned since the Industrial Revolution.  Given that quantity, it is possible to calculate how much CO2 levels in the atmosphere would have been increased.
> ...


The deep reaches of the oceans are nearly totally unknown to us....after a certain depth it becomes impossible to operate with any technical proficiency.... We can assume that much of it is similar to what we are able to observe in more shallow depths....based on that it is almost certain that there are numerous unnamed volcanic outlets that we have yet to locate.


----------



## abu afak (Nov 7, 2021)

`
Non-Peer-Reviewed manuscript Falsely claims Natural Cloud changes can explain Global Warming​
CLAIM​During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.​​VERDICT​


​SOURCE: Jyrki Kauppinen, Paul Joseph Watson, Pekka Malmi, Fox News, Sky News Australia, Summit.news, *Zero Hedge*, 11 July 2019​​DETAILS​*Flawed Reasoning: *The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​​*Inadequate support: *The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​​*Fails to provide correct physical explanation: *The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​​KEY TAKE AWAY​Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature.​​







						Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
					

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...




					climatefeedback.org
				




`


----------



## task0778 (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> The cooler weather is a welcome reprieve. The entire town — and much of the surrounding countryside — burned to the ground on June 30, just days after hitting 49.6 C, the hottest temperature ever recorded in Canada. Like hundreds of others, Glasgow and his wife Tricia Thorpe saw their home razed, and lost dozens of animals to the fire.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-sept-7-2021-1.6166608/2-months-after-lytton-b-c-was-destroyed-by-fire-its-future-is-still-unclear-1.6171191
> ...



 I think not.  He said the temps reached over 130F.  He lied.

He said hundreds of people died from the heat.  But he doesn't know that for a fact.  He lied again.  

And now for the big lie:  there is no evidence or proof that this heat wave was created by or the result of anthropogenic causes.  He doesn't know that, and neither do you.





Notice the extremely uneven bar graph.  If the heat waves are caused by humans then why isn't the graph more consistent?  Don't you think it's odd that there was no heat wave at all in 2009, 2011, and 2012, and very little in 2020, and then whammo we get the big heat in 2021?  That doesn't sound like the heat was caused by us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

task0778 said:


> I think not.  He said the temps reached over 130F.  He lied.
> 
> He said hundreds of people died from the heat.  But he doesn't know that for a fact.  He lied again.
> 
> ...


He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F. 

The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for *96 people* who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021

Aug 11, 2021 — _Washington_ State has officially reported that 95 _people died_ from heat-related causes during the week of the _heat wave_, but investigations are ...

Apparently you are no better at reading a graph than you are at reading real science. Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.
> 
> -


They still have no answer to that position.
I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true


----------



## Concerned American (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Being rich does not mean you are smarter than others.
> 
> -


Just because you live in the forest doesn't necessarily mean you're rich in a monetary sense either.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

jc456 said:


> They still have no answer to that position.
> I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true


No, you are not. Dr. Hansen's graph from 1981 was spot on. But you and the rest will lie about that, and assume that the person you are lying to does not know that Dr. Hansen's graph had three curves. High emission rate, middle emission rate, and low emission rate. The emission rate for the last 40 years has followed the middle emission rate, and his prediction for that was very accurate. But you liars will show the high emission rate, and claim that is the only one.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 7, 2021)

jc456 said:


> They still have no answer to that position.
> I’m still waiting for one prediction that’s come true


I predict that the sun will rise in the morning.
-


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Just because you live in the forest doesn't necessarily mean you're rich in a monetary sense either.


But in today's climate it sure as hell means you had better have your most valuable items packed and ready to go in the summer.


----------



## Concerned American (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> But in today's climate it sure as hell means you had better have your most valuable items packed and ready to go in the summer.


For the short-sighted, that is true.  There are many of us that mitigate our risks by keeping our forests maintained--a concept that is foreign to Newsom and a majority of Californians.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.
> 
> -


The revealing truth is that alarmist extremists refuse to discuss the issue publicly with experts who dispute the AGW theory. Instead of giving the public a better understanding of why they should apply mitigation strategies that cause economic harm and starvation maybe we should be presented with counter arguments and rethink things. 
But the alarmists are being _*subsidized*_.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.
> 
> -



That is totally inaccurate.
There are 12 documented ice age and warming cycles in world history.
The average cycle length is about 110,000 years long.
And never was it even more than 20% ice covered.
The glaciers did not get even any further south than WI, MT, NY, etc.
That is not even close to half of the northern hemisphere, which is half.

This is my first quick hit.





But look it up.
We did not have a cold prehistoric history, and there has not been just a single ice age.
And while we are at a warm point now, it is supposed to be cooling, not warming.
We are beginning an additional artificial warming on top of the peak natural warming.
That will be a double warming that never before happened.


----------



## Circe (Nov 7, 2021)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Duh.

They won't change and we won't change, until everyone gets distracted from this nonsense by some real crisis --- war or another pandemic, for instance. 

As long as everyone is having fun and nothing actually is being done about this big Nothingburger.


----------



## Circe (Nov 7, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Actually the one thing to know is that civilization suffers whenever there is a change since we've adjusted to current conditions.


No --------- that's not so.

Warmer IS better. 

Cold and wet is fatal. There have been some such periods in European history, and it really damaged the societies.


----------



## task0778 (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F.
> 
> The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for *96 people* who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021
> 
> ...




_"Look at the number of bars from 1910 to 1990. Then look at the number from 1990 to 2020."_

When I look at the graph from 1990 to 2020 I see 15 years where the bar is 10% or lower.  Half of those years had no heat wave, WTF?  What are you saying, during those years human activity ceased?  Then all of a sudden people went nuts in the high-bar years?  That's BS, if anthropogenic causes were that profound then we should see a more even graph, and BTW haven't we been reducing our GHGs since 1990?  How much difference has that made?  

Now look at the graph from 1910 to 1990, we were heavily industrialized then, right?  We were producing all kinds of shit to fight 2 WWs, where's the heat waves then?  Look at 1970 to 1990, almost nothing.  No trend at all?  Why is that?  

I am not going to claim that human activity has no impact at all on GW.  But we are already doing something about it, and we have been since 1990 or thereabouts.  But to claim that the heat waves and hurricanes and other weather phenomena are increased in numbers or strength due to human activity is unproven and likely wrong.  And in view of the fact that countless studies, estimates, projections, and forecasts that have been ballyhooed by the GW alarmists have been wrong about GW over the last 30-40 years does not lend itself to supporting huge expenditures on ideas, programs, and projects that might not even make a dent in GW.  Surely you remember the hysteria about polar bears going extinct, no ice left at the north pole, and Florida being under water by now.  Hockey stick graph after hockey stick graph that turned out to be wrong, and you guys are still beating the drum about GW.  Why don't you guys come up with ways to combat GW that aren't so expensive?  It feels to me like there are too many hucksters out there trying to make big bucks from gov't loans and grants that they have no intention of paying back.  Fuck that.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 7, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I predict that the sun will rise in the morning.
> -


Damn look at you! Was that a prediction against climate change? Are you suggesting we could survive if the sun didn’t exist? By the way, the sun never moves


----------



## jc456 (Nov 7, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> He was wrong about the temperature. He was correct about the number people that died because of the heat. And we had a considerable toll here in Oregon and Washington. We hit 116 F.
> 
> The Oregon Medical Examiner's Office has released records detailing the names, addresses and other information for *96 people* who died from hyperthermia in the extraordinary late-June heat wave.Aug 6, 2021
> 
> ...


Are you saying people didn’t die of heat exposure before this year? Really? Dude, you’re loosing it still.


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/high-temperatures-result-in-about-702-deaths-in-the-us-each-year/2020/06/26/8a5f0064-b6f5-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html


----------



## alang1216 (Nov 7, 2021)

Circe said:


> No --------- that's not so.
> 
> Warmer IS better.
> 
> Cold and wet is fatal. There have been some such periods in European history, and it really damaged the societies.


There were prosperous Native American societies from Washington State up through Canada and into Alaska.  Cold and wet is not fatal if you've had the time to adapt to it.  Warm and dry is also fine, IF you've had the time to adapt to it.  That is the point, we need to slow any coming change in climate, regardless of the cause.


----------



## Circe (Nov 7, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> There were prosperous Native American societies from Washington State up through Canada and into Alaska.  Cold and wet is not fatal if you've had the time to adapt to it.  Warm and dry is also fine, IF you've had the time to adapt to it.  That is the point, we need to slow any coming change in climate, regardless of the cause.


We can't, so no problem.

Probably isn't any change anyway.

PROSPEROUS Native American societies? Compared with what? Not with European societies in Europe, that's for sure. Or any other civilization, like China. The totem poles and potlatch giveaways don't compare well with the teeming big cities and high buildings and high art of Europe.

We need warmer. But I don't suppose it will happen. This climate change foolishness is just leftist claptrap.


----------



## alang1216 (Nov 7, 2021)

Circe said:


> We can't, so no problem.


You mean to say that you don't know how to do it.



Circe said:


> PROSPEROUS Native American societies? Compared with what? Not with European societies in Europe, that's for sure. Or any other civilization, like China. The totem poles and potlatch giveaways don't compare well with the teeming big cities and high buildings and high art of Europe.


How many Europeans were prosperous enough to enjoy high art and how many were scratching a living?



Circe said:


> We need warmer. But I don't suppose it will happen. This climate change foolishness is just leftist claptrap.


I hope you're right.  No one has ever stolen any of my cars but I still have insurance, just in case.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 8, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not believe human activity had anything to di with climate change. At one point in earth’s history Half of the earth was covered in ice. The ice has been melting ever since.
> 
> -


So.....what is causing the warming? 

Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2021)

otto105 said:


> So.....what is causing the warming?
> 
> Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?


What warming


----------



## jc456 (Nov 9, 2021)

otto105 said:


> So.....what is causing the warming?
> 
> Sun spots? The tides? FOX news hot air?


 What’s supposed to be the temperature of the globe?


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 12, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is totally inaccurate.


*Rigby5*, just another point of view++++-----
*Two things are happening at the same time.
1] Fossil fuels are running out.
[2] Earth’s climate is changing. Our planet has gone through three (3) major climate changes; from being half covered in ice to a heat wave back to ice.

Facts never lie; only people do; or they are just mistaken----

Splitting Of The Polar Vortex: The Arctic Is Melting In The Dead Of Winter*
_Models show the temperature is above freezing at the North Pole.
Despite the North Pole being shrouded in darkness for another month, temperatures in the Arctic have soared by as much as 45 degrees Fahrenheit above average. This has brought temperatures above freezing in February in one of the coldest places on Earth._
*https://tinyurl.com/yc9q9y73*

*The North Pole just had an extreme heat wave for the 3rd winter in a row*
_*As snow falls in Rome, the Arctic is getting alarmingly hot in the middle of winter.*
It’s been downright toasty at the North Pole, at least by Arctic standards.

The northernmost weather station in the world, Cape Morris Jesup in Greenland, saw temperatures stay above freezing for almost 24 hours straight last week, and then climb to 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1 degrees Celsius) on Saturday before dropping again._
*https://tinyurl.com/ycglzywj*

*The Arctic recently sent us a powerful message about climate change*
_Arctic scientists aren’t usually afraid of a little cold. Windy conditions don’t usually get us howling. The beasts we pay attention to are usually polar bears. But last week’s “Beast from the East” triggered a few anxious conversations.
Social media memes aside, our problem isn’t this one extreme weather event per se. Our key fear is that the Beast isn’t really from the East – its birthplace was farther north._
*https://tinyurl.com/yconampf*

*Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?*
_Author: David Herring and Rebecca Lindsey
October 29, 2020_
*Yes. Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.*
Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history? | NOAA Climate.gov

*Earth has been a snowball and a hothouse at different times in its past*_. So if the climate changed before humans, how can we be sure we’re responsible for the dramatic warming that’s happening today?_
How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now) | Quanta Magazine

*The largest global-scale climate variations in Earth’s recent geological past are the ice age cycles*_ (see infobox, p.B4), which are cold glacial periods followed by shorter warm periods . _*The last few of these natural cycles have recurred roughly every 100,000 years. 

Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F).*_ That *change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago.* CO2 has risen more than 40% in just the past 200 years, much of this since the 1970s, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 1 °C (1.8 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, *warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after.* This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale._
6. Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? | Royal Society

*The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen*
Snowball Earth - Wikipedia

*Snowball Earth: The times our planet was covered in ice*
_Ancient rocks suggest that ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions. This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.

The Earth has endured many changes in its 4.5-billion-year history, with some tumultuous twists and turns along the way. One especially dramatic episode appears to have come _*between 700 million and 600 million years ago, when scientists think ice smothered the entire planet, from the poles to the equator — twice in quick succession.*
The story of Snowball Earth | Astronomy.com

*Rigby5,* you are welcome to dispute the above
Hopefully we can still remain friends
-


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Rigby5*, just another point of view++++-----
> *Two things are happening at the same time.
> 1] Fossil fuels are running out.
> [2] Earth’s climate is changing. Our planet has gone through three (3) major climate changes; from being half covered in ice to a heat wave back to ice.
> ...


So what’s the temperature of the earth supposed to be?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...



No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?

By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.


----------



## Obiwan (Mar 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?
> 
> By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.


Is it possible the idiot had his head stuck in the oven????


----------



## fncceo (Mar 8, 2022)

Obiwan said:


> Is it possible the idiot had his head stuck in the oven????



Like Sylvia Plath?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Obviously the heat wave was temporary weather and not global climate, but something had to have changed in order to make these records possible.  And that had to be climate.  Global warming means more energy in the weather, so you can have more frequent and more powerful storms, more powerful high pressure events that cause heat waves, etc.
> Climate is the average of all the local weather, but weather is still driven by climate.
> A climate warms, you will have more weather extremes.
> When climate cools, weather tends towards being more static.



No, it was simply an unusual set of THREE* weather* formations that converged on the region.

Dr. Mass a PHD Meteorologist saw it coming days ahead then covered it in his Weather blog as it unfolded, he as well as myself were right in the middle of it.


----------



## Lesh (Mar 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?


That's what Kremlin trolls do


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 8, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Why is your thinking so fukked up?
> Do you think that sort of comment will appeal to any grownups?


I do not expect facts to influence idiots like you.

You're an idiot.


----------



## Flash (Mar 8, 2022)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


We have been telling these Moon Bats this for years.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> No cities went over 121 degrees F why did you lie?
> 
> By the way you didn't address anything in post one science claims at all.



Yes, oops.
Apparently, I must have remembered wrong.  Your 121 F appears to be correct.


----------



## otto105 (Mar 9, 2022)

Flash said:


> We have been telling these Moon Bats this for years.


What Finnish scientist?

What organization?


----------



## Flash (Mar 9, 2022)

otto105 said:


> What Finnish scientist?
> 
> What organization?


The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.

They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.


----------



## otto105 (Mar 9, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.
> 
> They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.


Answer the questions.


----------



## Flash (Mar 9, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Answer the questions.


Being an uneducated Moon Bat you are not smart enough to ask the right questions.

The question is why have the Climate Scientists fabricated and cherry picked data?  They were exposed big time with Climategate.  Why have organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UN Climate Organization been caught lying, cherry picking and fabricating data?  Not just once but many times.

They have no credibility.  Climate change is real but AGW is a scam.  If AGW was real there would be no reason to lie about the data, would there?  Only idiots like you fall for it.  You aren't very smart, are you?


----------



## otto105 (Mar 9, 2022)

Flash said:


> Being an uneducated Moon Bat you are not smart enough to ask the right questions.
> 
> The question is why have the Climate Scientists fabricated and cherry picked data?  They were exposed big time with Climategate.  Why have organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UN Climate Organization been caught lying, cherry picking and fabricating data?  Not just once but many times.
> 
> They have no credibility.  Climate change is real but AGW is a scam.  If AGW was real there would be no reason to lie about the data, would there?  Only idiots like you fall for it.  You aren't very smart, are you?


No, the questions were clearly stated in a previous post.

Why are you deflecting from them?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Answer the questions.


You’d never believe, you’re stuck up someone’s butt


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Principle Scientists that push this silly AGW bullshit have been caught fabricating data and even admitted doing it.
> 
> They have no credibility because their agenda is not science. Their agenda is scamming dumbass Moon Bats like you.


The "Principle Scientists"?  Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science.  Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public?  To do what?  Get them reserach grants?  I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Principle Scientists"?  Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science.  Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public?  To do what?  Get them reserach grants?  I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".



Outrageous!!!!

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never defraud anyone.

He would never molest the data.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Morning Todd,

No, he wouldn't.


----------



## miketx (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Principle Scientists"?  Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science.  Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public?  To do what?  Get them reserach grants?  I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".


That's cause they work for big companies or the government and are paid to believe. Don't let that stop you from being a puppet though.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Principle Scientists"?  Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science.  Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public?  To do what?  Get them reserach grants?  I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".


how many scientists make up that 99%?


----------



## miketx (Apr 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how many scientists make up that 99%?


12


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Morning Todd,
> 
> No, he wouldn't.



Looks like he's won as many Nobel Prizes as court cases.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how many scientists make up that 99%?


Per the last James Powell study:  James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152

So, as of five years ago, 99.94% of 54,195 (54,162) published articles on climate accept AGW.  And, last time I checked, 54,162 >>> 12.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Not sure why that matters but currently I don't have a house on the coast and I want to keep it that way.


It might matter when all those folks living on the coasts flee inland.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> It might matter when all those folks living on the coasts flee inland.


And when the world's government are forced to spend trillions to support that exodus.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Attempting to prevent global warming does not cost a cent.
> We are running out of fossil fuel anyway, so it costs us noting to just try to conserve fossil fuels and save more for our descendants to use as fertilizers.
> Solar, wind power, and bio fuels all save money in the long run, and only require a little initial investment.


Our salvation (apart from God's intervention) is to reduce global population by half.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Per the last James Powell study:  James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152
> 
> So, as of five years ago, 99.94% of 54,195 (54,162) published articles on climate accept AGW.  And, last time I checked, 54,162 >>> 12.


The question should be_ how can we* not*_ be contributing to global warming?


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Our salvation (apart from God's intervention) is to reduce global population by half.


It works no better for you than it did for Thanos.  ; - )


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> It works no better for you than it did for Thanos.  ; - )


He did have the right idea.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> ?


Really?  Thanos was the ultimate villain in the Marvel movies culminating with "Avengers Endgame".  He was convinced that the solution to the universe's problems was the elimination of half ot its population.  He finally got the power to do so and did it.  It did not make the world a better place and he was the only one happy about it.  I thought you were making a reference to the story.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Really?  Thanos was the ultimate villain in the Marvel movies culminating with "Avengers Endgame".  He was convinced that the solution to the universe's problems was the elimination of half ot its population.  He finally got the power to do so and did it.  It did not make the world a better place and he was the only one happy about it.  I thought you were making a reference to the story.


Thanks. I got that and amended the post. That said we should try it and see what happens.

It is noteworthy that people around the world are reducing family size for the very purpose of securing a better lifestyle. Thanks to modern healthcare families don't have to have a large family in anticipation of the premature death of some of their children (although this still happens in some regions of the world).


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

Birth control deserves a very large portion of the credit for the improvement in living standards globally since the early 1950s..


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> The "Principle Scientists"?  Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept AGW as completely valid, well-supported science.  Are you suggesting that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public?  To do what?  Get them reserach grants?  I'm afraid it's you and yours that qualify as "moon bats".


You got that bogus number from AGW alarmists.
There are many experts who dispute the theory but (subsidized) alarmists refuse any public discussion. They only disparage.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> You got that bogus number from AGW alarmists.
> There are many experts who dispute the theory but (subsidized) alarmists refuse any public discussion. They only disparage.


I got that number from a series of studies by James Lawrence Powell.  Here is the intro to his Wikipedia article

*James Lawrence Powell* (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.

Powell served 12 years on the National Science Board and recently retired as executive director of Graduate Fellowships for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Diversity.

His book, _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_, explores the scientific debate regarding dinosaur extinction. In _Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences_, Powell addresses dinosaur extinction in addition to three other scientific debates: deep time, continental drift and global warming.

Powell has posited that the scientific consensus on global warming nears universality and he actively counters climate change denialism in his research and other publications.
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Please provide the reference sources supporting your contention that "many experts... dispute the theory" and give us some idea of what you actually mean by "many"


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> I got that number from a series of studies by James Lawrence Powell.  Here is the intro to his Wikipedia article
> 
> *James Lawrence Powell* (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is bullshit where politics are concerned.
Consider Richard Lindzen, et al.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> I got that number from a series of studies by James Lawrence Powell.  Here is the intro to his Wikipedia article
> 
> *James Lawrence Powell* (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.
> 
> ...


And _97%_ is the inflated number the alarmist extremists and their MSM propagandists use.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> And _97%_ is the inflated number the alarmist extremists and their MSM propagandists use.


Do you have something meaningful to actually debate here?  A number of studies have examined the consensus and all have found that the AGW theory has enjoyed widespread and growing acceptance among active climate scientists.  If you choose to use the terms "extremists" and "propagandists" I'd like to see some actual supporting evidence of such charges.  Otherwise, based on the evidence contained in your posts to date, I'd have to assume you're a bit of an ignorant dick.  ; - )


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have something meaningful to actually debate here?  A number of studies have examined the consensus and all have found that the AGW theory has enjoyed widespread and growing acceptance among active climate scientists.  If you choose to use the terms "extremists" and "propagandists" I'd like to see some actual supporting evidence of such charges.  Otherwise, based on the evidence contained in your posts to date, I'd have to assume you're a bit of an ignorant dick.  ; - )



Consensus positions is the WEAKEST way to justify a belief try Reproducible research instead but that would be too much for you and other pathetic gooks who ignore the solid evidence to the contrary.

There have been so many consensus errors to count yet YOU wet you pants over the bullshit heavily.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Per the last James Powell study:  James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152
> 
> So, as of five years ago, 99.94% of 54,195 (54,162) published articles on climate accept AGW.  And, last time I checked, 54,162 >>> 12.


that isn't a count of the scientists, that's the number of articles peer reviewed.  You avoided the answer.  First, you need to know the number of actual scientists and then the number that was included for the 54,195 articles.  Your stat was that 99% of the scientists agreed.  We're still waiting for those figures.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The question should be_ how can we* not*_ be contributing to global warming?


so you think think you control wind?  Jet streams?  wow.  what is it you do to control them?  When do you decide where to drop water and how much then?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have something meaningful to actually debate here?  A number of studies have examined the consensus and all have found that the AGW theory has enjoyed widespread and growing acceptance among active climate scientists.  If you choose to use the terms "extremists" and "propagandists" I'd like to see some actual supporting evidence of such charges.  Otherwise, based on the evidence contained in your posts to date, I'd have to assume you're a bit of an ignorant dick.  ; - )


I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I feel sorry for you.



He is a climate GOOK is why he is a mess.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> He is a climate GOOK is why he is a mess.


he's brainwashed.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you have something meaningful to actually debate here?  A number of studies have examined the consensus and all have found that the AGW theory has enjoyed widespread and growing acceptance among active climate scientists.  If you choose to use the terms "extremists" and "propagandists" I'd like to see some actual supporting evidence of such charges.  Otherwise, based on the evidence contained in your posts to date, I'd have to assume you're a bit of an ignorant dick.  ; - )


But you disparaged me.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> But you disparaged me.


I'm terribly sorry. I had absolutely no intention to do such a thing. I didn't say what I actually thought of you, I just pointed out the opinion towards which your posts were pushing me. ; - )

PS, note the text emoji thing ( ; - ) ) It is a winky face. Winking. Get it?


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so you think think you control wind?  Jet streams?  wow.  what is it you do to control them?  When do you decide where to drop water and how much then?


I think we return to a more pastoral lifestyle and see what happens. I was raking the yard the other day wearing a black T-shirt, and was roasting in the sun. I changed to a white one and remained cool and  comfy.

Black T-shirt: Global warming, not good.
White T-shirt: Cool, comfy, good.

Metaphors of course.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 1, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> I think we return to a more pastoral lifestyle and see what happens. I was raking the yard the other day wearing a black T-shirt, and was roasting in the sun. I changed to a white one and remained cool and  comfy.
> 
> Black T-shirt: Global warming, not good.
> White T-shirt: Cool, comfy, good.
> ...


so you're saying that we never had wind or rain before when?


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so you're saying that we never had wind or rain before when?


Is English your native language?


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so you're saying that we never had wind or rain before when?


If we can fill the air with smoke, smog, and volatile chemicals, denude the landscape, and pollute the waters,  I'm sure we can alter the climate. We are very 'creative'.  

Most don't realize that the region of the atmosphere where "climate" occurs is pretty thin, and close to the earth.


----------



## task0778 (Apr 2, 2022)

The question is, how much does human activity cause or influence climate change.  The answer is that we don't fucking know.  People can point to various phenomena that coincides with the industrial age over the last couple hundred years, but we have to remember that in the last few million or billion years that time frame is quite insignificant.  It's like taking the state of your health over the past 10 seconds and making assumptions over your health for the rest of your life.  We don't fucking know.

Which doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable steps to improve the quality of the air we breath and our water.  But let's not be dumbshit stupid about it.  There's no rush.  There's no proven time frame for when the climate changes enough to be catastrophic for humanity, just a bunch of projections and quesswork that has almost exclusively been wrong over the past several decades.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

task0778 said:


> The question is, how much does human activity cause or influence climate change.  The answer is that we don't fucking know.  People can point to various phenomena that coincides with the industrial age over the last couple hundred years, but we have to remember that in the last few million or billion years that time frame is quite insignificant.  It's like taking the state of your health over the past 10 seconds and making assumptions over your health for the rest of your life.  We don't fucking know.
> 
> Which doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable steps to improve the quality of the air we breath and our water.  But let's not be dumbshit stupid about it.  There's no rush.  There's no proven time frame for when the climate changes enough to be catastrophic for humanity, just a bunch of projections and quesswork that has almost exclusively been wrong over the past several decades.


Let's start with the air and water and see what happens.


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

I've already started. I have reduced my energy use by 25 percent by insulating my attic to R-49, and I no longer rent out the upstairs apartment thus saving the energy used up there.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

task0778 said:


> The question is, how much does human activity cause or influence climate change.  The answer is that we don't fucking know.



That is incorrect.  To a usable approximation, we do know how much of the observed warming is being caused by human GHG emissions.  That information is contained in a graph you've very likely seen before:  One this this: 












						Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA
					

This indicator measures the “radiative forcing” or heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.




					www.epa.gov
				






task0778 said:


> People can point to various phenomena that coincides with the industrial age over the last couple hundred years, but we have to remember that in the last few million or billion years that time frame is quite insignificant.  It's like taking the state of your health over the past 10 seconds and making assumptions over your health for the rest of your life.  We don't fucking know.



I disagree.  The correlations established between human activities and warming and the results of warming are far greater than mere coincidental relationships.  Obviously the Earth's history - or even just the history of homo sapiens are far longer than the period over which we've been observing AGW.  But I'm afraid THAT point is irrelevant.  The changes that have and will continue to significantly harm human culture, with crop losses, flooding, droughts, weather extremes, sea level rise and so forth are taking place over that shorter scale and thus that IS the scale in which we should be interested.



task0778 said:


> Which doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable steps to improve the quality of the air we breath and our water.  But let's not be dumbshit stupid about it.  There's no rush.  There's no proven time frame for when the climate changes enough to be catastrophic for humanity, just a bunch of projections and quesswork that has almost exclusively been wrong over the past several decades.



The projections are not guesswork and they have not been almost exclusively wrong. The products of the IPCC have been consistently conservative.  There most certainly IS a rush as we are VERY close if not actually beyond the point at which catastrophic results can be avoided.  I'm curious what measures to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink would you categorize as "dumbshit stupid"?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> I've already started. I have reduced my energy use by 25 percent by insulating my attic to R-49, and I no longer rent out the upstairs apartment thus saving the energy used up there.


So you’re willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for nothing?


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> So you’re willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for nothing?


No sacrifice. I don't need the money, or the work and aggravation that comes with renting to students. My relatives will use the apartment when they visit. It's all good.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Really?  Thanos was the ultimate villain in the Marvel movies culminating with "Avengers Endgame".  He was convinced that the solution to the universe's problems was the elimination of half ot its population.  He finally got the power to do so and did it.  It did not make the world a better place and he was the only one happy about it.  I thought you were making a reference to the story.


As much as I enjoyed the movie, that was a stupid solution.  Kill off fifty percent of the population and in one generation you are back where you started.  To make a serious change, you would have to kill off ninety-nine percent of the population.  Even that would only be a short term solution unless you upped the mortality rate to pre-industrial revolution levels.  Humans breed like rabbits.


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

It was a stupid strategy but after all, it came from a comic book.  What's needed is ZPG at some sustainable point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 2, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Kill off fifty percent of the population and in one generation you are back where you started.



The population doesn't double every generation.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> No sacrifice. I don't need the money, or the work and aggravation that comes with renting to students. My relatives will use the apartment when they visit. It's all good.


And when they use the apartment, not to mention the energy you currently consume, insulated or not, you’re happy with wasting money on energy?


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> And when they use the apartment, not to mention the energy you currently consume, insulated or not, you’re happy with wasting money on energy?


Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.


It costs less only relative to usage. But the cost is higher, period. As for the inefficient drivers, at least they have that choice.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> If we can fill the air with smoke, smog, and volatile chemicals, denude the landscape, and pollute the waters,  I'm sure we can alter the climate. We are very 'creative'.
> 
> Most don't realize that the region of the atmosphere where "climate" occurs is pretty thin, and close to the earth.


Well provide some proof then


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Well provide some proof then


Science doesn't deal in proof, just evidence, of which there is plenty.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Energy used to provide for my family isn't wasted. And it costs less to heat that apartment since I insulated. That said many of the resources that we enjoy produce a lot of unnecessary waste. I'm always amazed at how many people accelerate past me as I'm coasting to a red light then have to slam on their brakes. They waste gas and wear out their brakes at the same time. Curious.


You enjoy control


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You enjoy control


Actually I do. Not others but self.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Well provide some proof then



Here's a great graph from grida.no and I believe it is in some of the IPCC publications:

It shows the actual measured temperature anomalies in red and various fits based on "natural forcings" as well as "human forcings".

Look closely and note that natural forcings alone cannot account for the trend, but if you bring in human forcings the data starts to make sense!  And lest you think this is all "model stuff", note that these are "hindcast" results, which means taking temperature data _already collected_ and attempting to fit the data to known factors.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> It costs less only relative to usage. But the cost is higher, period. As for the inefficient drivers, at least they have that choice.



They have that choice, but there's about a 100% chance that anytime the price of gasoline goes up they are first in line to complain about it.  

It's like Americans who have the choice to buy giant gas-guzzlers or fuel efficient cars.  When gas prices are low they buy as if gas prices will always be low.  And when gas prices are high *suddenly everyone has to care what they think about the stress of higher prices*.  The President has to open up oil reserves to try to artificially suppress prices and the economy suffers overall.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Science doesn't deal in proof, just evidence, of which there is plenty.


Hahaha evidence is proof idiot


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Hahaha evidence is proof idiot



Incorrect.

In science (and mathematics) the concept of "proof" is a bit more nuanced.  Scientists seldom if ever professionally speak in terms of "proof" since there is always some degree of error involved.

Instead they have hypotheses which they test and the results are provided in terms of _most likely correct hypotheses _rather than "proof" per se.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> In science (and mathematics) the concept of "proof" is a bit more nuanced.  Scientists seldom if ever professionally speak in terms of "proof" since there is always some degree of error involved.
> 
> Instead they have hypotheses which they test and the results are provided in terms of _most likely correct hypotheses _rather than "proof" per se.


Data is data


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Data is data


I know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Data is data



Yes.  And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist.  All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit.  There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters.  If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.


Maybe because of the new study is accurate and it’s conclusions proper, the manner in which the global climate alarmists seek to “fix the problem” won’t need to be taken so seriously.  Fucking “tax” carbon.  🙄

It’s not about “fixing” the possibly non-existent problem. It’s about trying to sneak in by a pretextual back-door some global redistribution of wealth.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Yes.  And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist.  All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit.  There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.


Wtf was that?


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...



Thousands of papers on climate are published every year.  Why are you choosing to post one that has NOT received peer review and has NOT been published in a refereed journal?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Thousands of papers on climate are published every year.  Why are you choosing to post one that has NOT received peer review and has NOT been published in a refereed journal?


Still waiting on the number in your 99%


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Hahaha evidence is proof idiot


Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.


Sure it is. You should look up the definition


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Sure it is. You should look up the definition


The term can be used to indicate enough evidence to qualify as proof, or it can indicate a single piece of evidence which is not. You can't dictate how I use the term. "One (warm) day does not a summer make."


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> The term can be used to indicate enough evidence to qualify as proof, or it can indicate a single piece of evidence which is not. You can't dictate how I use the term. "One (warm) day does not a summer make."


But proof is evidence


----------



## jc456 (Apr 2, 2022)

PV System said:


> Yes.  And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist.  All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit.  There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.





jc456 said:


> know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are


----------



## task0778 (Apr 2, 2022)

jc456 said:


> But proof is evidence



However, evidence is not proof.  Evidence is basically information and observation.  In a court of law, sufficient evidence may be accepted as proof.  But not in science, science is predicated on the ideas of observation and replication. In other words, what is seen, heard, touched and replicated is the source of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, even if an experiment can be replicated, it does not necessarily “prove” anything; it only serves as evidence to support a theory.  Unlike mathematics, “All scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.”


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2022)

Obama bought an oceanfront mansion - to combat man madeup Global Climate Warming Change!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama bought an oceanfront mansion



Liar!!!!

He bought two oceanfront mansions.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liar!!!!
> 
> He bought two oceanfront mansions.


But he only uses one at a time!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> They have that choice, but there's about a 100% chance that anytime the price of gasoline goes up they are first in line to complain about it.
> 
> It's like Americans who have the choice to buy giant gas-guzzlers or fuel efficient cars.  When gas prices are low they buy as if gas prices will always be low.  And when gas prices are high *suddenly everyone has to care what they think about the stress of higher prices*.  The President has to open up oil reserves to try to artificially suppress prices and the economy suffers overall.


If prices are driven up intentionally, they and anyone has a right to complain about it. And they should complain about it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

Why do some people insist on making fun of the dire threat of global climate warmering/coolering/changering ?

Don’t they realize that, someday, if we don’t act NOW, the entire global climate might eventually not be perfectly static — just like it’s always been?





What do you all think this is?  Some kind of joke?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The population doesn't double every generation.


Potentially it more than doubles.  Two kids per couple, static, three, three quarters of previous population, four, it doubles.  Historically in times of war or major disaster birth rates climb steeply.  One couple can easily breed ten children in the mothers fertile years.  With modern medicine most babies survive to breeding age and accelerate the cycle.


----------



## Burgermeister (Apr 3, 2022)

Contrary to the actual scientific method, the liberal version builds hypothesis weight through consensus and inertia through damaging policies. Repeated disproven predictions don't affect the process at all except as drivers to fund more research into explaining why the base hypothesis keeps failing. Remember the explanation for the global warming "pause"? The heat went and hid under the ocean for a decade. The actual scientific method would have discarded the hypothesis a long time ago.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.


I think I know what you're saying here but evidence, per its definition, supports or rejects a hypothesis.  The question is: is there sufficient support from sufficient evidence to conclude that a given hypothesis is valid or acceptable.  In the natural sciences, it will never prove it.  On the other hand, a single piece of falfifying evidence will DISprove a hypothesis.  The deniers here have long argued that AGW is unfalsifiable and thus not a proper hypothesis  That, of course, is complete nonsense.  It could be falsified a dozen different ways.  Their problem is that they've never found anything with which to do the falsfiication.  That they fail to see what that actually means is probably the clearest evidence that they either do not understand the scientific method or choose to ignore it as they're unhappy with what it tells them.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Maybe because of the new study is accurate and it’s conclusions proper, the manner in which the global climate alarmists seek to “fix the problem” won’t need to be taken so seriously.  Fucking “tax” carbon.  🙄
> 
> It’s not about “fixing” the possibly non-existent problem. It’s about trying to sneak in by a pretextual back-door some global redistribution of wealth.


The study only talks about the man-made contribution to global warming, it doesn't say anywhere that GW doesn't exist.  I don't see how it changes my original statement: _I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many._


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Burgermeister said:


> Contrary to the actual scientific method, the liberal version builds hypothesis weight through consensus and inertia through damaging policies. Repeated disproven predictions don't affect the process at all except as drivers to fund more research into explaining why the base hypothesis keeps failing. Remember the explanation for the global warming "pause"? The heat went and hid under the ocean for a decade. The actual scientific method would have discarded the hypothesis a long time ago.


I'm sorry but that's nonsense.  The conclusions of individual studies in the climate sciences are supported or rejected by the evidence those studies uncover through observations and experimentation.  Consensus is used in the public sphere in an attempt to determine the acceptability of the broader theorem to science in general.  Predictions are something that are neither proven or disproven.  Your abuse of the term is telling.  AGW theory has not failed.  The world continues to get warmer and the demonstrable cause is greenhouse warming acting on the increased levels of GHGs that humans have placed into the atmosphere.  Refute that and perhaps someone will think about discarding the hypothesis.  Till then, try to understand that science doesn't give two shits about your sour grapes.












						Global temperature record - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Potentially it more than doubles.  Two kids per couple, static, three, three quarters of previous population, four, it doubles.  Historically in times of war or major disaster birth rates climb steeply.  One couple can easily breed ten children in the mothers fertile years.  With modern medicine most babies survive to breeding age and accelerate the cycle.





Wikipedia

The highest rate here is 2.1% annual growth.  That would produce a doubling time of 33.34 years, not quite doubling in a generation.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> If prices are driven up intentionally, they and anyone has a right to complain about it. And they should complain about it.



Then they should complain to Putin.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are



It sounds like you don't actually know how science works?  Models are integral to science.  Have you ever heard of E=mc^2?  Yeah, that's a model.

The only people who laugh about how stupid models are are people who don't do science.  But that's OK.  I think no one will be surprised that you are laughing at models.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> I think I know what you're saying here but evidence, per its definition, supports or rejects a hypothesis.  The question is: is there sufficient support from sufficient evidence to conclude that a given hypothesis is valid or acceptable.  In the natural sciences, it will never prove it.  On the other hand, a single piece of falfifying evidence will DISprove a hypothesis.  The deniers here have long argued that AGW is unfalsifiable and thus not a proper hypothesis  That, of course, is complete nonsense.  It could be falsified a dozen different ways.  Their problem is that they've never found anything with which to do the falsfiication.  That they fail to see what that actually means is probably the clearest evidence that they either do not understand the scientific method or choose to ignore it as they're unhappy with what it tells them.


Proof. And you still haven’t provided any to support yours


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> It sounds like you don't actually know how science works?  Models are integral to science.  Have you ever heard of E=mc^2?  Yeah, that's a model.
> 
> The only people who laugh about how stupid models are are people who don't do science.  But that's OK.  I think no one will be surprised that you are laughing at models.


Models aren’t evidence, they are predictions. And so far, zip predictions have come true. If you think differently, post one. But, models aren’t evidence


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Models aren’t evidence, they are predictions.



That's a cartoon view.  



jc456 said:


> And so far, zip predictions have come true. If you think differently, post one. But, models aren’t evidence



Does NASA count as "legitimate" in your world?









						Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's a cartoon view


Fact


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's a cartoon view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Post the part of that link that proves modeling is accurate. Name the model then the evidence it was accurate


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Post the part of that link that proves modeling is accurate. Name the model then the evidence it was accurate



Couldn't read the article?  Sorry.  I can only provide you the information, I can't read and understand for you.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Then they should complain to Putin.


Why? It’s this administration that stifled supply and drove up the price.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Potentially it more than doubles.



When has it actually doubled?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's a cartoon view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More gov money.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Why? It’s this administration that stifled supply and drove up the price.



Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies.  Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> More gov money.



Uh huh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies.  Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.



It's almost like they're afraid Biden will change the rules suddenly and destroy their investments.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Couldn't read the article?  Sorry.  I can only provide you the information, I can't read and understand for you.


Didn’t back the claim. You think it does, which part? If you can’t provide you failed


----------



## task0778 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies.  Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.



Link?  Show me where/when Biden did that, I don't believe it.

It's interesting to see Biden and his administration complaining about the oil companies not ramping up production, while all the time since day 1 of that administration they have pretty much done what they can to restrict the oil/gas production process from beginning to end.  Biden himself has clearly said that he intends to end the fossil fuel industry.  Now - as an oil company CEO or board member, are you going to invest large amounts of money to increase future production years down the road if you know the federal gov't intends to shit you down?  It ain't like you can turn a switch and start pumping millions of gallons of oil/gas at a moment's notice.  And what do you do with the excess oil/gas once the emergency dies back and the prices drop and the POTUS is after your ass?  Does that make financial sense to you?


----------



## abu afak (Apr 3, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Link?  Show me where/when Biden did that, I don't believe it.
> 
> It's interesting to see Biden and his administration complaining about the oil companies not ramping up production, while all the time since day 1 of that administration they have pretty much done what they can to restrict the oil/gas production process from beginning to end.  Biden himself has clearly said that he intends to end the fossil fuel industry.  Now - as an oil company CEO or board member, are you going to invest large amounts of money to increase future production years down the road if you know the federal gov't intends to shit you down?  It ain't like you can turn a switch and start pumping millions of gallons of oil/gas at a moment's notice.  And what do you do with the excess oil/gas once the emergency dies back and the prices drop and the POTUS is after your ass?  Does that make financial sense to you?


There's PLENTY of drillable wells without any new leases.
The Oil Cos are still freaked out since the 2015 crash from $100 down to $30 for oil and NEGATIVE for NG.
Saudis put them out of Biz.
There was no storage and flaming had legal limits.
Now there is a shortage of workers as well.
`


----------



## task0778 (Apr 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> There's PLENTY of drillable wells without any new leases.



Is that so?  How many would that be?  And how would you know whether those wells are viable?  Is the infrastructure and manpower in place?  Show me a current link that confirms your statements please.




abu afak said:


> Saudis put them out of Biz.



I don't think so, the pandemic out them out of biz when demand dropped precipitously.




abu afak said:


> There was no storage and flaming had legal limits.



Storage is kinda of important to oil executives.  What do you mean?




abu afak said:


> Now there is a shortage of workers as well.
> `



True dat.  Hard to drill for more oil/gas if you ain't got the manpower, no?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The study only talks about the man-made contribution to global warming, it doesn't say anywhere that GW doesn't exist.  I don't see how it changes my original statement: _I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many._


Again, if it isn’t man-made than our efforts to deal with it are unlikely to do anything about it. If humankind’s emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere isn’t the thing causing global climate “warming,” then it doesn’t constitute a basis to radically alter our industry etc. 

If it is caused by natural forces, then what we need to consider is whether we have any way to address those causes. It might be possible. But we’re unlikely to find a good remedy if we’re looking at the wrong cause.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's almost like they're afraid Biden will change the rules suddenly and destroy their investments.



At some point the conspiracy theories loop back on themselves.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Didn’t back the claim. You think it does, which part? If you can’t provide you failed



LOL


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

task0778 said:


> Link?  Show me where/when Biden did that, I don't believe it.





			https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/27/oil-gas-leasing-biden-climate/


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Again, if it isn’t man-made than our efforts to deal with it are unlikely to do anything about it.


Floods are caused by nature but we put a lot of effort into dealing with them.  The cause doesn't matter, only the effect.



BackAgain said:


> If humankind’s emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere isn’t the thing causing global climate “warming,” then it doesn’t constitute a basis to radically alter our industry etc.


Even if it is natural CO2 causing most of the problem, I'd think limiting our emissions now would be easier and cheaper than leaving the problem to our children.



BackAgain said:


> If it is caused by natural forces, then what we need to consider is whether we have any way to address those causes. It might be possible. But we’re unlikely to find a good remedy if we’re looking at the wrong cause.


Tornados are natural and we know their cause.  It is much easier to deal with the aftermath than try and prevent them.  Doesn't mean we don't plan on them happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> At some point the conspiracy theories loop back on themselves.



Biden hasn't destroyed billion-dollar investments before?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Floods are caused by nature but we put a lot of effort into dealing with them.  The cause doesn't matter, only the effect.
> 
> 
> Even if it is natural CO2 causing most of the problem, I'd think limiting our emissions now would be easier and cheaper than leaving the problem to our children.
> ...


We can put up dams to control some flooding. But you tell me what we do to control the alleged global warming?  Tax carbon emissions when there is arguably no true correlation between carbon emissions and any alleged global warming?

We don’t ban concrete and asphalt roads just because they tend to wear out our sneaker treads. Actions we take to avoid a given problematic outcome *should* have some actual probable relationship *to* the problem.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If humankind’s emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere isn’t the thing causing global climate “warming,” then it doesn’t constitute a basis to radically alter our industry etc.



That's the thing.  We KNOW from isotopic data (stable isotopes of C) that humans have been responsible for most of the recent increase in CO2.  In addition we KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (we've known that for >150 years).  We know how excess CO2 can and does impact climate.

There's no real way to get humanity off the hook on this one.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> We can put up dams to control some flooding. But you tell me what we do to control the alleged global warming?  Tax carbon emissions when there is arguably no true correlation between carbon emissions and any alleged global warming?


Dams, levees, canals, jetties, and other mitigation systems are very expensive.  Are they cheaper than limiting CO2 or mandating increased efficiency?  I don't know, do you?



BackAgain said:


> We don’t ban concrete and asphalt roads just because they tend to wear out our sneaker treads. Actions we take to avoid a given problematic outcome *should* have some actual probable relationship *to* the problem.


So who will determine those actual probable relationships, scientists, media pundits, politicians, you?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's the thing.  We KNOW from isotopic data (stable isotopes of C) that humans have been responsible for most of the recent increase in CO2.  In addition we KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (we've known that for >150 years).  We know how excess CO2 can and does impact climate.
> 
> There's no real way to get humanity off the hook on this one.


Nonsense. We know ice ages came and went and then returned and left again before humans added much of any CO2 to our atmosphere.  There’s no way to put hunanity ON the hook for shit that happens without any possible human causation.  Therefore, we know that the algore alarmist thesis lacks logical support.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Dams, levees, canals, jetties, and other mitigation systems are very expensive.  Are they cheaper than limiting CO2 or mandating increased efficiency?  I don't know, do you?
> 
> 
> So who will determine those actual probable relationships, scientists, media pundits, politicians, you?


Well, if we can’t rely on our scientists because they have proceeded recklessly and carelessly in their “scientific” claims in this matter, then I suppose we’re going to have to see what real science has to say. And we know with certainty that real science has nothing to do with “consensus” and majority rule.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nonsense. We know ice ages came and went and then returned and left again before humans added much of any CO2 to our atmosphere.



You are making a basic logic error.  Let's say that Bob is found dead.  We know that gunshot wounds to the head cause death so is it rational to assume that Bob suffered a gunshot wound to the head?  Of course not.

The ONLY reason YOU and people like you know anything about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that helps us establish that the current warming can't be explained solely by natural forcings.

We know this because we've studied how the earth's climate has changed in the past BEFORE HUMANS WERE AROUND.  Right now we can't use natural processes to explain the warming we are seeing!



BackAgain said:


> There’s no way to put hunanity ON the hook for shit that happens without any possible human causation.  Therefore, we know that the algore alarmist thesis lacks logical support.



And we know by what you post that you don't know anything about the technical details of this science.

I am always amazed at how someone with no training whatsoever in this topic can be so sure.  And yet you can't even name one real climate scientist.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> You are making a basic logic error.  Let's say that Bob is found dead.  We know that gunshot wounds to the head cause death so is it rational to assume that Bob suffered a gunshot wound to the head?  Of course not.
> 
> The ONLY reason YOU and people like you know anything about the earth's climate history is because of the very same research that helps us establish that the current warming can't be explained solely by natural forcings.
> 
> ...


The basic logic error is all yours. We do know that gunshot wounds to the head can lead to death. But that doesn’t mean that all deaths are caused by gunshot wounds to the head.

By contrast to *your* *illogical* argument, we DO know that global climate-change can happen. We also DO know of a couple (or more) instances of the Earth’s global climate changing quite massively where the causation could not possibly have been related to anything man-made. Therefore, that we see what might be evidence of global climate change might very well ALSO be utterly unrelated to human causation.

And no. We most certainly do *not* now “know” that the present day (possible) global climate change isn’t being caused by humankind. We also don’t know whether (if it is global climate change) it _is_ caused by humankind.

I’m amazed at the arrogance of you guys who pretend to know such things. Amazed, but not surprised.

As a side note: you folks tend to talk about global climate “change” as something to be alarmed about. It is said in a way that seems to presuppose that, previously, our global climate was all nice and static and invariable.

So you Climate alarmists have gone from a fear of an impending ice age to a fear of the Earth dying from a “fever” to simply worrying about “change.”  Then you wonder why you’re not seen as credible. 🙄


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> The basic logic error is all yours. We do know that gunshot wounds to the head can lead to death. But that doesn’t mean that all deaths are caused by gunshot wounds to the head.



I guess I had to spell that out for you.  That was my point.  You make the error in assuming that because the earth's climate has changed for one reason in the past that a DIFFERENT reason couldn't cause it today.  




BackAgain said:


> As a side note: you folks tend to talk about global climate “change” as something to be alarmed about. It is said in a way that seems to presuppose that, previously, our global climate was all nice and static and invariable.



Literally NO ONE says that.  Wow!  In fact those of us like myself have far more knowledge of this than you ever could!  I've seen the data first hand and even done basic research based on different climates on the earth.  

I know why you don't understand this:  it's because you never knew that we had to take "historical geology" or "paleoclimatology-related" classes to get our degrees!  You have no clue what we learn in sedimentology and stratigraphy classes.  

You were given a snippet of information and you think you have an advanced earth science degree!  LOL.  I've forgotten more earth science than you will ever know.


BackAgain said:


> So you Climate alarmists have gone from a fear of an impending ice age to a fear of the Earth dying from a “fever” to simply worrying about “change.”  Then you wonder why you’re not seen as credible. 🙄



Funny you bring that up.  I assume you "think" you know how ice ages were discussed in the 1970's.  Unfortuantely you have another cartoon view based on an utter lack of knowledge in this area.

Yes there were a few articles in the popular press (Newsweek and Time if I recall) that were talking about an upcoming ice age.  That was mainly due to how scientists were learning more about the Milankovich Cycles back in those days and realized it was cyclical and indeed we _should _be heading into a new ice age.

But *even back then the number of peer reviewed articles in the sciences that predicted WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling 6 to 1.*

You don't have to believe me...you can read it for yourself (or ignore it because it's a science article and you don't read much science):









						THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
					

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...




					journals.ametsoc.org
				





Feel free to ignore the findings.  Or just admit you don't care about actual data on anything.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> I guess I had to spell that out for you.  That was my point.  You make the error in assuming that because the earth's climate has changed for one reason in the past that a DIFFERENT reason couldn't cause it today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You guessed wrong and still drew the incorrect conclusion. No surprise. Logic isn’t your strong suit.

My position has been And still is that where we KNOW that climate (world wide) has “changed” dramatically in the past without any possible human causation, that there is at least some reason to believe that any actual present-day global climate change is happening, it is just as POSSIBLE that it is not caused by human activity.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You guessed wrong and still drew the incorrect conclusion. No surprise. Logic isn’t your strong suit.



OK.  Whatever.



BackAgain said:


> My position has been And still is that where we KNOW that climate (world wide) has “changed” dramatically in the past without any possible human causation, that there is at least some reason to believe that any actual present-day global climate change is happening, it is just as POSSIBLE that it is not caused by human activity.



In fact just the opposite.  Those past climate changes you "know" about were caused by solely natural processes without humans.  *So when we look at the known natural causes they don't line up sufficiently to explain the warming TODAY.  *

That's the key.  So the very people who told YOU about the earth's past climate *are the same scientists who tell you that today we know it is mostly HUMAN caused because the natural processes that caused change in the past are not acting in a way necessary to explain today's warming*.

Again, the only reason folks like YOU know anything about the change in the earth's past climate is because of the EXACT SAME WORK that tells us the current warming is mostly due to humans.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> OK.  Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong again. You make the ASSumption that what we _think_ we know about the natural causes of past global climate change is all there is to know. Dubious ASSumption. It also seems to ASSume that whatever natural causes (which we think) pertained in the past “must be” the only possible natural causes of what might be some (possible) global climate change, now.

The trouble with many  of you poseurs is that your arrogance doesn’t permit you to consider things like alternatives and it prevents you from recognizing some of your own possible misinterpretations.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 3, 2022)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


You are a moron to think it doesn't exist. The whole world accepts it as fact but a loopy like you disagree. 
Breathtakingly ignorant.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> And we know with certainty that real science has nothing to do with “consensus” and majority rule.


Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.


Yes. You are indeed quite wrong. “Peer review” is what it’s supposed to be. But lots of you poseurs prefer to tell society that 90 some odd percent of scientists “agree.” 🙄

Such lines aren’t about peer review. They are about the appeal to numbers. And that doesn’t even begin to address the inherently illogical claim of who qualifies as a “scientist” for purposes of such statements.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong again. You make the ASSumption that what we _think_ we know about the natural causes of past global climate change is all there is to know.



It's not like you have MORE information.  So I don't see how that helps your point. 

If your point is that "it can't be humans because there's something we may not know!" that's silly.  Of course if we don't know something we can't say anything about it.

But we do know quite a bit about what drives the climate.  YOU don't, but the scientists do.



BackAgain said:


> Dubious ASSumption. It also seems to ASSume



Are you quite done with the junior high game?



BackAgain said:


> The trouble with many  of you poseurs is that



Let me guess, we don't show our utter lack of scientific literacy as clearly as YOU do?




BackAgain said:


> your arrogance



Since when is your failure to be able to get a university degree in the sciences a sign of _my_ arrogance?



BackAgain said:


> doesn’t permit you to consider things like alternatives and it prevents you from recognizing some of your own possible misinterpretations.



Well, could be that I've got more geology under my belt than you have hot meals.  But, whatevs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> You are a moron to think it doesn't exist. The whole world accepts it as fact but a loopy like you disagree.
> Breathtakingly ignorant.



Do we need to pay triple what we currently do for electricity?
If we do, are we saved?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Quite wrong, but it is not called “consensus” or majority rule but peer review.



Is that when you prevent opponents from publishing?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies.  Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.


Biden stopped a pipeline, imposed extraction restrictions and denied permits. This admin repeated the Obama energy debacle.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Biden stopped a pipeline,



A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies to transport tar sands oil down to ports on the US Gulfcoast and other US ports for _export out of North America_.

That oil wasn't going to help us.  And in fact that oil is EXCEPTIONALLY polluting.  The damage possible to the aquifers from the Alberta tar sands is off the charts.



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> imposed extraction restrictions and denied permits.



Biden outpaced Trump in terms of drilling permits on public lands



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> This admin repeated the Obama energy debacle.



I love how some people have zero clue how complex oil markets are.  It's so sweetly naive.  Yeah, Biden is causing all of this.  It COULDN'T possibly be due to a major energy exporter deciding that war crimes was going to be on the menu for March and April.

It's Biden.  All Biden.  

Why don't conservatives ever act like they actually understand anything related to economics?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> It's not like you have MORE information.  So I don't see how that helps your point.
> 
> If your point is that "it can't be humans because there's something we may not know!" that's silly.  Of course if we don't know something we can't say anything about it.
> 
> ...


You’re arguing strawman arguments now. A sure sigh that you’re lost. I never said “it can’t be humans” even if you misleadingly (ie, lyingly) put it inside quotations.

When and if you get your shit together, I might be willing to continue with you. Until you stop yiur dishonesty, that won’t happen.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re arguing strawman arguments now. A sure sigh that you’re lost. I never said “it can’t be humans” even if you misleadingly (ie, lyingly) put it inside quotations.



So if you agree it _can_ be humans why do you think the vast majority of the earth's experts on this topic are incorrect?



BackAgain said:


> When and if you get your shit together, I might be willing to continue with you. Until you stop yiur dishonesty, that won’t happen.



What is your malfunction?


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> My position has been And still is that where we KNOW that climate (world wide) has “changed” dramatically in the past without any possible human causation, that there is at least some reason to believe that any actual present-day global climate change is happening, it is just as POSSIBLE that it is not caused by human activity.


Just as possible?  Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
					

Floods are caused by nature but we put a lot of effort into dealing with them.  The cause doesn't matter, only the effect.   Even if it is natural CO2 causing most of the problem, I'd think limiting our emissions now would be easier and cheaper than leaving the problem to our children...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies to transport tar sands oil down to ports on the US Gulfcoast and other US ports for _export out of North America_.
> 
> That oil wasn't going to help us.  And in fact that oil is EXCEPTIONALLY polluting.  The damage possible to the aquifers from the Alberta tar sands is off the charts.
> 
> ...



*A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies *

Wrong.

*to transport tar sands oil down to ports on the US Gulfcoast and other US ports for export out of North America.*

To refineries on the Gulfcoast. To be refined.

*Yeah, Biden is causing all of this.  It COULDN'T possibly be due to a major energy exporter deciding that war crimes was going to be on the menu for March and April.*

How much of the increase occurred before the invasion?
Any of that increase Biden's fault?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies *
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> ...



Get back to me when you actually learn about this topic.  Thanks!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Just as possible?  Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?


I agree that the greenhouse theory might have some plausibility. But I do doubt that it necessarily holds a lot of explanatory power . The analogy between a closed system greenhouse and the fairly open system of our atmosphere and it’s interactions with the earth and the oceans has been questioned before.

So, while I would not agree that I’m rejecting it  — I would agree that I’m not convinced by it.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that when you prevent opponents from publishing?


I've never prevented anyone from publishing.  Who are you talking about?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Get back to me when you actually learn about this topic.  Thanks!



_The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[25]__[26]_









						Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I've never prevented anyone from publishing.  Who are you talking about?



In the Climategate emails, the greens were talking about preventing skeptics from publishing.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In the Climategate emails, the greens were talking about preventing skeptics from publishing.


Got a link?  All I could find was this.  It doesn't mention your charge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Got a link?  All I could find was this.  It doesn't mention your charge.



_In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its __major investigation into the climate science emails__ stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature._









						Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review
					

Fred Pearce: Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In the Climategate emails, the greens were talking about preventing skeptics from publishing.


I don't know who "the greens" might be but I believe the comment came from a climate scientist of some standing (Phil Jones?).  However, you need to take into account some realities you might not like.  From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.  The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place.  But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather.  The cost to address it will be in the trillions and trillions of dollars and will beggar the HUMAN economy for decades if not centuries.  I find it entirely understandable that someone might be enticed to bend their objectivity, particularly when their opponents have certainly shown no such principles.

Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I agree that the greenhouse theory might have some plausibility. But I do doubt that it necessarily holds a lot of explanatory power .



It explains why the surface temperature of the earth is not the same as its blackbody radiation temperature.



BackAgain said:


> The analogy between a closed system greenhouse and the fairly open system of our atmosphere and it’s interactions with the earth and the oceans has been questioned before.



Calling it a "greenhouse" has long been known to be a flawed comparison.  But the details of how the IR is initially captured by the greenhouse gas molecules (eg CO2, CH4, etc.) and re-emitted and then re-absorbed until it reaches the level in the atmosphere where it re-radiates back out into space are reasonably well known.  Agreed that it is a ridiculously complex system, but not beyond understanding, certainly at a first order approximation which probably explains sufficient of the data to provide significant insight.



BackAgain said:


> So, while I would not agree that I’m rejecting it  — I would agree that I’m not convinced by it.



The existence of questions in any given field is not sufficient to claim it unconvincing.  If that were the case nothing in science would be accepted.

The goal of any science is to explain the variability in the data by use of independent variables.  Even if we don't know all the independent variables we can estimate how much of our understanding explains the variability in the data.  This is basically how science operates.  We never know what we don't know.  That sounds silly when you say it but it's critical.

When I create a statistical fit (or model if you will) to the data I collect I accept that there is *unexplained variance* in the data.  That comes from a variety of things like error in the instruments used to measure a given feature, random natural fluctuations and _unknown explanatory variables_.

We can actually understand a system REALLY WELL if we don't have all the explanatory variables.  We can get an idea of how much variance is unexplained by the fit.  So long as it's not the vast majority of the variance we have a pretty good insight into the system.

Right now the science behind AGW is pretty solid.  Yes it has deficits, but so does everything.  Many of us take prescription medications that science still struggles to understand the exact mechanism of action.  Yet they work.

AGW is a pretty solid scientific concept.  Which is why the vast majority of the experts in the field currently accept it as real.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[25]__[26]_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.

In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers (some studies find that this particular crude oil is more corrosive to pipelines but other studies question that).  Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration (which ain't great to begin with).

This is a perfect example of what we learn in economic geology classes:  when a resources gets more depleted we go after ever lower quality forms of the resource (eg lower grades of ore).  In this case it's far heavier and requires a significant amount of processing to extract it and the attendant environmental damage is higher.

This is about the worst fuel you could imagine tapping into and the economic benefit to the US is minimal.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> Just as possible?  Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect?


One example (not the entirety of it) of expressed scientific skepticism:









						Earth's Atmosphere has no "walls" or "lid" - Greenhouse Gas Theory is both Mathematically and Physically Wrong - Electroverse
					

“The CO2 greenhouse effect of the Earth's atmosphere is a pure fiction of people who like to use large computers, without physical bases.”




					electroverse.net
				




Here is another piece:  






						Global Warming and CO2 - Econlib
					

Mathematician David Evans writes, After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by...



					www.econlib.org


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 3, 2022)

I notice that PV is still responding to me. He doesn’t seem to grasp that his dishonesty has resulted in his uselessness to me in this discussion.  If he wants to withdraw his lie, someone might do me a favor and let me know.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I notice that PV is still responding to me. He doesn’t seem to grasp that his dishonesty has resulted in his uselessness to me in this discussion.  If he wants to withdraw his lie, someone might do me a favor and let me know.



I have no idea what "lie" you are talking about.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> A pipeline that was solely for the use of Canadian companies to transport tar sands oil down to ports on the US Gulfcoast and other US ports for _export out of North America_.
> 
> That oil wasn't going to help us.  And in fact that oil is EXCEPTIONALLY polluting.  The damage possible to the aquifers from the Alberta tar sands is off the charts.
> 
> ...


Supply is supply. If it’s inhibited, the price goes up. I’m so tired of my financial condition being held hostage by retarded baboon democrats.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Supply is supply. If it’s inhibited, the price goes up. I’m so tired of my financial condition being held hostage by retarded baboon democrats.



I bet you'd have a different view if where you got your water from was crossed by the pipeline.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> I bet you'd have a different view if where you got your water from was crossed by the pipeline.


Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> I don't know who "the greens" might be but I believe the comment came from a climate scientist of some standing (Phil Jones?).  However, you need to take into account some realities you might not like.  From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.  The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place.  But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather.  The cost to address it will be in the trillions and trillions of dollars and will beggar the HUMAN economy for decades if not centuries.  I find it entirely understandable that someone might be enticed to bend their objectivity, particularly when their opponents have certainly shown no such principles.
> 
> Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.


*
From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.*

When the science is on your side, the first thing you need to do is suppress the opposition.
*
The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place. *

The worst charge folks on my side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money and end up killing people by making energy more expensive and less reliable.

*But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather.*

Sounds like you'd be justified in jailing or killing skeptics, eh comrade?

*Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.*

You always make me laugh.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> I bet you'd have a different view if where you got your water from was crossed by the pipeline.


Pipeline spills are rare and easily located and fixed.  Railcars are far more likely to spill.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.
> 
> In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers (some studies find that this particular crude oil is more corrosive to pipelines but other studies question that).  Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration (which ain't great to begin with).
> 
> ...



*And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.*

Because the oil was sent to our refineries?

I'm glad you got back to me after you learned about the topic. LOL!

*In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers *

Threatening their aquifers? Are they like 5 feet under the pipelines? 
How fast does this oil sink? Speed of sound? Faster?

*Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration*

That's awful! Are the negative impacts worse when the crude is moved in train cars?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Pipeline spills are rare and easily located and fixed.  Railcars are far more likely to spill.



How about if it is transported across your land without your permission?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.*
> 
> Because the oil was sent to our refineries?
> 
> ...



Maybe if you're lucky the pipeline runs through your aquifer and recharge catchment basin!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Maybe if you're lucky the pipeline runs through your aquifer and recharge catchment basin!



If my aquifer is 100 meters deep, how long does it take for a pipeline leak to poison my water?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies.  Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.


All he needed to do was increase production by 1 million barrels a day! Didn’t need to empty emergency Supplies when there’s no emergency. You all are truly fked in the head


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL


So you couldn’t find it either


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If my aquifer is 100 meters deep, how long does it take for a pipeline leak to poison my water?



Not as long as you might hope.  But if you cross your fingers maybe there's nothing in the catchment that could contaminate it very quickly.

And I might note, not everyone's aquifer is 100m down.  The place I grew up in was about 4m down and the overlying material was unconsolidated glacial till which is reasonably permeable.

Either way, it's an actual concern, whether you understand hydrogeology or not.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So you couldn’t find it either



Would you like me to read it to you?

_"Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: _*most of the models have been quite accurate."*

I'm just joking...I realize it wouldn't do any good even if someone read it to you (which is probably actually a requirement)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> You all are truly fked in the head



I recognize that there's nothing even close to "moderation" on this forum which is kind of fun, but seeing the depth of intellectual vacuity is hardly appealing.

I understand that when one lacks education one tends to resort to simple screeching, but you could probably do better if you really set your mind to it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.*
> 
> When the science is on your side, the first thing you need to do is suppress the opposition.
> 
> ...


The science HAS been on our side yet here we are, very likely too late to save ourselves from catastrophic harm.

I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.

I never said we would be justified.  I said people were tempted to violate their objectivity.  I also said that no one ever actually did so.  And no one did.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Would you like me to read it to you?
> 
> _"Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: _*most of the models have been quite accurate."*
> 
> I'm just joking...I realize it wouldn't do any good even if someone read it to you (which is probably actually a requirement)


That’s mumbo jumbo dude, doesn’t have any data supporting any model! It’s nonsense


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 3, 2022)

jc456 said:


> That’s mumbo jumbo dude, doesn’t have any data supporting any model! It’s nonsense



Hahahaha!  LOL.

Since you don't like evidence against your position I hate to break it to you, *but you don't even have evidence for YOUR position*.

In your world does this count as clever reparte on your part?  I'm just curious how low the bar is.  I can try to adapt and just dispense with actually supporting my position if it will make you more comfortable (given that you can't support your own positions you seem threatened by people who can do that and I don't want to unnecessarily antagonize you).


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> I recognize that there's nothing even close to "moderation" on this forum which is kind of fun, but seeing the depth of intellectual vacuity is hardly appealing.
> 
> I understand that when one lacks education one tends to resort to simple screeching, but you could probably do better if you really set your mind to it.


You should stop it then


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Hahahaha!  LOL.
> 
> Since you don't like evidence against your position I hate to break it to you, *but you don't even have evidence for YOUR position*.
> 
> In your world does this count as clever reparte on your part?  I'm just curious how low the bar is.  I can try to adapt and just dispense with actually supporting my position if it will make you more comfortable (given that you can't support your own positions you seem threatened by people who can do that and I don't want to unnecessarily antagonize you).


No evidence is there pretty pictures isn’t evidence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

PV System said:


> Not as long as you might hope.



So how long? A year? 5 years? 10 years?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> The science HAS been on our side yet here we are



Here we are.....watching your side lie and cheat.

*I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.*

I'm sure that's a comfort to poor Germans who can't afford to heat their homes now.
And to poor people in the third world who don't have clean water because their government 
is wasting money on green energy, instead of coal.

*I never said we would be justified. *

Saving millions from death by starvation or thirst isn't justification for murder and incarceration?

*I also said that no one ever actually did so. And no one did.*

No one was ever stopped from publishing? Link?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its __major investigation into the climate science emails__ stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't seem to be any grand conspiracy, just a debate on peer review.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Didn't seem to be any grand conspiracy, just a debate on peer review.



That's it.  The whole climategate e-mail mess was mostly a lot of nothing amped up by a bunch of denialists who spun private conversations in such a way that the scientifically illiterate would be led to believe it was some nefarious conspiracy.

It's bad enough that a huge swath of Americans don't understand even basic science, but now that the denialists have politicized the topic so badly it invites those folks who have the least valuable input to scream it at the top of their lungs.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm sure that's a comfort to poor Germans who can't afford to heat their homes now.



Why would energy prices be so high in Germany?  Hmmmmmm.......


Toddsterpatriot said:


> And to poor people in the third world who don't have clean water because their government
> is wasting money on green energy, instead of coal.



It's heartening that you care so deeply about the poor in the third world.  Did you care about them _before_ they became a handy tool to use to bash at climate change folks?

You see, most Americans, even the really patriotic ones, don't actually care about the poor in the third world because they are the ones making their favorite brand of tube socks sold at WalMart and the poorer they are the cheaper the socks!  But gosh ahmighty these patriotic conservatives SUDDENLY develop a deep and abiding care for these poor benighted souls _*when it becomes possible to leverage that against the folks who want to deal realistically with climate change!*_



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saving millions from death by starvation or thirst isn't justification for murder and incarceration?


Starvation and thirst are high on the list for fun things that might happen if we don't deal with climate change.  Only problem is:  _it'll impact us as well as the "poor people" of the earth_.  And that's going to make a lot of people sad.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's it.  The whole climategate e-mail mess was mostly a lot of nothing amped up by a bunch of denialists who spun private conversations in such a way that the scientifically illiterate would be led to believe it was some nefarious conspiracy.
> 
> It's bad enough that a huge swath of Americans don't understand even basic science, but now that the denialists have politicized the topic so badly it invites those folks who have the least valuable input to scream it at the top of their lungs.


Science is hanging by a thread in the US while in other countries, especially China, it is going full bore.  China has caught up to the US and, I fear, they will pass us by very soon.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Apr 4, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


130 degrees ?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Science is hanging by a thread in the US while in other countries, especially China, it is going full bore.  China has caught up to the US and, I fear, they will pass us by very soon.



That's a real possibility.  There's a common myth among folks in the tech sector in the US that China doesn't "innovate", they just make.  Unfortunately that presupposes that Chinese scientists are just as capable as American scientists.  In my career I've worked with more than my fair share of Chinese graduates and scientists and they are more than capable.  It's not going to be pretty when we finally are forced to cede the territory of technology that we thought was ours for the keeping.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's it.  The whole climategate e-mail mess was mostly a lot of nothing amped up by a bunch of denialists who spun private conversations in such a way that the scientifically illiterate would be led to believe it was some nefarious conspiracy.
> 
> It's bad enough that a huge swath of Americans don't understand even basic science, but now that the denialists have politicized the topic so badly it invites those folks who have the least valuable input to scream it at the top of their lungs.


The alarmists have politicized it. They’re paid with gov money and they refuse to discuss the subject publicly with experts who dispute the severity.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> The alarmists have politicized it. They’re paid with gov money and they refuse to discuss the subject publicly with experts who dispute the severity.



That's quite an interesting story there!  Fiction is fun, but for this topic perhaps we can stick with reality.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's quite an interesting story there!  Fiction is fun, but for this topic perhaps we can stick with reality.


You are not an atmospherics expert. Honest laymen defer to experts. Experts disagree on causes and severity of warming. An honest person who is affected by extreme measures undertaken by one side of the debate deserve the discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> It's bad enough that a huge swath of Americans don't understand even basic science



I know.
Mike's Nature Trick, hiding the decline and preventing skeptics from publishing......
Very scientific.

*the denialists have politicized the topic so badly it invites those folks who have the least valuable input to scream it at the top of their lungs.*

We should leave the topic to the experts.
Like Nobel Prize winner....Michael Mann, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> Why would energy prices be so high in Germany?  Hmmmmmm.......
> 
> 
> It's heartening that you care so deeply about the poor in the third world.  Did you care about them _before_ they became a handy tool to use to bash at climate change folks?
> ...



*Why would energy prices be so high in Germany? Hmmmmmm.......*

Can't be all their cheap renewables, can it?

*It's heartening that you care so deeply about the poor in the third world.  *

And that you don't care about them at all.

_*when it becomes possible to leverage that against the folks who want to deal realistically with climate change!*_

As long as they don't burn coal, gas or oil, right?

*Starvation and thirst are high on the list for fun things that might happen if we don't deal with climate change. *

What good is fixing climate change tomorrow if you starve to death paying for solar today?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why would energy prices be so high in Germany? Hmmmmmm.......*
> 
> Can't be all their cheap renewables, can it?



Certainly couldn't be their primary source of gas currently cut off from the world's banking system because they opted to conduct war crimes on an industrial scale, could it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's heartening that you care so deeply about the poor in the third world.  *
> 
> And that you don't care about them at all.



LOL.  

So I hit a bit close to the bone, eh?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Starvation and thirst are high on the list for fun things that might happen if we don't deal with climate change. *
> 
> What good is fixing climate change tomorrow if you starve to death paying for solar today?



LOL.  There you go, caring so much for the poor.  I bet your heart just bleeds for them.  Especially when you have to vote for improvements to the social safety net.  I bet you really, really care when it's YOUR money on the line.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know.
> Mike's Nature Trick, hiding the decline and preventing skeptics from publishing......
> Very scientific.



You honestly don't understand that concept at all!   

1. Mike's "Nature" Trick had nothing to do with "hide the decline".  You really should have actually READ the climategate e-mails before you pontificated.  Mike's "Nature" trick was nothing more than plotting instrumental records on the same graph as proxy records.

2. The "Hide the decline"  was about the use of tree ring data that was KNOWN to have problems acting as a proxy set.  You couldn't possibly know anything about this because you aren't a scientist.   You don't even have a clue what this is about.  It was a topic *openly discussed in the peer reviewed literature!*  LOL.  You don't read science and you think you know science.

HILARIOUS!


Toddsterpatriot said:


> We should leave the topic to the experts.
> Like Nobel Prize winner....Michael Mann, eh?



He actually knows science.  Unlike you.  I'm sure that when Janitorial Work is recognized by the Nobel Committee you will be top of the list.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> Certainly couldn't be their primary source of gas currently cut off from the world's banking system because they opted to conduct war crimes on an industrial scale, could it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Certainly couldn't be their primary source of gas currently cut off from the world's banking system because they opted to conduct war crimes on an industrial scale, could it?*

Not really.
Their electricity costs were triple ours, years before Putin invaded. 

*So I hit a bit close to the bone, eh?*

Obviously. Because poor people adapt best to high cost energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2022)

PV System said:


> You honestly don't understand that concept at all!
> 
> 1. Mike's "Nature" Trick had nothing to do with "hide the decline".  You really should have actually READ the climategate e-mails before you pontificated.  Mike's "Nature" trick was nothing more than plotting instrumental records on the same graph as proxy records.
> 
> ...



*Mike's "Nature" Trick had nothing to do with "hide the decline".*

Where did I say it did? Link?

* The "Hide the decline"  was about the use of tree ring data that was KNOWN to have problems acting as a proxy set.*

Problems? Tell me more!

*He actually knows science.  Unlike you.*

Is that why he won the Nobel Prize?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Mike's "Nature" Trick had nothing to do with "hide the decline".*
> 
> Where did I say it did? Link?



Sorry, my bad.  I didn't see the comma there.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The "Hide the decline"  was about the use of tree ring data that was KNOWN to have problems acting as a proxy set.*
> 
> Problems? Tell me more!



It was well known since about the mid 1990's that there was a set of high latitude trees whose rings diverged from the instrumental record after about 1960.  Thus this particular trees' proxy was considered unreliable after 1960.  This is outlined by Briffa back in 1998 (HERE)

Briffa found that before the divergence these trees' rings accurately tracked temperature but are unreliable after 1960


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Sorry, my bad.  I didn't see the comma there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_It was well known since about the mid 1990's that there was a set of high latitude trees whose rings diverged from the instrumental record after about 1960. Thus this particular trees' proxy was considered unreliable after 1960._

Proxies aren't 100% reliable? Outrageous!!

Now about Mann's Nobel Prize.........


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _It was well known since about the mid 1990's that there was a set of high latitude trees whose rings diverged from the instrumental record after about 1960. Thus this particular trees' proxy was considered unreliable after 1960._
> 
> Proxies aren't 100% reliable? Outrageous!!



I'm really curious why this surprises you.  I understand you don't know how proxies work and you have no clue how many various proxies are out there, but proxies are just that, proxies.

Even a perfectly calibrated THERMOMETER isn't 100% reliable.  

You seem to have a cartoon view of science.  Did you learn all your science from comic books?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now about Mann's Nobel Prize.........



I get it!  You found something that was unrelated to science and since you don't know any science THIS is what you want to talk about.

I couldn't care less about Mann's Nobel.  Honestly.  

You don't have to be scared if you don't know science, we can help you understand it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> I'm really curious why this surprises you.



It doesn't.

*but proxies are just that, proxies.*

Exactly.

*I get it! You found something that was unrelated to science and since you don't know any science THIS is what you want to talk about.*

Is Michael Mann related to science?

*I couldn't care less about Mann's Nobel. Honestly.*

You have to admit, it's awesome that he won a Nobel Prize, right?
Hero of the hockey stick!!!

*You don't have to be scared*

Scared enough to prevent skeptics from getting published?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> *but proxies are just that, proxies.*
> 
> Exactly.



No, not "exactly".  There are so many proxies *that positively impact things you use every day but you don't even know about them.  *You drive a car?  Yeah, proxies were leveraged to help find the oil that was brought to you for use in your car as gasoline.  





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have to admit, it's awesome that he won a Nobel Prize, right?
> Hero of the hockey stick!!!



The hockey stick is reasonably important.  But I guess the bigger question is:  *why can't you figure out how use the "quote" tag or reply with inter-linears?*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Scared enough to prevent skeptics from getting published?



Cartoon news.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> The hockey stick is reasonably important.



Is that why he won the Nobel Prize?

_But I guess the bigger question is: _*why can't you figure out how use the "quote" tag or reply with inter-linears?*

It's because I don't care.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _But I guess the bigger question is: _*why can't you figure out how use the "quote" tag or reply with inter-linears?*
> 
> It's because I don't care.



OK.  Fair enough.  I think I actually know why but if you want to put in EXTRA EFFORT to type out things I already typed then that's your gig.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> OK.  Fair enough.  I think I actually know why but if you want to put in EXTRA EFFORT to type out things I already typed then that's your gig.



I'm copying and pasting, not retyping anything.

*The hockey stick is reasonably important.*

Nobel Prize worthy?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm copying and pasting, not retyping anything.



And the funniest part is all you REALLY have to do is just put your cursor after where you want to type and hit enter, it automatically breaks out the quote.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The hockey stick is reasonably important.*
> 
> Nobel Prize worthy?



I believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not really all that interested in regards to a technical topic like this.

The Hockey Stick graph is pretty solid.  Sure there were a few issues around the principal component analyses but those were largely fine given that M&M didn't really follow proper PC analysis protocols.

Other than that it looks pretty good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> I believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize, so I'm not really all that interested in regards to a technical topic like this.



I believe he lied about winning it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I believe he lied about winning it.



Like I said, I don't much care one way or the other.  I'm not as obsessed with the non-science as you guys are.  

Let me know when you'd like to talk more science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Like I said, I don't much care one way or the other.  I'm not as obsessed with the non-science as you guys are.
> 
> Let me know when you'd like to talk more science.



I'm not obsessed with the liar, Michael Mann.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm not obsessed with the liar, Michael Mann.



Would you like to discuss the hockey stick or have you sufficiently made the argument "against the man"?  

In logic and rhetoric it is called an _ad hominem_ ("against the man") when you can't discuss the technical content of the data but make it about the person.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Would you like to discuss the hockey stick



Sure.

Do you believe it was an honest hockey stick, or did he molest the data?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you believe it was an honest hockey stick, or did he molest the data?



Why should I believe he molested the data?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Why should I believe he molested the data?



Maybe the fact that he won't release the data he used to construct it?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe the fact that he won't release the data he used to construct it?



Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?









						Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again
					

The Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into climatologist Michael Mann after failing to find any evidence of misconduct




					www.scientificamerican.com
				





(Also, if Mann released the data *what could you do with it?)*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?_

Probably not. 

_(Also, if Mann released the data_* what could you do with it?)*

That justifies his refusal to release it?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Do you think the NSF is in the secret cabal of evil doers?_
> 
> Probably not.



Then why wouldn't you be happy with this finding?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> _(Also, if Mann released the data_* what could you do with it?)*
> 
> That justifies his refusal to release it?



May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers?  Because in mine I haven't had to release any of it.  I don't know why there would be any problem with it, but if the NSF suggests that repeated investigations find no evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data I guess I don't much care.

Unless, of course, the NSF is part of the secret lizard people cabal you denialists fear so much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Then why wouldn't you be happy with this finding?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_"No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."_

Maybe he feels releasing the raw data will indicate he did fabricate it?

*May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers?*

Every time my paper was funded by taxpayer dollars spent by a state university, I did.

What about Mann? Is he too good to show his taxpayer funded work?

*but if the NSF suggests that repeated investigations find no evidence of fraudulent manipulation of the data I guess I don't much care.*

No reason to let any skeptics double check his work, eh?
So much for seeing if it can be replicated.
Can't question the Nobel Prize winner.
The science is settled!!!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _"No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."_
> 
> Maybe he feels releasing the raw data will indicate he did fabricate it?



Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent".  Nice.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *May I ask how many times YOU'VE released your raw data from your peer reviewed papers?*
> 
> Every time my paper was funded by taxpayer dollars spent by a state university, I did.



Really?  Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data.  Huh.  And the papers that came out of grad school didn't require that I turn over any raw data either.  


Toddsterpatriot said:


> No reason to let any skeptics double check his work, eh?



That's interesting.  It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre?  They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> So much for seeing if it can be replicated.



Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)

Or Whang et al, (2000) who found a hockey-stick type feature from borehole data?  (HERE)

How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)

Or weren't you aware of these?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2022)

PV System said:


> Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent".  Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Ahh, "guilty until proven innocent". Nice.*

If he did nothing wrong, why is he hiding it?

*Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data.  *

You must be more ethical than Mann.

*It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre?  They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.*

Did Mann give them his data?

*Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)*

Did Mann give them his data?

*How about Smith et al (2006) who found hockey-stick behavior from speleothems (HERE)*

Did Mann give them his data?

*Or weren't you aware of these?*

I was not aware that Mann gave them his data.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> denialists


Is that how you normally describe people who disagree with you?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Most of my papers were when I was with the US government and no one ever asked anything about the raw data.  *
> 
> You must be more ethical than Mann.



As noted before, several reviews have found NO EVIDENCE of data tampering. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It seems you are not familiar with McKitrick and McIntyre?  They were skeptics and they took on the Hockey Stick.*
> 
> Did Mann give them his data?



You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies.  You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Oh, you mean like Wahl and Amman (2007) (HERE)*
> 
> Did Mann give them his data?
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter.  You said replicated.  These folks found hockey stick type responses in a variety of other proxies.

That's replication.

Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?

(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Is that how you normally describe people who disagree with you?



No, that's how I describe people who deny the reality of the science behind AGW.  

Hence the word "denialist"....(hint: it's in the word itself)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> As noted before, several reviews have found NO EVIDENCE of data tampering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.*

I complained that without releasing his data, his results can't be replicated.

*Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?*

Should me the data and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick.

*(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).*

And I never won the Nobel Prize.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.*
> 
> I complained that without releasing his data, his results can't be replicated.



That's patently absurd!  Are you serious?  That's not how science works.  I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?*
> 
> Should me the data and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick.



You are ignoring the various other hockey stick graphs that other researchers found in yet OTHER proxies.  That's fascinating.  It's really as if you don't understand how science works in regards to replication.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).*
> 
> And I never won the Nobel Prize.



There you go again.  I understand you want to focus on the things you "understand" and not the science.  Maybe you should make some comments on Mann's weight.  That would be more your speed.

Leave the science to people who know what science is, mmmmkay?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's patently absurd! Are you serious? That's not how science works. I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis.



Yes, I'm serious.
Show me the data you used and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick with taxpayer dollars you dishonest data molester.

*Maybe you should make some comments on Mann's weight.*

Or the lawsuits he keeps losing. Is he ever going to pay the legal fees he owes? 

What a scumbag.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I complained


That's not a surprise.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> you dishonest data molester


Debates shouldn't make you this angry.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> No, that's how I describe people who deny the reality of the science behind AGW.
> 
> Hence the word "denialist"....(hint: it's in the word itself)


So if I deny that man is causing the planet to warm does that mean I deny the science behind AGW?  And if so wouldn't anyone who denies that man is causing the planet to warm must be a denier in your eyes?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, I'm serious.
> Show me the data you used and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick with taxpayer dollars you dishonest data molester.



Wow.  OK.  So we need a little remedial logic here.

Let's say I propose an hypothesis that there is a "j-shaped curve" for some thing in nature.  It goes down and then steeply rises over time.  

A valid replication of this can easily be done *even without ever seeing any of my data.  *Other labs look at how this thing functions over time and they use different methods of measuring it...and IT SHOWS A J-SHAPED CURVE OVER TIME!  Wow!  That's amazing.

In fact, that is how sceince SHOULD work.

I agree it would be great to see the raw data, but honestly there's no real reason to.  It's not like YOU have a clue what it would mean.  But you can be shown numerous other methods by which the same "hockey-stick curve" shows up using *independent methods.

That's kind of nearly perfect science.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> So if I deny that man is causing the planet to warm does that mean I deny the science behind AGW?



Yeah.  That's kind of the definition.  Don't get me wrong, there are always people who disagree with the science...even in the sciences!  I even had a mineralogy professor back in the 1980's who doubted plate tectonics!  Go figure.  

The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real.  They do so based on the science.



ding said:


> And if so wouldn't anyone who denies that man is causing the planet to warm must be a denier in your eyes?



Certainly among the scientifically illiterate it would.  Folks like Lindzen (I assume you know how he is) or Curry (I assume you know who she is) are outliers.  They are technically skilled but I am more likely to ignore them because the preponderance of the scientific analysis shows they are likely incorrect.

Neither you nor I are "experts" in this field (and I've got a LOT more experience directly relevant to this than you likely do) so, in a sense, I am forced to go with the overall scientific consensus.  Folks who have NO experience in the sciences have even less reason to deny the scientific consensus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> A valid replication of this can easily be done *even without ever seeing any of my data. *



Can we include the MWP and the LIA in the honest hockey stick?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Can we include the MWP and the LIA in the honest hockey stick?



The MWP?  You mean the effect that may have very well been limited to only part of the Northern Hemisphere while the overall global temperature was cooler?  Why would it make a difference in the conclusion?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> The MWP?  You mean the effect that may have very well been limited to only part of the Northern Hemisphere while the overall global temperature was cooler?  Why would it make a difference in the conclusion?



Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.



Wow.  So you couldn't read the article I linked?  Were the words too big or did they just not confirm your cartoon view of science you don't actually understand?


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.


Todd, are you under the impression that the existence of the MWP somehow refutes AGW?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Yeah. That's kind of the definition. Don't get me wrong, there are always people who disagree with the science...even in the sciences! I even had a mineralogy professor back in the 1980's who doubted plate tectonics! Go figure.
> 
> The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real. They do so based on the science.


So basically what you are saying is that you believe the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a denier.  

Is science ever settled?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> So basically what you are saying is that you believe the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a denier.



No.  I think the science is largely settled but I understand that there are professionals who question aspects of it.  I don't, however, believe that non-scientists with no real expertise in anything even remotely related to this have anything worth actually listening to since all they ever do is parrot talking points pre-digested for them by someone else.




ding said:


> Is science ever settled?



Assymptotically so.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real. They do so based on the science.


Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.  There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles. And not one of those instances was caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing. So it would be disingenuous to casually dismiss natural causes - such as solar output and albedo - as the reason for the recent warming trend. The planet is much much closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is to a greenhouse planet.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.



You act as if there's a 50/50 toss up of how the scientific community views anthropogenic climate change.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts believe AGW is real and a significant concern.



ding said:


> There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.



Again, incorrect.  There are a couple of researchers like Willie Soon and company who have been pushing this, but again, the general consensus is it cannot be explained by solar variability.


ding said:


> The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles. And not one of those instances was caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing. So it would be disingenuous to casually dismiss natural causes - such as solar output and albedo - as the reason for the recent warming trend. The planet is much much closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is to a greenhouse planet.



That's just poor logic.  The ONLY reason you know anything about the past earth climate _*is because of the research by the same folks who tell you TODAY the warming cannot be explained by solely natural forcings*_

I mention this because the field of paleoclimatology has existed for a very long time and it has helped us understand how the NATURAL forcings impact climate.  Right now the natural forcings cannot account for the warming we see.

Here's a great set of summary graphs comparing _hindcast_ data to natural and anthropogenic forcings.  Note how the data ONLY MAKES SENSE when human forcings are included.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> No.  I think the science is largely settled but I understand that there are professionals who question aspects of it.  I don't, however, believe that non-scientists with no real expertise in anything even remotely related to this have anything worth actually listening to since all they ever do is parrot talking points pre-digested for them by someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In our conversations what is it that you believe I have written that wasn't based on science?  What "pre-digested parrot talking points" do you believe I have made?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> You act as if there's a 50/50 toss up of how the scientific community views anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts believe AGW is real and a significant concern.


Science isn't decided upon by popular vote.  There are dissenting opinions which are being squelched to arrive at "consensus."  That's not how science is intended to work.  That's the antithesis of how science should work.  You can't just dismiss something because it contradicts your beliefs.


PV System said:


> Again, incorrect. There are a couple of researchers like Willie Soon and company who have been pushing this, but again, the general consensus is it cannot be explained by solar variability.


That's really odd because the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles that can only be explained by solar output and albedo.  Orbital forcing cannot be responsible for the up and down climate fluctuations within the cycles because those timescales are very short compared to the orbital forcing time scales.  Here's an example of climate fluctuations which were not caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing:



_δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years_


PV System said:


> That's just poor logic. The ONLY reason you know anything about the past earth climate _*is because of the research by the same folks who tell you TODAY the warming cannot be explained by solely natural forcings*_
> 
> I mention this because the field of paleoclimatology has existed for a very long time and it has helped us understand how the NATURAL forcings impact climate. Right now the natural forcings cannot account for the warming we see.
> 
> Here's a great set of summary graphs comparing _hindcast_ data to natural and anthropogenic forcings. Note how the data ONLY MAKES SENSE when human forcings are included.


So what you are saying is that I should blindly accept what I am told?  Does that sound like the scientific process to you?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Certainly among the scientifically illiterate it would. Folks like Lindzen (I assume you know how he is) or Curry (I assume you know who she is) are outliers. They are technically skilled but I am more likely to ignore them because the preponderance of the scientific analysis shows they are likely incorrect.
> 
> Neither you nor I are "experts" in this field (and I've got a LOT more experience directly relevant to this than you likely do) so, in a sense, I am forced to go with the overall scientific consensus. Folks who have NO experience in the sciences have even less reason to deny the scientific consensus.


No one is forcing you to do anything.  In fact to argue otherwise is counter to the spirit of science which is best served by healthy debate and challenges.  

I've been studying this for the past 20 years.  I have an engineering degree and worked as an engineer for 37 years.  I'm pretty well versed in science.  

Again... the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends within glacial and interglacial cycles and not one of them was caused by CO2.  So to casually dismiss natural causes for the recent warming trend is at best short sighted and at worst disingenuous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> Todd, are you under the impression that the existence of the MWP somehow refutes AGW?



No. I'm under the impression that it shows that Mann was molesting the data.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Assymptotically so.


Which effectively means it is operated under the assumption that it is correct, but not that it is immune from challenge.  And if it is challenged the challenge isn't dismissed without first carefully considering it.  Careful consideration would mean addressing the content of the challenge; the basis or reason for the challenge.  Not because an overwhelming number of scientists believed otherwise.  For example if I said the earth's climate began fluctuating more after the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet and did so because the temperature of the planet was close to the threshold for extensive continental northern hemisphere glaciation that would have to be considered, right?  Because that would be relevant to the belief that warming and cooling trends are common in a bipolar glaciated world and that every single one of those changing trends prior to the industrial revolution had to be based upon solar output variation and changes to albedo.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> They do so based on the science.


Actually they do so based upon modeling.  If I disagree with their model's assumptions and/or datasets would I still be a denier?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Science isn't decided upon by popular vote.



Correct.  But here's where solid logic training comes into play.  While no science is done by "consensus", it is expected that a correct hypothesis would be more prone to developing a consensus around it.

For instance, there is a consensus that the laws of thermodynamics are accurate and correct.



ding said:


> There are dissenting opinions which are being squelched to arrive at "consensus."



Not as much as you might wish.  Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW.  And, certainly, the literature shows that as well.



ding said:


> That's really odd because the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles that can only be explained by solar output and albedo.



Again, this logic.  If gun shot wounds to the head can result in death and Bob is dead that does NOT mean that Bob had to have been killed by a gunshot wound to the head.  

Just because the solar influence may have had something to do with climate in the past *says NOTHING about the current climate*.  In fact our knowledge of how the sun and its cycles have impacted climate in the past helps us understand how it CANNOT CURRENTLY account for the warming.




ding said:


> So what you are saying is that I should blindly accept what I am told?



If you are an expert or particularly knowledgeable about the detailed technical information then, yeah.  That's what I assume you do with regards to everything else in your life that you are not an expert in.  



ding said:


> Does that sound like the scientific process to you?



It sounds like the way a rational human should behave.

If I went around screaming that the nuclear reactor in my town should be run this way or that way I'd hope to God no one listened to me since I don't know a THING about nuclear power or management of a nuclear reactor.

The value of consensus in the science is for those of us who are not professionals to know which "horse to bet on".  When you go to Las Vegas you would be a fool to bet against the house.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Which effectively means it is operated under the assumption that it is correct, but not that it is immune from challenge.  And if it is challenged the challenge isn't dismissed without first carefully considering it.



Thankfully the "careful consideration" has been taken care of for the most part in terms of AGW.



ding said:


> Careful consideration would mean addressing the content of the challenge;



But if that challenge is ill-informed or uninformed then what's the value from addressing that challenge?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Correct. But here's where solid logic training comes into play. While no science is done by "consensus", it is expected that a correct hypothesis would be more prone to developing a consensus around it. For instance, there is a consensus that the laws of thermodynamics are accurate and correct.


So why not include dissenting opinions in the IPCC report rather than squelch them?



PV System said:


> Not as much as you might wish. Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW. And, certainly, the literature shows that as well.


Again... that sounds like you are arguing that science is determined by popular opinion.  I believe there's a bias within the climate science community and it is keeping some from speaking out. 


PV System said:


> Again, this logic. If gun shot wounds to the head can result in death and Bob is dead that does NOT mean that Bob had to have been killed by a gunshot wound to the head.
> 
> Just because the solar influence may have had something to do with climate in the past *says NOTHING about the current climate*. In fact our knowledge of how the sun and its cycles have impacted climate in the past helps us understand how it CANNOT CURRENTLY account for the warming.


The same argument can be made for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The difference is that we know natural fluctuations which occurred prior to the industrial revolution were not cause by CO2.  The same can not be said for CO2 causing post industrial revolution temperatures because natural variations do exist and cannot be eliminated or dismissed which is exactly what the IPCC has done.  According to the IPCC's logic fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution couldn't exist because the weight they place on them tody couldn't have produced the fluctuation in the past. 


PV System said:


> If you are an expert or particularly knowledgeable about the detailed technical information then, yeah. That's what I assume you do with regards to everything else in your life that you are not an expert in.


Actually I question everything.  I start with what the experts say and test it to see if it makes sense.  Where AGW breaks down is in it's claim of climate sensitivity.  The radiative forcing of CO2 is not transient.  The GHG effect is real time.  It doesn't take centuries for its effect to be felt.  That's why on cloudy nights the morning will be warmer relative to clear nights. 


PV System said:


> It sounds like the way a rational human should behave.
> 
> If I went around screaming that the nuclear reactor in my town should be run this way or that way I'd hope to God no one listened to me since I don't know a THING about nuclear power or management of a nuclear reactor.
> 
> The value of consensus in the science is for those of us who are not professionals to know which "horse to bet on". When you go to Las Vegas you would be a fool to bet against the house.


If you are saying rational human beings should blindly accept whatever they are told then I don't want to be a rational human being.  

What do you believe drove these climate fluctuations?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Thankfully the "careful consideration" has been taken care of for the most part in terms of AGW.


How so?


PV System said:


> But if that challenge is ill-informed or uninformed then what's the value from addressing that challenge?


To show how it was ill informed.

For instance, how could you prove the challenge that scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they use is an ill informed or uninformed challenge?

It's public record that the IPCC is including urban temperature station data and using the low variability solar output dataset.  Temperatures from rural temperature stations aren't that out of line with natural causes, especially when the high variability solar output dataset is used.  So is this an informed challenge or is it an uninformed challenge?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> So why not include dissenting opinions in the IPCC report rather than squelch them?



Do you think that the CDC is required to give you the anti-vaxxer view of vaccines?



ding said:


> Again... that sounds like you are arguing that science is determined by popular opinion.



I was pretty clear.  You can re-read what I wrote.  I said nothing of the sort.  In fact I *explicitly said the opposite*.





ding said:


> I believe there's a bias within the climate science community and it is keeping some from speaking out.



I once watched a "documentary" about Creationists who lost their jobs because they didn't toe the "Evolution line".  Of course it was a bunch of bunk, but it sounds like the same thing.



ding said:


> The same argument can be made for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The difference is that we know natural fluctuations which occurred prior to the industrial revolution were not cause by CO2.



Some were, actually.  



ding said:


> The same can not be said for CO2 causing post industrial revolution temperatures because natural variations do exist and cannot be eliminated or dismissed which is exactly what the IPCC has done.



You seem to not understand that the IPCC doesn't do any research itself.  They rely on the published literature.



ding said:


> Actually I question everything.  I start with what the experts say and test it to see if it makes sense.



HOW do you test it?  The climate data is relatively complex.  What systems do you use?  What calculations do you run?  The thing is you probably don't "test" anything.



ding said:


> Where AGW breaks down is in it's claim of climate sensitivity.



When you read articles like Knutti and Hegerl (2008) what specifically do you take exception to?



ding said:


> The radiative forcing of CO2 is not transient.



This is not necessarily a huge issue.  It is not dissimilar to how we treat reaction kinetics and thermodynamics in non-equilibrium systems.  




ding said:


> That's why on cloudy nights the morning will be warmer relative to clear nights.



Not really the same thing.



ding said:


> If you are saying rational human beings should blindly accept whatever they are told then I don't want to be a rational human being.



Are you a climate scientist?  If not why do you think you have special insight that allows you to *gainsay the findings of literally thousands of independent researchers over the last 60-100 years?*

I'm actually quite curious.  If you prefer the work of Lindzen or Curry to the vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts you are effectively betting against the house.  Not because you have some inside knowledge, but rather because you prefer their position.  

Obviously I don't know you, but I rather assume you are at least like me and that means you are not a climate expert.  I've been lucky to work in the earth sciences and be around a lot of folks who were, but I'm not myself.  So in a sense I'm forced to defer to those who know better than I do.

I assume you are likewise hindered.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> How so?
> 
> To show how it was ill informed.



Again, I'm asking exactly how much expertise you have in this field.  As I said earlier I've actually got a LOT of background in the earth and chemical sciences and even worked at one of the leading oceanographic facilities which was the home of some of the leading climate scientists on earth and even I don't feel confident enough to take a position that is at odds with the consensus.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you think that the CDC is required to give you the anti-vaxxer view of vaccines?


A better analogy would be the Supreme Court issuing rulings with dissenting views.  There's nothing like full transparency.  

Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinion."

So it seems like it's a little bit more than just not presenting dissenting views.  









						A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism
					






					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I was pretty clear. You can re-read what I wrote. I said nothing of the sort. In fact I *explicitly said the opposite*.


And yet your statement that, "Having hung around with a LOT of earth scientists in my career and university I'd have to say I've seldom met any who are skeptical of AGW" seems suspiciously like an appeal of a popular vote.  

What does it matter how many people you know who aren't skeptical of AGW?  Are you suggesting I should change my mind because of popular opinion?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I once watched a "documentary" about Creationists who lost their jobs because they didn't toe the "Evolution line". Of course it was a bunch of bunk, but it sounds like the same thing.


I believe that Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center would disagree with you.









						A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism
					






					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with scientific enterprise.  Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. 

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus by the IPCC on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.*


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Some were, actually.


You will be hard pressed to prove that as a rule CO2 drove past climate changes given the fact that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years throughout the geologic record.  

But please feel free to point out all the instances where it did using the oxygen isotope curve.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> You seem to not understand that the IPCC doesn't do any research itself. They rely on the published literature.


Given the IPCC's desire to drive government policy decisions I would think full disclosure should be the minimum standard. 



> The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. *Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011).*
> 
> _ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> HOW do you test it? The climate data is relatively complex. What systems do you use? What calculations do you run? The thing is you probably don't "test" anything.


The geologic record.  Which does not support CO2 driving climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> HOW do you test it? The climate data is relatively complex. What systems do you use? What calculations do you run?



Good questions to ask Michael Mann.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> When you read articles like Knutti and Hegerl (2008) what specifically do you take exception to?


What part of my statement that the GHG effect is real time did you not understand?  

The GHG effect is effectively a choke which slows the transfer of heat to outer space with the choke setting being equal to the concentration of the GHG.  That's it.  If you magically eliminated CO2 from the atmosphere by snapping your fingers the effect would be immediate.  If you magically doubled the concentration by snapping your fingers the effect would be immediate.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> This is not necessarily a huge issue. It is not dissimilar to how we treat reaction kinetics and thermodynamics in non-equilibrium systems.


The positive feedback they pile on is an issue for me.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Not really the same thing.


How is cloud cover trapping heat overnight not the same thing as the GHG effect?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> You will be hard pressed to prove that as a rule CO2 drove past climate changes given the fact that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years throughout the geologic record.



I believe it is thought that there was a significant effect from CO2 during the End Permean Extinction, but I could be mistaken about that, but I believe there are some who feel that it was in part due to the extensive volcanism associated with the Siberian Traps which put out a bunch of additional CO2.  But it doesn't have to be the "rule", there are many reasons for climate change in earth's history.

As for CO2 lagging temperature, that's just Chemistry 101 stuff.  Basic chemistry.  As you warm a fluid like sea water dissolved CO2 will exsolve.  That's nothing new.

CO2 can both DRIVE and LAG warming.  There's virtually nothing controversial about that fact. 



ding said:


> But please feel free to point out all the instances where it did using the oxygen isotope curve.



Why only go back that far?  Why not go back to say the end Permean?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 6, 2022)

ding said:


> The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with scientific enterprise.



I honestly wish you would have read what I actually wrote.  I'll try yet again:  Science is not driven by consensus, *but a solid hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus*.

I can't say it any simpler than that.

Unless you think that the laws of Thermodynamics do not fall into a general consensus.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> Are you a climate scientist? If not why do you think you have special insight that allows you to *gainsay the findings of literally thousands of independent researchers over the last 60-100 years?*
> 
> I'm actually quite curious. If you prefer the work of Lindzen or Curry to the vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts you are effectively betting against the house. Not because you have some inside knowledge, but rather because you prefer their position.
> 
> ...


Because the geologic record doesn't support their conclusions, because they don't actually discuss the earth's climate or what drives it, because their "science" is in reality nothing more than computer modeling, because the planet is closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is a greenhouse, because the last 500,000 years has been extremely cold and the trend is for a cooling planet, because they stoop to stupid severe weather arguments, because they drastically over state the danger of a runaway greenhouse planet, because the US isn't the problem, because this is about money, because I don't blindly accept anything.  I could go on for days but that's enough for now.  

So when are you going to tell me what drove temperature trends before the industrial revolution and why they still aren't doing so now?  You do realize our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2, right?  Why isn't it warmer now?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I honestly wish you would have read what I actually wrote.  I'll try yet again:  Science is not driven by consensus, *but a solid hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus*.
> 
> I can't say it any simpler than that.
> 
> Unless you think that the laws of Thermodynamics do not fall into a general consensus.


There is no political agenda for the laws of thermodynamics.  

You do realize the IPCC has a goal of speaking from one voice, right?


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2022)

PV System said:


> I believe it is thought that there was a significant effect from CO2 during the End Permean Extinction, but I could be mistaken about that, but I believe there are some who feel that it was in part due to the extensive volcanism associated with the Siberian Traps which put out a bunch of additional CO2.  But it doesn't have to be the "rule", there are many reasons for climate change in earth's history.
> 
> As for CO2 lagging temperature, that's just Chemistry 101 stuff.  Basic chemistry.  As you warm a fluid like sea water dissolved CO2 will exsolve.  That's nothing new.
> 
> ...


CO2 lagging temperature is not CO2 driving the climate.  That's the temperature driving CO2.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Because the geologic record doesn't support their conclusions,



What on earth do you mean by that?  




ding said:


> because they don't actually discuss the earth's climate or what drives it,



That's incorrect.



ding said:


> because their "science" is in reality nothing more than computer modeling,



That's incorrect.  Models are integral to science, even if you personally have no experience with them.



ding said:


> because the planet is closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is a greenhouse,



Nope.




ding said:


> because the last 500,000 years has been extremely cold and the trend is for a cooling planet, because they stoop to stupid severe weather arguments, because they drastically over state the danger of a runaway greenhouse planet, because the US isn't the problem, because this is about money, because I don't blindly accept anything.  I could go on for days but that's enough for now.



And most of your points are wrong.



ding said:


> So when are you going to tell me what drove temperature trends before the industrial revolution



The sun, the arrangement of the continental land masses, ocean currents, volcanism, etc, etc, etc.

All those things are known and right now we can't use them to explain why the earth is warming.  The solar cycles aren't in the right phase, there isn't a massive amount of volcanism as there was at the end of the Permian, the ocean currents are not such that they would cause the climate to change.

The ONE THING that makes the data make sense is if we include human activity and we find that it explains more than 50% of the variance of the data.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> What on earth do you mean by that?


You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate?  Really?  How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate?



Except it does.  As I said, look back at the End Permian as one example.



ding said:


> Really?  How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?



I guess the bigger question (since you know so very little about the actual geologic history of the earth) is "do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?"

I mean we've known for more than 150 years that CO2 is a able to absorb IR and that it is a KNOWN greenhouse gas.  In nature it is one of the main reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature (!)

So why do you doubt that MORE CO2 would lead to MORE warming?

How do you think this all works?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> CO2 lagging temperature is not CO2 driving the climate.  That's the temperature driving CO2.



Have you taken an intro chemistry class?  Just curious.  Here's what's going on:

1. It is EXTREMELY well known that if you heat a fluid that has dissolved CO2 in it _the CO2 will come out of solution_.  We teach this to college kids in intro chemistry classes.  So if you warm the planet then CO2 can be expected to exsolve (come out of solution) from things like the oceans.

2. CO2 is a KNOWN greenhouse gas.  We have known CO2's ability to absorb IR since the mid-1800's with Fourier and Tyndal's work.  If it can absorb IR that energy doesn't just "disappear".  In fact it is KNOWN that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature.  O2 and N2 (the main components of our atmosphere) lack the ability to signficantly absorb IR and thus would not serve to keep the surface as warm as it is.  H2O and CO2, having the right types of chemical bonds CAN absorb IR rather well.

So CO2 can both LEAD and LAG.

There is literally nothing about what I just said that is even REMOTELY in doubt or debate.  We've known about these things for OVER A CENTURY.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> You are a geologist and you don't know how the geologic record doesn't support CO2 driving the earth's climate?  Really?  How does the earth's geologic record support CO2 as driving the earth's climate?


WE have been through this DOZENS of times.
I have refuted you on all of them
So now you try on someone else. a One trick pony.
NOT for the truth but as a Stumper. A Dishonest Riddle you know is wrong.

Past climate cycles were driven by Solar Forcing but not this one. It's unprecedented because of the Human Industrial revolution has poured GHGs into the atmosphere at an [increasingly] staggering rate.
CO2 and other GHGs typically trail and exacerbate Warming after a solar forcing/astronomical/tilting event.
NOT the case now.
They are perfectly capable of causing warming as they are now/almost uniquely.

Scientists have measured radiation-in/radiation-out.
Radiation-in has NOT changed in at least 50 years.
Radiation out back into space is being blocked by the increasingly thick GHG blanket and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHG gases.

That's about the best, but not only, of many reasons we now this is *A*GW.

`


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Except it does. As I said, look back at the End Permian as one example.


Seriously, dude.  CO2 lags temperature throughout the geologic record.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> I guess the bigger question (since you know so very little about the actual geologic history of the earth) is "do you not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?"
> 
> I mean we've known for more than 150 years that CO2 is a able to absorb IR and that it is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. In nature it is one of the main reasons that the earth's surface temperature is above the blackbody temperature (!)
> 
> ...


Apparently I know more about it than you do.  You didn't even know the role plate tectonics played in the transition to an icehouse planet.  I was pretty shocked how ignorant you were about the science.  You didn't even know there was a transition to an icehouse planet and your beliefs about the role orbital forcing played was all wrong too.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Have you taken an intro chemistry class?  Just curious.  Here's what's going on:
> 
> 1. It is EXTREMELY well known that if you heat a fluid that has dissolved CO2 in it _the CO2 will come out of solution_.  We teach this to college kids in intro chemistry classes.  So if you warm the planet then CO2 can be expected to exsolve (come out of solution) from things like the oceans.
> 
> ...


So how can CO2 drive earth's climate throughout the geologic record (which is your stated belief) if CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years?


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WE have been through this DOZENS of times.
> I have refuted you on all of them
> So now you try on someone else. a One trick pony.
> NOT for the truth but as a Stumper. A Dishonest Riddle you know is wrong.
> ...


Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.  THAT'S NOT DRIVING CLIMATE.  THAT IS CO2 BEING DRIVEN BY CLIMATE.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?





_δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. Red areas represent temperatures warmer than those in 1987 (top of the core); blue areas were cooler. Almost all of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past 1500 years. (Plotted from data in Grootes and Stuiver, 1997)_






__





						The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Kalte Sonne
					






					kaltesonne.de


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Seriously, dude.  CO2 lags temperature throughout the geologic record.



Do you even know what I'm talking about with regards to the End Pemian Extinction?

Just anything?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?
> 
> View attachment 627941
> _δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. Red areas represent temperatures warmer than those in 1987 (top of the core); blue areas were cooler. Almost all of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past 1500 years. (Plotted from data in Grootes and Stuiver, 1997)_
> ...



Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Huh.

You DO realize the earth is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than this graph, right?

You DO realize that don't you?

You aren't a Young Earth Creationist are you?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.  THAT'S NOT DRIVING CLIMATE.  THAT IS CO2 BEING DRIVEN BY CLIMATE.



Are you able to understand my point about CO2 both leading and lagging?

Was that clear?

What part of basic chemistry do you not like?

If you don't understand how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas I can help you with that.  If you don't understand how CO2 exsolves out of solution I can also help you with that.

We need to figure out which parts of basic, first year chemistry you have the MOST trouble with.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> So how can CO2 drive earth's climate throughout the geologic record (which is your stated belief) if CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years?



Because *IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.

There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.*

There are OTHER means of warming the planet as well (solar cycles, ocean current changes, etc.) and when they warm the planet it causes dissolved CO2 to come out of solution from the oceans.

Honestly, one would have to be completely uneducated to not understand these two simple concepts.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

ding said:


> Apparently I know more about it than you do.  You didn't even know the role plate tectonics played in the transition to an icehouse planet.



Are you joking?  Where do you come up with this stuff????  I've forgotten more Plate Tectonics than you have ever learned!  LOL



ding said:


> I was pretty shocked how ignorant you were about the science.  You didn't even know there was a transition to an icehouse planet and your beliefs about the role orbital forcing played was all wrong too.



wow.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> ...



You can't answer the question.... apparently just make a noisy reply to cover for your inability to answer a simple question.

10,000 years is long enough for the question you didn't answer because you don't understand it:

"What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?"


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Because *IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.
> 
> There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.*
> 
> ...



No there are many published papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes by many years which indicate it isn't a driver but a follower.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> You can't answer the question



Why do you ignore my constant repeat of the End Permian?  Just curious.



Sunsettommy said:


> 10,000 years is long enough to the question



LOLOLOL!  Oh so funny!  The last 10,000 years has been SINCE THE LAST GLACIATION OCCURRED!  That's barely a blip on the geologic history of the earth!

I mean, seriously, you guys are HILARIOUS!  



Sunsettommy said:


> "What drove these climate fluctuations, PV System ?"



Since you only want to know about the most recent bit of geologic history let's go over what happened in the last 10,000 years.

The last 10,000 years represents 0.0002% of the earth's history and it just so happens that that was the end of the last glacial advance within the Cenozoic ice age we are in.  These glaciations occur cyclically mainly due to _milankovich cycles_ which are related to the earth's orbital obliquity.  The change of the relationship of the earth to the sun.  

10,000 years ago the last ice sheets started to retreat and the earth warmed (again, part of the milankovich cycles).  As the earth warmed more CO2 exsolved out of ocean water (as it is known to do, even freshmen chem student know this).  That extra CO2 also helped bring about more warming.

That isn't ALWAYS how climate change happens on earth.  Sometimes it is due to OTHER factors, like changes in ocean currents which distribute heat around the globe (sometimes this is due to the changes in plate position on the globe!). Sometimes it is due to increased CO2, as many think might have been in play during the End Permian.  The Permian ended 252 million years ago.  At that point the globe warmed and there was EXTENSIVE acidification of the oceans.  There are many researchers who think that was due to CO2 coming out of the Siberian Traps which were erupting at that time pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 8, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> No there are many published papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes by many years which indicate it isn't a driver but a follower.



I'm curious how you DON'T know that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

In fact, as noted before, it is EXTREMELY well known that CO2 and H2O (both greenhouse gases) are largely responsible for why the surface of the earth is about 32degC warmer than it would normally be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (the "blackbody radiation temperature" of the earth).

I am fascinated at how few people on here have even a BASIC HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY background.  This stuff is super-easy to understand and is known by pretty much anyone who has even an intro chemistry class.





__





						The Earth's temperature – Higher - Black body radiation - Eduqas - GCSE Physics (Single Science) Revision - Eduqas - BBC Bitesize
					

Learn about and revise black bodies and the absorption and emission of radiation with GCSE Bitesize Physics.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				












						How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?
					

CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.




					news.climate.columbia.edu


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The study is obvious nonsense.
> Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
> And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
> We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
> ...


It is amazing the tales you fanatics tell yourselves.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you even know what I'm talking about with regards to the End Pemian Extinction?
> 
> Just anything?


Yes, you are talking about 1 data point and ignoring the other 99,999 examples of 1C temperature swings that have occurred over the course of earth's 4 billion year life that were caused by natural variations unrelated to CO2.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you think the earth is only 10,000 years old?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> ...


No.  The earth is ~ 4 billion years old.  But over the past 10,000 years the geologic record is littered with examples of changing temperature trends.  This is an example of such.   None of the changing temperature swings were due to CO2 because they were before the industrial revolution.  So can you tell me what caused these temperature swings and why they couldn't cause temperature swings today?


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Are you able to understand my point about CO2 both leading and lagging?
> 
> Was that clear?
> 
> ...


Prior to the  industrial revolution CO2 didn't lead temperature.  So no, I don't understand how you could argue it did.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2022)

PV System said:


> Because *IT CAN AND DOES LEAD TO WARMING.
> 
> There is LITERALLY NOTHING THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THAT.*
> 
> ...


Why is the planet 2C cooler than the past with 120 ppm more CO2?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I've forgotten more Plate Tectonics than you have ever learned!  LOL


Obviously not.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Obviously not.



I honestly don't know why you would think you revealed something to me I didn't know.  But I take it you are no stranger to simply making stuff up in your head and then thinking you've discovered something.

LOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Why is the planet 2C cooler than the past with 120 ppm more CO2?



I will try to make this as simple as possible:  *BECAUSE CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY CLIMATE DRIVER.*

I wish you folks who don't know any science could understand that there are a NUMBER of competing forcings that drive the climate.  None of which you know because you don't read the science, but all you hear is "CO2" so you think that's the only game in town.

Really, do try reading SOME science at some point.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Prior to the  industrial revolution CO2 didn't lead temperature.



You just gonna keep ignoring the end Permian?  Or the fact that CLIMATE EXPERTS tell you explicitly that it can and has led temperature?



ding said:


> So no, I don't understand how you could argue it did.



Read some of the literature.  I mean the REAL science, not blogs that pre-digest it for you.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, you are talking about 1 data point and ignoring the other 99,999 examples of 1C temperature swings that have occurred over the course of earth's 4 billion year life that were caused by natural variations unrelated to CO2.



Do you honestly NOT think CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Seriously....how far out in left field are you exactly?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I honestly don't know why you would think you revealed something to me I didn't know.  But I take it you are no stranger to simply making stuff up in your head and then thinking you've discovered something.
> 
> LOL.


Because it was super obvious.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I will try to make this as simple as possible:  *BECAUSE CO2 IS NOT THE ONLY CLIMATE DRIVER.*
> 
> I wish you folks who don't know any science could understand that there are a NUMBER of competing forcings that drive the climate.  None of which you know because you don't read the science, but all you hear is "CO2" so you think that's the only game in town.
> 
> Really, do try reading SOME science at some point.


So why was it 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2?  What drove that?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> You just gonna keep ignoring the end Permian?  Or the fact that CLIMATE EXPERTS tell you explicitly that it can and has led temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Read some of the literature.  I mean the REAL science, not blogs that pre-digest it for you.


Yes, because it has nothing to do with today's climate.  Good Lord, you don't even know why the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet and that was like 3 million years ago and you want to discuss climate events 250 million years ago?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you honestly NOT think CO2 is a greenhouse gas????
> 
> Seriously....how far out in left field are you exactly?


CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.  The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Because it was super obvious.



I'd ask you to prove it, but since I know you can't (and I know folks like you are always too lazy to back up your accusations) I won't hold my breath.

Just show me where YOU revealed to me that Plate Tectonics were responsible for some climate change.  Because I've actually known it for decades.

I'm the one who found a sharks tooth in a quarry in Pennsylvanian limestone in the midwest when I was in undergraduate taking my paleo class.  

I'm the one who spent years looking at the remains of tropical and subtropical plants from Kentucky and Ohio and Washington State (care to take a stab at how Kentucky came up with tropical plants?)

I'm the one who has seen the Appalachians and then traveled to Norway to see the rest of the SAME MOUNTAIN CHAIN (care to take a stab at how that happened?)

So, by all means, DO SHOW ME where YOU told me all about plate tectonics.

LOL


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes, because it has nothing to do with today's climate.



Correct.  But it shows that CO2 can lead temperature.

But then even a nearly brain-dead undergrad chemistry major could tell you that CO2 is a KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's patently absurd! Are you serious? That's not how science works. I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis


That’s exactly how it’s done you stupid ass.

 validation of his figures.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.  The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.



Now you are moving goal posts!  Good for you.

I never said CO2 was as large a greenhouse gas as H2O, but *if you were even marginally familiar with the literature* you would know that H2O is more of a feedback than a forcing.

Here's why (since you don't know this topic AT ALL):

When you put excess greenhouse gas into a system it causes warming.  If you put excess H2O into the atmosphere it will cause more warming, BUT H2O, in excess can EASILY BE LOWERED using the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE.  You may be familiar with this effect...it's called *PRECIPITATION*.  That's snow and rain.  So excess H2O can easily and quickly come back down to pre-excess levels.

CO2, on the other hand, cannot.  It has to rely on the CARBON CYCLE which is much slower and involves fixing C by various plants and animals.  If it goes into shells in the ocean the CO2 has to go through a relative complex set of reactions with water to ultimately be fixed by molluscs.  Or it can be pulled out of the air by trees.  But these are much longer time frames than RAIN OR SNOW.

This is actually pretty standard stuff in this topic.  I'm not surprised you have no clue about it.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I'd ask you to prove it, but since I know you can't (and I know folks like you are always too lazy to back up your accusations) I won't hold my breath.
> 
> Just show me where YOU revealed to me that Plate Tectonics were responsible for some climate change.  Because I've actually known it for decades.
> 
> ...


Are you aware we are in the middle of an ice age?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Just show me where YOU revealed to me that Plate Tectonics were responsible for some climate change. Because I've actually known it for decades.
> 
> I'm the one who found a sharks tooth in a quarry in Pennsylvanian limestone in the midwest when I was in undergraduate taking my paleo class.
> 
> ...


I don't need to hear your life story.






						New records have significance
					

The IPCC is not peer reviewed.  It relies on peer reviewed publications from across the field.  The IPCC does not do scientific research.     If you don't like the IPCC you, yourself, are free to comb the field and the peer reviewed journals.  Would you understand it?  Either way, you are not...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> you would know that H2O is more of a feedback than a forcing.


It's both, dummy.  But saying the dominate GHG is more feedback than forcing sounds stupid.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Correct.  But it shows that CO2 can lead temperature.
> 
> But then even a nearly brain-dead undergrad chemistry major could tell you that CO2 is a KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS.


Did CO2 drive the change from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 to 5 million years ago?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Are you aware we are in the middle of an ice age?



Duh!

Dude...I got my undergrad geology from a university in the northern part of ILLINOIS.  What do you think we have to study there????????

Geez!


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Duh!
> 
> Dude...I got my undergrad geology from a university in the northern part of ILLINOIS.  What do you think we have to study there????????
> 
> Geez!


What caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Did CO2 drive the change from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 to 5 million years ago?



I think you might be conflating a bunch of different topics here so I'll try to parse it out for you.

If you mean "Snowball Earth" you are way off in terms of the age.  That's hypothesized to have been around 580 million years ago and it was probably induced by a number of factors that may have had little to do with greenhouse gases like CO2.  But CO2 may very well have helped the warming (You can learn more HERE)

Now, as for the 3-5 million years ago, that's still pretty firmly in the Cenozoic Ice Ages we are currently still in.  Those were driven in no small way due to _Milankovich Cycles_ which relate to the orbital obliquity of the earth and account for why we have glacial-interglacial-glacial-interglacial cycles at this time.

Right now we should be heading back into another glaciation event (again, NOT a "Snowball Earth" scenario) but strangely enough the temperature is going in the WRONG WAY.

If we look around at the various drives we know of for the climate nothing that is a "natural cycle" seems to line up sufficiently to account for the CURRENT WARMING.

But human activities DO.   They do it quite well!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> What caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?



If my answer in #687 doesn't suit you, perhaps you can tell me why YOU think this happened (and please try to use commonly accepted terms.  What do you mean by "icehouse planet"?)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> But saying the dominate GHG is more feedback than forcing sounds stupid.



That's because you don't understand the topic.  You have a stupid view of science that you don't understand.

Hopefully you can fix that.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I think you might be conflating a bunch of different topics here so I'll try to parse it out for you.
> 
> If you mean "Snowball Earth" you are way off in terms of the age.  That's hypothesized to have been around 580 million years ago and it was probably induced by a number of factors that may have had little to do with greenhouse gases like CO2.  But CO2 may very well have helped the warming (You can learn more HERE)
> 
> ...


Apparently you are totally unaware that 3 million years ago the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

Apparently you are unaware of even what an icehouse planet actually means.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> If my answer in #687 doesn't suit you, perhaps you can tell me why YOU think this happened (and please try to use commonly accepted terms.  What do you mean by "icehouse planet"?)


You don't even know what it means for earth to be an icehouse planet.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's because you don't understand the topic.  You have a stupid view of science that you don't understand.
> 
> Hopefully you can fix that.


What part of water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas don't you understand?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Now, as for the 3-5 million years ago, that's still pretty firmly in the Cenozoic Ice Ages we are currently still in. Those were driven in no small way due to _Milankovich Cycles_ which relate to the orbital obliquity of the earth and account for why we have glacial-interglacial-glacial-interglacial cycles at this time.


You do realize that _Milankovich Cycles _have always existed but didn't always cause glaciation on earth, right?  Why do you think that is?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Apparently you are totally unaware that 3 million years ago the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.



Didn't I just describe the Cenozoic Ice Age to you????



ding said:


> Apparently you are unaware of even what an icehouse planet actually means.



Didn't I just discuss this with you?  Can you read?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> What part of water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas don't you understand?



What part of EXCESS greenhouse gas and PRECIPITATION and HYDROLOGIC CYCLE and CARBON CYCLE do you not understand?  (Wait, I know the answer: ALL OF IT)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> You don't even know what it means for earth to be an icehouse planet.



Did I not just explain the Cenozoic Ice age to you?  Huh.  I'm pretty sure I did.  

Is it because I'm speaking in terms of the geologic calendar?  You don't know the names of the eras?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Didn't I just describe the Cenozoic Ice Age to you????
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't I just discuss this with you?  Can you read?


You didn't mention any of the conditions which led to the transition, so no.  You just said _Milankovich Cycles_.  Unfortunately for you  Milankovich Cycles have always existed so what was different that led to northern hemisphere glaciation?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> What part of EXCESS greenhouse gas and PRECIPITATION and HYDROLOGIC CYCLE and CARBON CYCLE do you not understand?  (Wait, I know the answer: ALL OF IT)


The part that tries to make it sound like water vapor isn't THE dominant greenhouse gas.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Did I not just explain the Cenozoic Ice age to you?  Huh.  I'm pretty sure I did.
> 
> Is it because I'm speaking in terms of the geologic calendar?  You don't know the names of the eras?


Says the guy who has absolutely no idea WHY the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

If you don't understand the single biggest climate change in the history of the planet you have no business discussing climate changes.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> If you don't understand the single biggest climate change in the history of the planet









ORLY?  "Single biggest climate change in history of the planet"?  Really?  LOL.




ding said:


> you have no business discussing climate changes.



And you do?  Really? 

LOL


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> ORLY?  "Single biggest climate change in history of the planet"?  Really?  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, as a geologist you should have known that the geologic record has never shown bipolar glaciation to exist before.  And as someone who thinks he's an expert on the earth's climate you should have known that northern hemisphere glaciation dominates the climate of the planet.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> And you do? Really?


Yes.  I understand what drives the climate of the planet and why.  It's the northern hemisphere.  You don't know any of this.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System why did the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?  And don't say orbital forcing because orbital forcing has always existed even when there was no glaciation on either pole.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> And as someone who thinks he's an expert on the earth's climate



I love how you guys are so stupid you just make shit up when you can't actually understand what was said to you.

In fact, on NUMEROUS occasions I have said I am NOT an expert on earth's climate. LOL.  Buffoon.

If you can't be counted on to get simple facts like that straight then why would anyone believe you when you talk about topics you have no clue about?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I love how you guys are so stupid you just make shit up when you can't actually understand what was said to you.
> 
> In fact, on NUMEROUS occasions I have said I am NOT an expert on earth's climate. LOL.  Buffoon.
> 
> If you can't be counted on to get simple facts like that straight then why would anyone believe you when you talk about topics you have no clue about?


Given that you don't know anything about the conditions which drive the climate of the planet (although if you are a geologist you should) I accept your bonafides as someone who doesn't know anything about the earth's climate.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> PV System why did the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?  And don't say orbital forcing because orbital forcing has always existed even when there was no glaciation on either pole.



We are currently in the midst of only ONE OF 5 ICE AGES ON THE EARTH.  

The first ice age was about 2 BILLION years ago 

The ice ages the earth has had:

*Huronian *(2.4-2.1billion years ago) -- thought to be due to dropping methane levels (methane being a greenhouse gas) due to the oxygenation event (photosynthetic algae producing large amounts of oxygen, which is part of how we have O2 in our atmosphere today.)

*Cryogenian *(720-600million years ago) this may have been the "snowball earth" period.  This may have ended when CO2 levels increased.  The ice coverage on the continental landmasses probably kept silicates out of the weathering cycle:  "_The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present._" (SOURCE)

*Andean-Saharan* (460-420 million years ago). Probably associated with expansion of land plants and a general decrease in CO2 levels in the atmosphere (I will let you figure out what relationship plants and CO2 have)

*Late Paleozoic* 

*Quaternary *(Starting ~34million years ago)

The Quaternary ICe Age is the one we are currently in.

OBVIOUSLY there are a number of hypotheses about the causes of each of these "ice ages".  And there is no single reason or even surety about those reasons.

The currernt ice age is currently on a cycle of glacial-interglacial that is related to Milankovich Cycles, but also other things.

But given that we know a reasonable amount about the ice age we are CURRENTLY IN...you have to wonder WHY AREN'T WE GOING INTO A NEW GLACIATION?  By all rights we SHOULD be cooling.

But we aren't.

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> The currernt ice age is currently on a cycle of glacial-interglacial that is related to Milankovich Cycles, but also other things.


What other things?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 9, 2022)

Burgermeister said:


> Facts don't matter in lefty science.


They don't even believe their own "science". Obama wants you to be scared shitless over climate change yet
the narcissistic best president Iran ever had continues to buy coastal properties in Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii.  
It seems that _someone_ isn't too worried over rising sea levels. 
And they also believe that men can be women and visa versa. Where is the "science" behind the whole
transsexual scam? 
There is none.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> But given that we know a reasonable amount about the ice age we are CURRENTLY IN...you have to wonder WHY AREN'T WE GOING INTO A NEW GLACIATION? By all rights we SHOULD be cooling.


Incorrect.  If you had watched the whole PBS video I shared with you, you would have discovered that every 4th Eccentricity Cycle is nearly circular which is what happened on the last eccentricity cycle.  So, no.  We aren't expecting orbital forcing to trigger the next glacial cycle.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  If you had watched the whole PBS video I shared with you, you would have discovered that every 4th Eccentricity Cycle is nearly circular which is what happened on the last eccentricity cycle.  So, no.  We aren't expecting orbital forcing to trigger the next glacial cycle.



What about what this Columbia University earth scientist says?

"We should be heading into another ice age right now," Sandstrom told Live Science. But two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off. "That, coupled with the fact that we pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [means] we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years,"  (SOURCE)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years,"



Sounds like good news to me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sounds like good news to me.



I bet it does.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> What about what this Columbia University earth scientist says?
> 
> "We should be heading into another ice age right now," Sandstrom told Live Science. But two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off. "That, coupled with the fact that we pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [means] we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years,"  (SOURCE)


Again.... the last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular.  That is a fact.  

It would be super awesome if instead of saying something vague like, "two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off" an actual discussion on what those facts are and why they are off was stated instead.  Which is literally my argument with you.... you have no knowledge of any of the factors which drive earth's climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I bet it does.



Advancing glaciers and dropping temperatures tend to reduce agricultural output.


----------



## ding (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Advancing glaciers and dropping temperatures tend to reduce agricultural output.


Not to mention displacing 250 million people from significant portions of NA, Europe and Asia with thousands of feet thick ice sheets and wiping every structure in its path off of the face of the earth.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

ding said:


> It would be super awesome if instead of saying something vague like, "two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off" an actual discussion on what those facts are and why they are off was stated instead.  Which is literally my argument with you.... you have no knowledge of any of the factors which drive earth's climate.



And you do?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Advancing glaciers and dropping temperatures tend to reduce agricultural output.



If I were you I wouldn't worry too much given that it will take thousands upon thousands of years for any of that to happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> If I were you I wouldn't worry too much given that it will take thousands upon thousands of years for any of that to happen.



Longer now.........


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Longer now.........



Definitely.  Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.

It's all about "rates" in this game.  When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> Definitely.  Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.
> 
> It's all about "rates" in this game.  When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.



What's the rate?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's the rate?



We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

And these negative impacts may also include collapse of our currently established agricultural infrastructure.

This is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than another glacial advance would occur.

And the worst part is _*even if we stopped burning fossil fuels TODAY we might still suffer unimaginable climatic issues for decades and decades*_*.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.
> 
> And these negative impacts may also include collapse of our currently established agricultural infrastructure.
> 
> ...



*We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.*

Perhaps. What's the rate?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.*
> 
> Perhaps. What's the rate?



ummmm....do I need to explain what "rate" means?    It's events/change in time.   I gave you the change in time.  The post was explicitly talking about a rate.

I worry that if you can't read and you don't know math you might have many more deficits than just being scientifically illiterate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> ummmm....do I need to explain what "rate" means?



No, you need to tell me the rate.
*
It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.*

What is the rate?
*
Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER*

I guess you're talking about temperature change over a period of time, so spill it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2022)

Global temperature records in close agreement – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

NASA's announcement this year - that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record - made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?




					climate.nasa.gov
				




Looks like about 0.5 degrees C between 1960 and 2010.  that would be about 1.0 C/century over that time span.  But, hey, I'm no climate scientist.  The rate from 1900 to 2000 looks to be about 0.8C/century, so these data show acceleration in the rate of warming.  But, tell us Todd, had you never actually seen one of these graphs?  Hundreds have been posted here in the last couple years and I'm pretty certain you know how to do the math.  That would seem to make your inquiry rhetorical and that would seem to indicate that you didn't want to hear this information but, instead, make some specific comment.  If so, what might that comment be?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> View attachment 628397
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_Looks like about 0.5 degrees C between 1960 and 2010.  that would be about 1.0 C/century over that time span._

PV said, "*We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years."*

Do you believe another 0.5C-1.0C increase will cause "*serious negative impacts to our society and our economy"*? Why?

_That would seem to make your inquiry rhetorical and that would seem to indicate that you didn't want to hear this information_

Wrong. I want to hear PV's rate and why he feels it's so dangerous.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, you need to tell me the rate.



I already did.  LOL.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.*
> 
> What is the rate?



Asked and answered.  If you can't understand that that's on you, not me.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER*
> 
> I guess you're talking about temperature change over a period of time, so spill it.



LOL.  Already did.

Can you read?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> I already did.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*I already did. LOL.*

LOL!

*We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.*

That's not a rate.

*This is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than another glacial advance would occur.*

This either.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's not a rate.



LOL.

Hilarious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2022)

PV System said:


> LOL.
> 
> Hilarious.



*It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.*

What's the rate?

*within 50-100 years.*

DURR


----------



## ding (Apr 10, 2022)

PV System said:


> And you do?


Sure.  And if you had watched the whole video, you would have too.


You might be the least informed PhD in Geology in the world.


----------



## ding (Apr 10, 2022)

PV System said:


> Definitely.  Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.
> 
> It's all about "rates" in this game.  When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.


The rate argument is like the severe weather argument.  Wishful thinking.


----------



## ding (Apr 10, 2022)

PV System said:


> Definitely.  Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.


We are in an ice age now, dummy.


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.*
> 
> What's the rate?
> 
> ...


Enough Todd. What do you believe the rate to be?  And why?  And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters.  If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.


Yes but subjecting people to forced societal change will not in any way “fix” climate change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Enough Todd. What do you believe the rate to be?  And why?  And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?



*What do you believe the rate to be? *

Fuck if I know.

*And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?*

I want to know if PV is aware.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 10, 2022)

koshergrl said:


> Yes but subjecting people to forced societal change will not in any way “fix” climate change.


And you know this how?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> And you know this how?


Because fascism won’t stop the natural cycles of the earth.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 10, 2022)

koshergrl said:


> Because fascism won’t stop the natural cycles of the earth.


So you have a religious objection to dams, levees, and hurricane and tornado shelters?  Also you'd object to taming earthquakes?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Apr 10, 2022)

ding said:


> What other things?


Earthquakes, rock erosion, volcanoes, plate tectonics, sink holes etc.. all effect such things as CO2 and the weather. Scientists may predict what a certain volcano may have belched out in CO2, but they're unsure what levels were absorbed by such things as earthquakes. And anyone following the subject of climate, will know that the climate is driven by many factors but the current panic alarmists are suffering from is that believe it's just purely down to CO2.

If you study the earths rocks and ice cores from millions of years ago, you cannot compare to these samples because those samples do not cover such a short period of time. You could determine a possible CO2 reading that was at a level for so many thousands of years, but not 150 years,


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 10, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you have a religious objection to dams, levees, and hurricane and tornado shelters?  Also you'd object to tamin





alang1216 said:


> So you have a religious objection to dams, levees, and hurricane and tornado shelters?  Also you'd object to taming earthquakes?


I don’t waste time on irrelevant nonsense. I will just repeat..fascism will not stop the earth from experiencing normal fluctuations in climate.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually they do so based upon modeling.  If I disagree with their model's assumptions and/or datasets would I still be a denier?


They’ve never actually stated what is denied


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> I honestly wish you would have read what I actually wrote. I'll try yet again: Science is not driven by consensus, *but a solid hypothesis can be expected to generate a consensus*


That’s a contradictive couple of sentences right there bubba


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> Thankfully the "careful consideration" has been taken care of for the most part in terms of AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> But if that challenge is ill-informed or uninformed then what's the value from addressing that challenge?


Have sea levels increased? If so say where


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> vaccines?


Yep


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> That’s a contradictive couple of sentences right there bubba



No it's not.  But you couldn't understand it if I drew a cartoon of it.  So I'll just leave it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> No it's not.  But you couldn't understand it if I drew a cartoon of it.  So I'll just leave it.


It’s not consensus when it is! Hahaha you’re a dumbass


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> It’s not consensus when it is! Hahaha you’re a dumbass



I honestly cannot tell you how much joy I'm getting from watching you miss basic logic points * and being so PROUD of it!* 

Dunning-Kruger is a tough master but you navigate it quite well.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> I honestly cannot tell you how much joy I'm getting from watching you miss basic logic points * and being so PROUD of it!*
> 
> Dunning-Kruger is a tough master but you navigate it quite well.


Back at you. No such thing as consensus in science, the fact you believe is hysterical


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Back at you. No such thing as consensus in science, the fact you believe is hysterical











						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov
				






			http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2012/11/Ford-HPS-Disciplinary-Authority-and-Accountability-in-Scientific-Practice-and-Learning.pdf


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Back at you. No such thing as consensus in science, the fact you believe is hysterical



Do you believe there is a scientific consensus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Do you believe there is a scientific consensus on F=ma?

Do you believe that there is a scientific consensus on E=mc^2?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
> 
> 
> Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
> ...


Odd, how’s that prove consensus


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Odd, how’s that prove consensus



It shows that scientists use the term "consensus".

Which goes directly against your ex cathedra claim that no such thing exists in science.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> Do you believe there is a scientific consensus on the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
> 
> Do you believe there is a scientific consensus on F=ma?
> 
> Do you believe that there is a scientific consensus on E=mc^2?


Consensus isn’t science


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> It shows that scientists use the term "consensus".
> 
> Which goes directly against your ex cathedra claim that no such thing exists in science.


I bet they use many words. That’s not science


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Consensus isn’t science



As I've said before:

*Science is NOT done by consensus, but good science can be expected to generate a consensus.*

This is pretty simple to understand unless you're a complete moron.  It says that no one goes with a popular vote on how something is in science.  But an hypothesis in science that is proven time and again and independent researchers keep arriving at the same point that they generate a consensus.

Take the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  That's the one that people like you learn about the hard way when you buy "perpetual motion machines" from ads.  The scientists know that the Second Law of Thermo pretty much proves that no such thing can exist.  It's a general consensus.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> As I've said before:
> 
> *Science is NOT done by consensus, but good science can be expected to generate a consensus.*
> 
> ...


If science isn’t about consensus how can it generate consensus? You should really stop providing evidence of your stupidity.


----------



## justoffal (Jan 4, 2023)

bodecea said:


> Cool...let's do nothing then.


We are not able to do anything frankly. What we can do is fool ourselves into thinking that we can spend a tremendous amount of money to affect the issue. That is what we have been doing.


----------



## Woodznutz (Jan 4, 2023)

If man can heat the globe up, man can cool it down. Why haven't we done that? Perhaps because we* haven't milked every last penny out of the problem. 

*Science, government, industry, education.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 4, 2023)

justoffal said:


> We are not able to do anything frankly. What we can do is fool ourselves into thinking that we can spend a tremendous amount of money to affect the issue. That is what we have been doing.



I agree some of the things we're doing are completely ignorant ... but not all ... I've had the opportunity to fly over San Diego in a small airplane on a regular basis since the 1970's ... the Big Change is all the new construction has solar panels on the rooftops ... _especially_ the carports surrounding large apartment complexes ...

That *earns* money ... the opposite of spending money ...


----------



## fncceo (Jan 4, 2023)

bodecea said:


> Cool...let's do nothing then.



Finally!  A suggestion worth acting on.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 4, 2023)

ReinyDays said:


> That *earns* money ... the opposite of spending money ...



But, where does that money come from?  It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.

Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...

A) Government diverting taxpayer money from government spending back to private incentive payments to engineer behavior -- OR

B) Utilities raising rates to pass a portion of that money back to consumers who sell them power at wholesale rates.

Neither of those methods actually creates wealth.  They are both wealth distribution for social engineering.


----------



## Crick (Jan 4, 2023)

fncceo said:


> But, where does that money come from?  It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.
> 
> Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...
> 
> ...


Utilities raising rates when the their cost of power decreases is certainly making wealth.  Vendor's selling products to subsidized customers who couldn't otherwise afford it certainly makes wealth.  Why do you say it does not?


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters.  If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.




Indeed.  So spend money on mitigation, not meaningless efforts that can't succeed.

Ever.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 4, 2023)

Crick said:


> Utilities raising rates when the their cost of power decreases


As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern.  Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 4, 2023)

Smoke a bowl


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2023)

Likkmee said:


> Smoke a bowl



Too much CO2?


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 4, 2023)

Good time for Qzar to settle. He hates rain !


----------



## Crick (Jan 4, 2023)

Concerned American said:


> As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern.  Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.


I was addressing the comment that buying power back from their customers and charging higher rates to pay for it didn't create wealth.  It certainly puts more money in the utilitiy's pocket.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 4, 2023)

Crick said:


> I was addressing the comment that buying power back from their customers and charging higher rates to pay for it didn't create wealth.  It certainly puts more money in the utilitiy's pocket.


In CA, before I left nine years ago, the utility companies had to pay peak prices for any power that was fed back into the grid.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

westwall said:


> Indeed.  So spend money on mitigation, not meaningless efforts that can't succeed.
> 
> Ever.


Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.




We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Alas, not all of us are smart enough to predict what and what won't succeed.


They’ve predicted zip correctly


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

westwall said:


> We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.


OK, got an example?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

jc456 said:


> They’ve predicted zip correctly


So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions?  Interesting.


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> OK, got an example?



Sure, carbon taxes, the go to for any so called climate mitigation causes EVERYTHING  to increase in cost, and, because the polluters merely pay already rich bankers to manipula...I mean regulate the carbon credits they get to continue polluting at the same rate.

So, the middle class has ever more onerous costs to just live, the polluters continue polluting at the same rate, and the bankers get richer for taxing the air you breath.

Simple enough for you?


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions?  Interesting.




The climatologists have a ZERO success rate for their predictions.

And you still demand we bow down to their "wisdom".

Sorry pal, that is religion.  Not science.


----------



## San Souci (Jan 4, 2023)

Polishprince said:


> Liberals will never accept this study.   It provides reasonable doubt to their theorem that humans can change the climate.


If Humans can change the Climate ,they can control the weather.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

westwall said:


> Sure, carbon taxes, the go to for any so called climate mitigation causes EVERYTHING  to increase in cost, and, because the polluters merely pay already rich bankers to manipula...I mean regulate the carbon credits they get to continue polluting at the same rate.
> 
> So, the middle class has ever more onerous costs to just live, the polluters continue polluting at the same rate, and the bankers get richer for taxing the air you breath.
> 
> Simple enough for you?


For me?  Sure.  However not everyone agrees with you.  _The Economist_ has long advocated a carbon tax as the best way to deal with climate change. 

I guess the real question is whether climate change is a real threat.  If so, it seems a carbon tax is a valid antidote.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

westwall said:


> The climatologists have a ZERO success rate for their predictions.
> 
> And you still demand we bow down to their "wisdom".
> 
> Sorry pal, that is religion.  Not science.


I think the cultist here is you.  Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I think the cultist here is you.  Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming


According to Gore's Inconvenient Truth--we are all supposed to be dead by now.  Did he underestimate?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

Concerned American said:


> According to Gore's Inconvenient Truth--we are all supposed to be dead by now.  Did he underestimate?


You are welcome to get your science from politicians, I prefer scientists myself.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> You are welcome to get your science from politicians, I prefer scientists myself.


LIAR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I think the cultist here is you.  Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming



Which 20 year old projections did they make that were overshot?

Any specifics?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 4, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which 20 year old projections did they make that were overshot?
> 
> Any specifics?


Did you bother to look at the link (underestimated) I provided?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Did you bother to look at the link (underestimated) I provided?



This?

*The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.*

LOL!

Or this?

*Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.*

They made a 2001 prediction that was disproven by data from 1993? LOL!


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I think the cultist here is you.  Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming




Which is a complete farce.  NONE of their predictions have come true.

Not one.


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> For me?  Sure.  However not everyone agrees with you.  _The Economist_ has long advocated a carbon tax as the best way to deal with climate change.
> 
> I guess the real question is whether climate change is a real threat.  If so, it seems a carbon tax is a valid antidote.




The Economist.  Run by bankers for bankers.  Color me not shocked.  Did you notice the part where we all pay, but there is no pollution reduction?

Or is your brain not capable of functioning normally?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions?  Interesting.


I don’t predict for that very reason! Name one


----------



## Crick (Jan 4, 2023)

westwall said:


> We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.


Why?


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2023)

Crick said:


> Why?





Post #776


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2023)

fncceo said:


> But, where does that money come from?  It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.
> 
> Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...
> 
> ...



So ... how could one person be so wrong ... you describe Monarchism ... or in modern terms Monopoly ... ONE person is "value-adding" ... Capitalism is when two or more corporations are actively competing, and/or where corporations exist as a "shared-risk" venture ... generally considered as starting with the Dutch East Indies Company in 1602 ...

*Revenue - Expenses = Earnings ...*

If we reduce "expenses", then "earnings" increase, thus solar panels allow us to EARN more money ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

Where you're WRONG is I can advertise my product as being produced with *"carbon-neutral green-renewable sea-lion-friendly* saves-the-solar-system"* hydro-power ... and that sells better in California ... you know, the folks with money ... good luck selling in Mississippi ... ha ha ha ha ha ...

* = the sea lions gather at the entrance to these dams' fish ladders and gorge themselves on critically endangered returning salmon ... the Endangered Species Act doesn't let anyone chase the sea lions off ... so there's even less salmon ... Congress hates us ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2023)

Concerned American said:


> As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern.  Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.



That is ILLEGAL is Oregon ... utilities CANNOT purchase electricity on the wholesale market from coal power plants ... and we BRUTALLY and with ARMED POLICE shut down ALL existing coal power plants within the State ... (actually, the only one was losing money and the operators were more than happy to get permission to shut down) ... 

Oregon has NO say whether Union Pacific brings Wyoming coal to the Port of Portland, railroads are strictly Federal regulations ... Oregon has NO say on the blue water shipping that comes up the Columbia River to the Port of Portland, water navigation is strictly Federal regulations (at least, the Columbia is to Portland) ... the twenty feet between, ha ha ha, the coal is FORBIDDEN ... HA HA HA HA HA ... 

Republicans foiled again !!!!


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions?  Interesting.



We're not making predictions ... we're claiming it's too soon to try ... that's the difference ... one side scream doom and gloom and the other side says prove it ...

My prediction that average power in the atmosphere is decreasing is based on simple physics ... and this is routinely assumed in the scientific papers being published regarding polar climates ... it's too small of an effect to be measurable in the temperate or tropical cells ... so WAY too soon to say whether is will make any difference in the weather ... but I'm not saying is will, just average power will be less, maybe only slightly ...









						Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> This?
> 
> *The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.*
> 
> ...


So they were under estimations and the truth is even worse?  Great news.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> Which is a complete farce.  NONE of their predictions have come true.
> 
> Not one.


A science AND a reality denier?  You're the complete package.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> The Economist.  Run by bankers for bankers.  Color me not shocked.  Did you notice the part where we all pay, but there is no pollution reduction?
> 
> Or is your brain not capable of functioning normally?


Actually there is carbon sequestration.  Kind of the point of it all, sorry you missed it.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> Indeed.  So spend money on mitigation, not *meaningless efforts that can't succeed*.
> 
> Ever.





jc456 said:


> I don’t predict for that very reason! Name one



You also don't object when others make predictions.  Why is that?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> You also don't object when others make predictions.  Why is that?


I like predictions because it puts a pin on the map.  For instance they have a prediction that sea level rise will increase from ~3 mm/yr to ~10 mm/yr by the end of this decade.  It's a preposterous prediction but I like it.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> A science AND a reality denier?  You're the complete package.





I hold a PhD in geology.  You know, a "HARD" science.  As opposed to the soft science of climatology.

A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of.  A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action.  So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies.  Whoever wins the race, is the winner.  There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

Climatology though, is akin to gymnastics or ice dancing.  A bunch of judges watch the performance, and then they agree amongst themselves who they liked better.  CONSENSUS!

See, so simple even a moron, like you, can understand.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Actually there is carbon sequestration.  Kind of the point of it all, sorry you missed it.






So what.  The simple fact is there is ZERO requirement to reduce pollution.  Kind of stupid if the claims are so dire.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> You also don't object when others make predictions.  Why is that?





Why would we object to people who make legit predictions?

Here's a genius explaining it to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So they were under estimations and the truth is even worse?  Great news.



They made a "prediction" for 2070 and then they said, in 2012, it *may* be 2032?

Do we have to wait until 2032 to see if the second prediction is an overestimation?

Or could they decide 2070 is still good?

Does either of those predictions mean we need to spend $76 trillion?

Tell me about the 2001 prediction foiled by 1993 data. Because, you have to admit, 
that was fucking hilarious!


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

ReinyDays said:


> We're not making predictions ... we're claiming it's too soon to try ... that's the difference ... one side scream doom and gloom and the other side says prove it ...
> 
> My prediction that average power in the atmosphere is decreasing is based on simple physics ... and this is routinely assumed in the scientific papers being published regarding polar climates ... it's too small of an effect to be measurable in the temperate or tropical cells ... so WAY too soon to say whether is will make any difference in the weather ... but I'm not saying is will, just average power will be less, maybe only slightly ...


I'm no climatologist but I went to Iceland and saw for myself how much the glaciers there have retreated.  That water went somewhere and that shrinking glaciers and ice sheets have been the trend globally for years.  If sea level rises it will be a global disaster and waiting for it to happen means we'll suffer the full force of it.

If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> Why would we object to people who make legit predictions?
> 
> Here's a genius explaining it to you.


Experimenting is kind of the opposite of what you said: "*meaningless efforts that can't succeed*_".  _How do you know what can or can't succeed before you try them?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I'm no climatologist but I went to Iceland and saw for myself how much the glaciers there have retreated.  That water went somewhere and that shrinking glaciers and ice sheets have been the trend globally for years.  If sea level rises it will be a global disaster and waiting for it to happen means we'll suffer the full force of it.
> 
> If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.


We are in an interglacial period.  That's what they do in interglacial periods.  Please educate yourself on the planet's climate and not a computer model because they really are stacking the deck in their model.  It's almost criminal how much transparency they lack.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.


The US and Europes CO2 emissions have been declining for almost two decades while China and the Rest of the World are increasing by 1 billion tons each and every year.  That means every five years they produce a new US equivalent amount of emissions.  So in 5 years you can pretend like there's a new USA and 5 years after that another new USA. And so on and so on.  Are you getting the picture?

How are you going to mitigate that?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


Huh?  Zero Hedge - Wikipedia

and is this the old shit from 3 1/2 years ago:  Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming



> 3. Conclusion
> "We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute
> correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The
> reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction
> ...


YES. YOU POSTED A TWO YEAR OLD BS PAPER AS IF WERE NEW IN 2021


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Experimenting is kind of the opposite of what you said: "*meaningless efforts that can't succeed*_".  _How do you know what can or can't succeed before you try them?






Because with no requirement to reduce pollution there CAN be no success.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> I hold a PhD in geology.  You know, a "HARD" science.  As opposed to the soft science of climatology.
> 
> A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of.  A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action.  So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies.  Whoever wins the race, is the winner.  There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
> 
> ...


This is the internet doc, everyone here has a Ph.D.  Not every science is 'hard' or easily quantifiable.  It is a challenge.  But if sea level rises, for whatever reason, that is 'hard'.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> So what.  The simple fact is there is ZERO requirement to reduce pollution.  Kind of stupid if the claims are so dire.


So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate?  I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate?  I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?


It's never been shown to drive the planet's climate before.  It didn't keep the planet from cooling from a super greenhouse state when it was ~1,000 ppm.   It didn't keep the planet from transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet when it was over 400 ppm.  It didn't prevent glacial periods from turning into interglacial periods when it was 150 ppm.

In fact the only known correlation is from before the industrial revolution when CO2 correlated to temperature because of its solubility in water versus temperature.  But that correlation is broken now and CO2 only correlates with emissions but not on a 1 for 1 basis.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate?  I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?


Maybe they meant they're a dermatologist?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate?  I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?


they just ignore:


> Why is carbon in the atmosphere a problem?
> 
> 
> Without carbon dioxide, Earth's natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. *By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise*.Jun 23, 2022








						Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
					

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.




					www.climate.gov


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> Because with no requirement to reduce pollution there CAN be no success.


So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

I like this graphic because it really puts things into perspective.  And just begs for questions to be asked.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

westwall said:


> I hold a PhD in geology.  You know, a "HARD" science.  As opposed to the soft science of climatology.
> 
> A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of.  A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action.  So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies.  Whoever wins the race, is the winner.  There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
> 
> ...


even brittanica dot com gets it:



> climatology, *branch of the atmospheric sciences concerned with both the description of climate and the analysis of the causes of climatic differences and changes and their practical consequences*.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> they just ignore:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually my issue is with climate sensitivity.  Do you know anything about that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> they just ignore:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Supercharging? Sounds serious!

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> they just ignore:


It's not science it's ideology.  The softest 'science'.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Maybe they meant they're a dermatologist?


Engineer.  You?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> Actually my issue is with climate sensitivity.  Do you know anything about that?


not really? I don't play climate scientist online or off. I do read up on whatever the scientific consensus is. And yes, there is such a thing


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> It's not science it's ideology.  The softest 'science'.


That's pretty ironic coming from someone who doesn't know the first thing about the planet's climate.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> Engineer.  You?


Jack of all trades, and Master of Socks (according to some with advanced degrees)


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> It didn't keep the planet from transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet when it was over 400 ppm.  It didn't prevent glacial periods from turning into interglacial periods when it was 150 ppm.


So what did?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> not really? I don't play climate scientist online or off. I do read up on whatever the scientific consensus is. And yes, there is such a thing


You just do as you are told without investigation.  And that doesn't sound bad when you say it out loud?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So what did?


Which part?  The transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?  Or the glacial cycles after transitioning to an icehouse planet?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> The US and Europes CO2 emissions have been declining for almost two decades while China and the Rest of the World are increasing by 1 billion tons each and every year.  That means every five years they produce a new US equivalent amount of emissions.  So in 5 years you can pretend like there's a new USA and 5 years after that another new USA. And so on and so on.  Are you getting the picture?
> 
> How are you going to mitigate that?


I do what I can do and hope others will eventually do what they can do.  Not sure what alternatives there are?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> We are in an interglacial period.  That's what they do in interglacial periods.  Please educate yourself on the planet's climate and not a computer model because they really are stacking the deck in their model.  It's almost criminal how much transparency they lack.


So you're saying if I drown in a natural flood event that is OK, it is only man-made events I need to worry about?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> That's pretty ironic coming from someone who doesn't know the first thing about the planet's climate.


The Earth's climate is easily looked up. But I bet you consider yourself an expert because you have looked it up


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> Which part?  The transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?  Or the glacial cycles after transitioning to an icehouse planet?


Yes.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> You just do as you are told without investigation.  And that doesn't sound bad when you say it out loud?


as I'm told? LOL

You're seriously delusional. I get it now


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Supercharging? Sounds serious!
> 
> How many new nuclear reactors should we build?


"should?"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> "should?"



Supercharging!!!!!

You don't want a reliable, CO2-free source of electricity to stop our doom?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I do what I can do and hope others will eventually do what they can do.  Not sure what alternatives there are?


You mean besides not actually educating yourself on the subject like I did.  There's really no excuse for that.  The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 and/or orbital forcing.  So how do you know the recent warming trend is due to CO2 and not not the same exact causes that caused every other warming trend prior to the industrial revolution?  Because our planet is uniquely configured to produce climate variations because of its landmass and ocean configuration with each pole being at a different temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation and each pole having a different amount of land that glaciation can spread.  The planet's climate is driven by the northern hemisphere because of those two things.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So you're saying if I drown in a natural flood event that is OK, it is only man-made events I need to worry about?


Not at all.  I'm saying you saying you see signs of global warming is really you see signs of an interglacial cycle.  If you had done any studying at all into this subject you would have discovered that our present interglacial period  is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.  So another 2C of warming is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. Until this planet exceeds the temperatures of previous interglacial periods there is nothing to worry about.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> The Earth's climate is easily looked up. But I bet you consider yourself an expert because you have looked it up


It's not something you can just look up.  It's something you have to study.  And you haven't done that.  But you are foolish enough to come spout theories and models you know nothing about anyway.  We'll see how that works out for you.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> Yes.


Pick one because I don't want to confuse you.  I'll give you a crash course.  There is a logical sequence of which one should be explained first though.  Let's see if you can figure it out.  What will it be?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Supercharging!!!!!
> 
> You don't want a reliable, CO2-free source of electricity to stop our doom?


I hope that research and development will someday take care of that.

I have a belief that we'll work it out and if not, like Cockroaches, the human species will adapt/survive


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> It's not something you can just look up.  It's something you have to study.  And you haven't done that.  But you are foolish enough to come spout theories and models you know nothing about anyway.  We'll see how that works out for you.


did they teach you that in dermatology school?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> as I'm told? LOL
> 
> You're seriously delusional. I get it now


How else am I to see it?  You don't know the first thing about what drives the climate of the earth yet you have strong beliefs that CO2 is driving the climate of the earth.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> did they teach you that in dermatology school?


No.  Logic 101.  Tell me more about your extensive knowledge of paleo-climates.  Since you supposedly can just look that up online, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I hope that research and development will someday take care of that.
> 
> I have a belief that we'll work it out and if not, like Cockroaches, the human species will adapt/survive



Nuclear isn't part of working it out?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nuclear isn't part of working it out?


I'm not in charge. They don't tell me what's in and what's out. Maybe you could talk to them for me?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I'm not in charge. They don't tell me what's in and what's out. Maybe you could talk to them for me?



Would you be in favor of more nuclear or not?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> I'm no climatologist but I went to Iceland and saw for myself how much the glaciers there have retreated.  That water went somewhere and that shrinking glaciers and ice sheets have been the trend globally for years.  If sea level rises it will be a global disaster and waiting for it to happen means we'll suffer the full force of it.
> 
> If we can do reasonable things to mitigate this scenario, I have no idea what they are, it seems like something my grandkids might appreciate.



The consensus is that most of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion ... and you can calculate that yourself ... mountain glaciers don't contain all that much water ... compared to all the oceans put together ... and it is known that it's ice sheet melting that contributes to overall rise ... and this is less than 2 feet by year 2100 ... {Cite} ... so, a child born today would be 77 years-old, so great-great-grandchildren ... and two lousy feet is nothing ... be real my friend, your great-great-grandchildren will not remember your name ...

Glaciers are a nuisance ... glad to see them gone ... especially since we'll all get two weeks longer growing season ... which is humane? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> The Earth's climate is easily looked up. But I bet you consider yourself an expert because you have looked it up



No it's not ... that's junior-level in college type of material ... and you'll need to be concurrent with LinAlgebra ... 

I'm not a expert, but I can look up the degree program in a college course catalog ... see? ... LinAlgebra ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... yes, got an "A" in LinAlgebra, how'd'ya guess? ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2023)

ReinyDays said:


> The consensus is that most of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion ... and you can calculate that yourself ... mountain glaciers don't contain all that much water ... compared to all the oceans put together ... and it is known that it's ice sheet melting that contributes to overall rise ... and this is less than 2 feet by year 2100 ... {Cite} ... so, a child born today would be 77 years-old, so great-great-grandchildren ... and two lousy feet is nothing ... be real my friend, your great-great-grandchildren will not remember your name ...
> 
> Glaciers are a nuisance ... glad to see them gone ... especially since we'll all get two weeks longer growing season ... which is humane? ...


The loss of the Pine Island Glacier would raise global sea levels by 1.6 feet.  The loss of the Thwaites Glacier would raise sea levels by 10 feet.

US cities that would be flooded by a ten foot increase in sea level:

CITY - - - - - - - - - POPULATION
1.New York City    703,000
2.New Orleans      342,000
3.Miami                 275,000
4.Hialeah, FL          224,000
5.Virginia Beach    195,000
6.Fort Lauderdale  160,00
7.Norfolk                157,000
8.Stockton, CA        142,000
9.Metairie, LA         138,000
10.Hollywood, FL   126,000

  SUM                     2,462,000


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> even brittanica dot com gets it:




Yeah, and the





alang1216 said:


> This is the internet doc, everyone here has a Ph.D.  Not every science is 'hard' or easily quantifiable.  It is a challenge.  But if sea level rises, for whatever reason, that is 'hard'.




Wrong.  There are hard sciences, also known as exact, and there are soft sciences, also known as inexact.

Sea level has probably not risen to any great degree in 100 years.  Photographic evidence from locations worldwide prove that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So carbon in the atmosphere has no effect on climate?  I thought you were a geologist, not a climatologist?




No, it provably doesn't.  The amount of CO2 is so vanishingly small that whatever effect it may have had is completely overwhelmed by water vapor which is by far the primary GHG.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect?




What makes you say that?


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

alang1216 said:


> It's not science it's ideology.  The softest 'science'.




Except your "science" requires faith.  Ours doesn't.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> not really? I don't play climate scientist online or off. I do read up on whatever the scientific consensus is. And yes, there is such a thing




Have you bothered to read up on the failure rate of consensus science?

It's really,  really high.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Would you be in favor of more nuclear or not?


Not In My Back Yard

It scares the shit out of me. I sometimes stayed at a home nearby one. I had nightmares

There were sirens in the neighborhood. My friends told me 'don't worry'  -- I replied "When they go off, it's already to late"


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ReinyDays said:


> No it's not ... that's junior-level in college type of material ... and you'll need to be concurrent with LinAlgebra ...
> 
> I'm not a expert, but I can look up the degree program in a college course catalog ... see? ... LinAlgebra ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... yes, got an "A" in LinAlgebra, how'd'ya guess? ...


I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Crick said:


> The loss of the Pine Island Glacier would raise global sea levels by 1.6 feet.  The loss of the Thwaites Glacier would raise sea levels by 10 feet.
> 
> US cities that would be flooded by a ten foot increase in sea level:
> 
> ...


Then that would mean the sea would only need to rise another 16 ft on top of that 10 ft to equal the sea level rise of the previous interglacial period.


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL


What did NASA say the radiative forcing of CO2 at 420 ppm is versus the radiative forcing of the feedback from CO2 at 420 ppm?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Jan 5, 2023)

ding said:


> What did NASA say the radiative forcing of CO2 at 420 ppm is versus the radiative forcing of the feedback from CO2 at 420 ppm?


you can always go look it up

lol

go troll their website


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> you can always go look it up
> 
> lol
> 
> go troll their website


But you are the one who gets all his information from NASA.  Don't you know?


----------



## ding (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL


What did NASA say the sea level will rise to by 2030?


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2023)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL




So, you are unable to think for yourself.   And you only listen to scripture as presented by your high priests...

How very religious of you.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Friday at 12:05 AM)

westwall said:


> So, you are unable to think for yourself.   And you only listen to scripture as presented by your high priests...
> 
> How very religious of you.


do you know how bizarre your words are?


----------



## westwall (Friday at 12:23 AM)

Dante Reawakened said:


> do you know how bizarre your words are?




Less bizarre than a person who bows down to the volcano gods.

Like you.

Remember to sacrifice a virgin to appease them.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (Friday at 12:26 AM)

westwall said:


> Less bizarre than a person who bows down to the volcano gods.
> 
> Like you.
> 
> Remember to sacrifice a virgin to appease them.


Like you (but for different reasons), I occasionally get attacked by the left, the right, and self-proclaimed middle


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:16 AM)

ding said:


> You mean besides not actually educating yourself on the subject like I did.  There's really no excuse for that.  The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 and/or orbital forcing.  So how do you know the recent warming trend is due to CO2 and not not the same exact causes that caused every other warming trend prior to the industrial revolution?  Because our planet is uniquely configured to produce climate variations because of its landmass and ocean configuration with each pole being at a different temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation and each pole having a different amount of land that glaciation can spread.  The planet's climate is driven by the northern hemisphere because of those two things.


I noticed you offered no actions, just excuses for doing nothing.


----------



## Theowl32 (Friday at 9:17 AM)

Hey, hey, remember that "hole in the ozone" that was causing THE GLOBAL WARMING? Yeah, that was a 90s thing and yeah pretty much still believed by....them.

You know they claimed they "FIXED IT?" The "Montreal protocol" fixed it. LOL


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:20 AM)

ding said:


> Not at all.  I'm saying you saying you see signs of global warming is really you see signs of an interglacial cycle.  If you had done any studying at all into this subject you would have discovered that our present interglacial period  is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods.  So another 2C of warming is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. Until this planet exceeds the temperatures of previous interglacial periods there is nothing to worry about.


If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree.  If you say is it OK, I disagree.  Extinction is normal too.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:27 AM)

ding said:


> Pick one because I don't want to confuse you.  I'll give you a crash course.  There is a logical sequence of which one should be explained first though.  Let's see if you can figure it out.  What will it be?


Pass.  Through all the condescension I sense you're going to give me your historical climate model.  You may well be right but I doubt it would be much comfort to a Bangladeshi farmer facing the flooding of his fields.  It seems settled that the ice is melting and sea levels are rising.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:46 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> The consensus is that most of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion ... and you can calculate that yourself ... mountain glaciers don't contain all that much water ... compared to all the oceans put together ... and it is known that it's ice sheet melting that contributes to overall rise ... and this is less than 2 feet by year 2100 ... {Cite} ... so, a child born today would be 77 years-old, so great-great-grandchildren ... and two lousy feet is nothing ... be real my friend, your great-great-grandchildren will not remember your name ...
> 
> Glaciers are a nuisance ... glad to see them gone ... especially since we'll all get two weeks longer growing season ... which is humane? ...


You may be right about this but I don't think a 2 foot rise is 'nothing'.  I think it will be catastrophic for Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh, Pacific Islands, etc., and the effects will be felt everywhere.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:52 AM)

westwall said:


> Sea level has probably not risen to any great degree in 100 years.  Photographic evidence from locations worldwide prove that.


Do they?

Fact Check-Statue of Liberty photos do not prove sea level rise is a myth​By Reuters Fact Check

Social media users are sharing two photographs of the Statue of Liberty taken 100 years apart and wrongly saying the images prove that sea levels are not rising.
The tide causes wide fluctuations in the water level every day. It would be almost impossible to use two photographs taken at two random moments to illustrate an overall trend over time. Scientific studies that take tide data and other factors into account do show that sea levels have risen overall during that period in New York.

And:
How much is sea level rising?​Link to this page

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station.  But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming 

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you can create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:58 AM)

westwall said:


> No, it provably doesn't.  The amount of CO2 is so vanishingly small that whatever effect it may have had is completely overwhelmed by water vapor which is by far the primary GHG.


Or not.  Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 9:59 AM)

westwall said:


> What makes you say that?


You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 10:00 AM)

westwall said:


> Except your "science" requires faith.  Ours doesn't.


I was born without faith.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 11:15 AM)

alang1216 said:


> You also don't object when others make predictions.  Why is that?


I accept no prediction. you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 11:16 AM)

alang1216 said:


> You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.


I don't believe that.  For sure I don't.  Use me for who doesn't.  hoax I tell you.  Earth needs CO2 to exist for the environment like plants, trees and humans.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 11:26 AM)

jc456 said:


> I don't believe that.  For sure I don't.  Use me for who doesn't.  hoax I tell you.  Earth needs CO2 to exist for the environment like plants, trees and humans.


How much CO2?  Can there be too much or too little?


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 11:35 AM)

Dante Reawakened said:


> I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL



So you're admitting you have little or no understanding yourself ... just what an aeronautical agency of the US government says ... 

My main source is an Atmospheric Science textbook, though I'm more quick to quote my physics textbook ... you know ... *F*=m*a* stuff ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 11:43 AM)

alang1216 said:


> You may be right about this but I don't think a 2 foot rise is 'nothing'.  I think it will be catastrophic for Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh, Pacific Islands, etc., and the effects will be felt everywhere.



Well ... two feet will not be overtopping the Everglades Parkway ... more likely to have to remove that barrier and allow the sea to swallow up the Everglades National Park ... aren't you an environmentalist ... and New Orleans is already ten feet below sea level, and fills up with water every 50 years or so ... Bangladesh has these things called "sea walls" ... and they build on berms, they get 20 foot floods routinely ... 

The West Coast is already benched up 30 feet ... from when sea levels were that high at the beginning of the Holocene ... 

Sorry ... you got nothing here ... a rather large percentage of Japanese 50 foot sea walls washed away in 2011 ... they've about 500 miles rebuilt ... and quickly completing the other 500 miles ... why can't the rest of the world build three foot sea walls? ... duh ...


----------



## westwall (Friday at 11:47 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Or not.  Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.




So, you are going to believe a fantasy about a GHG constituting less than 1% of the GHG's is somehow so powerful that it overwhelms the GHG that constitutes 95% of the GHG in the atmosphere.

Got it.  Show the math.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 11:48 AM)

alang1216 said:


> You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.




I don't.   That doesn't mean I don't agree that it is a GHG.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 11:49 AM)

alang1216 said:


> I was born without faith.




And yet you cultishly follow a group that has never been correct in any prediction they have ever made.

That seems pretty faith based to me.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 11:52 AM)

alang1216 said:


> How much CO2?  Can there be too much or too little?


too little you bet, under 150 PPM the earth plant life dies. Then we'd follow since there'd be no oxygen.  As far as I can look up, there is no actual upper number to reference.  The earth once had over a 1000 PPM and all was normal.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 11:53 AM)

westwall said:


> So, you are going to believe a fantasy about a GHG constituting less than 1% of the GHG's is somehow so powerful that it overwhelms the GHG that constitutes 95% of the GHG in the atmosphere.
> 
> Got it.  Show the math.


I'd have to rocks in my head to accept climatology pronouncements from a geologist.
You can follow the math for yourself:

Other important information for understanding the role of greenhouse gases in climate science:

characteristics of a greenhouse gas
greenhouse gases
greenhouse gas changes since the Industrial Revolution
greenhouse gas sources and sinks
how atmospheric warming works
atmospheric warming since the Industrial Revolution
other factors (aerosol particles, for example) that affect atmospheric warming
role of water vapor in atmospheric warming


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 11:53 AM)

westwall said:


> Got it.  Show the math.



My body aches for a womb so I could bear your child ...


----------



## westwall (Friday at 11:53 AM)

jc456 said:


> too little you bet, under 150 PPM the earth plant life dies. Then we'd follow since there'd be no oxygen.  As far as I can look up, there is no actual upper number to reference.  The earth once had over a 1000 PPM and all was normal.




Actually under 200ppm nothing lives.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 11:55 AM)

westwall said:


> Actually under 200ppm nothing lives.


I read the 150 number.  Sounds good to me.  At least we can agree we need much!  I'm still trying to understand why demofks want ice on our planet.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 11:55 AM)

alang1216 said:


> I'd have to rocks in my head to accept climatology pronouncements from a geologist.
> You can follow the math for yourself:
> 
> Other important information for understanding the role of greenhouse gases in climate science:
> ...




So you believe people who have never been correct about anything?

Got ya.

Want to know something funny.  I can teach any climatology class there is.  All the way up to graduate level.

Climatologists though, can't teach any geology class above 3rd year.

So maybe you should get some rocks in your head.

You might learn something.


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 11:56 AM)

alang1216 said:


> I'd have to rocks in my head to accept climatology pronouncements from a geologist.
> You can follow the math for yourself:
> 
> Other important information for understanding the role of greenhouse gases in climate science:
> ...



I spot-checked one of these ... I agree the results they post ... BUT they don't show their math ... "How Atmospheric Warming Works" ... no math, please try again ...

"Got it ... now show your math" ...


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 11:58 AM)

westwall said:


> And yet you cultishly follow a group that has never been correct in any prediction they have ever made.
> 
> That seems pretty faith based to me.


Nope.  For example, I did some quick research and learned that you are misinformed/lying/exaggerating/spinning/cherry-picking, whatever, when you say climate scientists have never been correct in any prediction they have ever made.  Never say 'never'.

Google: how accurate have climate models been


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 11:59 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Nope.  For example, I did some quick research and learned that you are misinformed/lying/exaggerating/spinning/cherry-picking, whatever, when you say climate scientists have never been correct in any prediction they have ever made.  Never say 'never'.
> 
> Google: how accurate have climate models been



Al Gore has an ownership stake in Google  .... ha ha ha ha ..


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 12:04 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> I spot-checked one of these ... I agree the results they post ... BUT they don't show their math ... "How Atmospheric Warming Works" ... no math, please try again ...
> 
> "Got it ... now show your math" ...


Google impaired?


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 12:10 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Google impaired?


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 12:11 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Google impaired?



I took a class in Astrophysics ... I could once derive Stefen-Boltzmann Equation from Planck's Radiation Equation ... but not anymore and I don't care to relearn it ...

Are you educated enough to discuss how SB is used in climate modeling? ... factor-by-factor ... because if this is already over your head, your not going to understand the scientific objection that is being made ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 12:16 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Google impaired?



Thanks for the video.
How many new nuclear reactors does he think we should build?


----------



## westwall (Friday at 12:17 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Nope.  For example, I did some quick research and learned that you are misinformed/lying/exaggerating/spinning/cherry-picking, whatever, when you say climate scientists have never been correct in any prediction they have ever made.  Never say 'never'.
> 
> Google: how accurate have climate models been




Google is not your friend.  Those are opinion pieces, not fact based.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 12:18 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Al Gore has an ownership stake in Google  .... ha ha ha ha ..




Indeed he does.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 12:33 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Al Gore has an ownership stake in Google  .... ha ha ha ha ..


I do too.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 12:34 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I do too.
> [/Hitler.
> Suuuuure you do.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 12:44 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Well ... two feet will not be overtopping the Everglades Parkway ... more likely to have to remove that barrier and allow the sea to swallow up the Everglades National Park ... aren't you an environmentalist ... and New Orleans is already ten feet below sea level, and fills up with water every 50 years or so ... Bangladesh has these things called "sea walls" ... and they build on berms, they get 20 foot floods routinely ...
> 
> The West Coast is already benched up 30 feet ... from when sea levels were that high at the beginning of the Holocene ...
> 
> Sorry ... you got nothing here ... a rather large percentage of Japanese 50 foot sea walls washed away in 2011 ... they've about 500 miles rebuilt ... and quickly completing the other 500 miles ... why can't the rest of the world build three foot sea walls? ... duh ...


I think you are underestimating the destructive power of storms on the Gulf and East Coasts.  It is not a simple matter of calculating the elevation of the land to determine how much will disappear.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 12:47 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I think you are underestimating the destructive power of storms on the Gulf and East Coasts.  It is not a simple matter of calculating the elevation of the land to determine how much will disappear.


Every above normal wind or rain incident is destructive! You don’t get it


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 1:10 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> I took a class in Astrophysics ... I could once derive Stefen-Boltzmann Equation from Planck's Radiation Equation ... but not anymore and I don't care to relearn it ...
> 
> Are you educated enough to discuss how SB is used in climate modeling? ... factor-by-factor ... because if this is already over your head, your not going to understand the scientific objection that is being made ...


I'll pass thanks.  I doubt I could learn enough to second guess climate scientists and I'm not sure it matters enough to me.  It's enough for me that glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea level is rising.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 1:11 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks for the video.
> How many new nuclear reactors does he think we should build?


Not a clue but I have no problem with them, *if* we can solve the political problem of the waste.  Harry Reid is gone so we might have a chance.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 1:13 PM)

jc456 said:


> Every above normal wind or rain incident is destructive! You don’t get it


Well I don't get your point if that is what you mean.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 1:15 PM)

jc456 said:


>


Summary​In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 1:16 PM)

alang1216 said:


> E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.



What decline is it hiding?


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 1:26 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What decline is it hiding?


The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.  That's all I know.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 1:28 PM)

alang1216 said:


> The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.  That's all I know.





LIAR, liar, pants on fire!


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 2:00 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Well I don't get your point if that is what you mean.


all storms are destructive.


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 2:01 PM)

alang1216 said:


> still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.


if there is plenty of evidence, why can't you post any?


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 2:03 PM)

alang1216 said:


> E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented.


it's evidence of fraud.  From the people you choose to use as data experts, and they just admitted they were faking it.  That's a smoking gun in all forms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 2:09 PM)

alang1216 said:


> The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.  That's all I know.



So the "good" scientists dishonestly tried to hide the problem?

Doesn't sound like something you need to do when the science is on your side.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 3:53 PM)

jc456 said:


> all storms are destructive.


All storms are not equally destructive.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 3:58 PM)

jc456 said:


> if there is plenty of evidence, why can't you post any?


There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 3:59 PM)

jc456 said:


> it's evidence of fraud.  From the people you choose to use as data experts, and they just admitted they were faking it.  That's a smoking gun in all forms.


Not according to the article.  It was arrogant, lazy, dishonest, and stupid but it was not fraud.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 4:00 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the "good" scientists dishonestly tried to hide the problem?
> 
> Doesn't sound like something you need to do when the science is on your side.


Don't expect me to defend them but he article says their conclusions were legit.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 4:06 PM)

alang1216 said:


> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.




Ahhhh, if only they could produce some.

They can't,  they trot out computer models as those are actually worth something. 

They aren't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 4:06 PM)

alang1216 said:


> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.



Unprecedented? Post the math.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 4:08 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unprecedented? Post the math.




Get ready for a long wait......
..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 4:08 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Don't expect me to defend them but he article says their conclusions were legit.



Of course, conclusions are usually legit when you have to use a "trick" to hide
a problem with your data. I'll bet his friends all said it was groovy.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 4:11 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, conclusions are usually legit when you have to use a "trick" to hide
> a problem with your data. I'll bet his friends all said it was groovy.




Yeah, funny how doing something like that in the banking world gets you tossed in prison, but in alang land it is not fraud.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 5:15 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unprecedented? Post the math.





westwall said:


> Get ready for a long wait......
> ..


I leave the science to the scientist and the math to the mathematicians and take very little from message boards.  But hey, that's just me.


----------



## westwall (Friday at 5:16 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I leave the science to the scientist and the math to the mathematicians and take very little from message boards.  But hey, that's just me.





Trust me, we expect VERY little from you.

But thanks for confirming your religious fanaticism.


----------



## alang1216 (Friday at 5:16 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, conclusions are usually legit when you have to use a "trick" to hide
> a problem with your data. I'll bet his friends all said it was groovy.


I'm guessing that most data is massaged in one way or another.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 5:18 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I'm guessing that most data is massaged in one way or another.



Well, when you have to hide the decline....you gotta do something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Friday at 5:19 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I leave the science to the scientist and the math to the mathematicians and take very little from message boards.  But hey, that's just me.



Was there any math at your link?


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 5:21 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I think you are underestimating the destructive power of storms on the Gulf and East Coasts.  It is not a simple matter of calculating the elevation of the land to determine how much will disappear.



Communities from Nicaragua to Newfoundland are already protected ... look at what Japan is doing with her 50 foot sea walls ... all we need is to add three feet on top ... super easy and cheap ... far far cheaper than 43,000 miles of interstate freeways that crisscross the United States ...

My chalenge is for you to go to the beach ... high tide ... next full or new moon ... find the place the waves reach the furthest up the beach ... now add two feet and level over .... ha ha ha ha ha ... you're still on the beach ... ha ha ha ha ... maybe ten feet of land disappeared ... in 100 years ... just magical ... ha ha ha ha ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 5:22 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I'll pass thanks.  I doubt I could learn enough to second guess climate scientists and I'm not sure it matters enough to me.  It's enough for me that glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea level is rising.



Then why bother us with your stupidity ... you said you presented the math ... did you *LIE*? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 5:30 PM)

alang1216 said:


> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.



The first claim is an outright lie ... from 1915 to 1945, temperatures rose 0.7ºC, or 0.023ºC/yr ... from 1972-2022, temperatures rose 0.9ºC, or 0.018ºC/yr ... {Cite} ...

Fucking *lying* sack of shit ...


----------



## westwall (Friday at 5:31 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I'm guessing that most data is massaged in one way or another.





It shouldn't be.  If you are "massaging" it, you ARE committing fraud.


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 5:32 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I leave the science to the scientist and the math to the mathematicians and take very little from message boards.  But hey, that's just me.



If your curious about the math ... I'd be happy to help ... it's not hard if we go factor-by-factor ... or do you just not what to understand, rather just *lie* ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 5:34 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I'm guessing that most data is massaged in one way or another.



Can't massage math, not without having your paper sent back for correction ... that is one function of peer-review ... mathematicians double check the math ...


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 6:24 PM)

alang1216 said:


> All storms are not equally destructive.


Never said they were!


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 6:25 PM)

alang1216 said:


> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.


Post out of your link that proof


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 6:26 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Not according to the article.  It was arrogant, lazy, dishonest, and stupid but it was not fraud.


It exposed the fraud


----------



## jc456 (Friday at 6:28 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I leave the science to the scientist and the math to the mathematicians and take very little from message boards.  But hey, that's just me.


So you personally can’t explain their position? Haha hahaha


----------



## Theowl32 (Friday at 6:39 PM)

The tenderizing of the losers. This is just great.


----------



## Crick (Friday at 6:54 PM)

westwall said:


> It shouldn't be.  If you are "massaging" it, you ARE committing fraud.


There are other definitions for "massage".


----------



## westwall (Friday at 7:08 PM)

Crick said:


> There are other definitions for "massage".





Not as it pertains to raw data.


----------



## ReinyDays (Friday at 8:02 PM)

Crick said:


> There are other definitions for "massage".



Which is fine, almost all researchers are happy to explain how they work over the raw data in the scientific papers they publish ... they're also happy to discuss their exact error correction methods ... it's up to the reader to judge the validity of these actions ... 

Running fast and loose with data in political publications is a constitutionally protect right ...


----------



## ding (Saturday at 5:24 AM)

alang1216 said:


> I noticed you offered no actions, just excuses for doing nothing.


I don't believe 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is a problem like you do,  so why should I?  I'm willing to bet your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine.  Since you believe it IS a problem, what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?


----------



## ding (Saturday at 5:32 AM)

alang1216 said:


> If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree.  If you say is it OK, I disagree.  Extinction is normal too.


Actually what I am saying is that our planet is uniquely configured for climate fluctuations, environmental uncertainty and colder temperatures because of the planet's landmass configuration and ocean circulation pattern.  Never before have BOTH polar regions been thermally isolated from warmer ocean waters at the same time.  Never before has our planet experienced bipolar glaciation.  It's this feature which has been the driving planet's climate for the past 10 million years.


----------



## ding (Saturday at 5:34 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Pass.  Through all the condescension I sense you're going to give me your historical climate model.  You may well be right but I doubt it would be much comfort to a Bangladeshi farmer facing the flooding of his fields.  It seems settled that the ice is melting and sea levels are rising.


You should be more concerned with colder temperatures because that would be much worse than warmer temperatures.  But I think it's wonderful that you can ignore 50 million years of data which shows a cooling planet.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 6:14 AM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was there any math at your link?


Plenty of data but you'll have to do your own math.  Sorry.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 6:19 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> Communities from Nicaragua to Newfoundland are already protected ... look at what Japan is doing with her 50 foot sea walls ... all we need is to add three feet on top ... super easy and cheap ... far far cheaper than 43,000 miles of interstate freeways that crisscross the United States ...
> 
> My chalenge is for you to go to the beach ... high tide ... next full or new moon ... find the place the waves reach the furthest up the beach ... now add two feet and level over .... ha ha ha ha ha ... you're still on the beach ... ha ha ha ha ... maybe ten feet of land disappeared ... in 100 years ... just magical ... ha ha ha ha ...


You may right about Japan but I live on the US East Coast and a small change in sea level might equate to miles of coast disappearing.  Already many of the beaches are constantly bringing in sand from offshore to offset beach losses.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 6:24 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> The first claim is an outright lie ... from 1915 to 1945, temperatures rose 0.7ºC, or 0.023ºC/yr ... from 1972-2022, temperatures rose 0.9ºC, or 0.018ºC/yr ... {Cite} ...
> 
> Fucking *lying* sack of shit ...


Take it up with the climatologists at NASA if you don't like their math or conclusions.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 6:28 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> If your curious about the math ... I'd be happy to help ... it's not hard if we go factor-by-factor ... or do you just not what to understand, rather just *lie* ...


If you don't think the scientists at NASA know what they are doing, that is your choice, one I disagree with.  Maybe we can move to an analysis of whether bumblebees can fly?


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 6:30 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> Can't massage math, not without having your paper sent back for correction ... that is one function of peer-review ... mathematicians double check the math ...


I doubt the real world is ever so simple.  Polling is a good example, how you choose your sample determines the outcome.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 10:11 AM)

ding said:


> I don't believe 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is a problem like you do,  so why should I?  I'm willing to bet your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine.  Since you believe it IS a problem, what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?


First off, my hypocrisy is none of your concern and deserves a thread of its own.  

Secondly, whatever the truth about CO2, do you accept that the Earth is warming and the seas are rising?


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 10:12 AM)

ding said:


> Actually what I am saying is that our planet is uniquely configured for climate fluctuations, environmental uncertainty and colder temperatures because of the planet's landmass configuration and ocean circulation pattern.  Never before have BOTH polar regions been thermally isolated from warmer ocean waters at the same time.  Never before has our planet experienced bipolar glaciation.  It's this feature which has been the driving planet's climate for the past 10 million years.
> 
> View attachment 745603


Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 10:15 AM)

ding said:


> You should be more concerned with colder temperatures because that would be much worse than warmer temperatures.  But I think it's wonderful that you can ignore 50 million years of data which shows a cooling planet.


Culturally, we are adapted this climate.  Any change will require us to adapt and that will mean winners and losers.  The US is rich and will likely be among the winners.  Should we care about the losers?


----------



## Crick (Saturday at 10:58 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.


Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans






			Ocean Currents Map – HIS 3460: Digital History


----------



## Mac-7 (Saturday at 11:02 AM)

Theowl32 said:


> Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​
> Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. *Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.*
> 
> Direct link to the study:
> ...


The problem is that liberals have been brainwashed to accept the mam-made global warming doomsday scam and their minds are closed to new information


----------



## Crick (Saturday at 11:23 AM)

Mac-7 said:


> The problem is that liberals have been brainwashed to accept the mam-made global warming doomsday scam and their minds are closed to new information


Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.


----------



## westwall (Saturday at 11:38 AM)

Crick said:


> Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.




What a laughable assertion.  The majority of scientists have either no opinion, or disagree.


----------



## jc456 (Saturday at 11:41 AM)

alang1216 said:


> If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree.  If you say is it OK, I disagree.  Extinction is normal too.


Where has climate changed that suggests catastrophe?


----------



## jc456 (Saturday at 11:43 AM)

Crick said:


> Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.


Name one conservative unfunded scientist  agrees with your nonsense?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Saturday at 12:18 PM)

Crick said:


> Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.



Money for nothing, chicks for free.


----------



## Crick (Saturday at 12:34 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Money for nothing, chicks for free.


I got my MTV...


----------



## alang1216 (Saturday at 1:30 PM)

Crick said:


> Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why?


Crick said:


> Please explain how either pole but particularly Antarctica is thermally isolated from the equatorial regions of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mac-7 (Saturday at 2:33 PM)

Crick said:


> Your problem is that it's not the liberals that have been convinced, it's all the world's scientists, no matter what their position on the political spectrum.


Nonsense

There are plenty of skeptics but they are afraid to speak because the global warming nazis are vicious


----------



## ReinyDays (Saturday at 6:53 PM)

ding said:


> I don't believe 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 is a problem like you do,  so why should I?  I'm willing to bet your carbon footprint is not materially different than mine.  Since you believe it IS a problem, what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?



I quit filling my gas tank once a month, like the past 25 years ... today's stabilizers let's me go two months between fills without the gasoline going stale ... 

And I *want* a warmer world ... so I also advocate the legalization of tire burning ... and arson along the Texas coast ... no reason, just random ... don't know why I thought of that ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Saturday at 6:58 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Take it up with the climatologists at NASA if you don't like their math or conclusions.



Then you are a fool ... you should let NASA speak for themselves ... you don't understand what they say ... and you're just making a fool of yourself here ...

I apologize for the "liar" comment ... that was over the top and you don't deserve that ... I respect someone who knows their limits ...


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 5:38 AM)

jc456 said:


> Where has climate changed that suggests catastrophe?


How many mammoths do you see running around today?  If you want to see a man-made climate disaster, go to the Greek islands.  What was a lush forested land is now dessert.  They chopped the trees down to build warships and changed the climate.


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 7:38 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> Then you are a fool ... you should let NASA speak for themselves ... you don't understand what they say ... and you're just making a fool of yourself here ...


My links were to NASA so that is just what I was doing.  Their data analysis techniques are likely above my head, never having taken a statistics class, but I understand their conclusions just fine.



ReinyDays said:


> I apologize for the "liar" comment ... that was over the top and you don't deserve that ... I respect someone who knows their limits ...


Thanks, I much prefer to be called a 'fool'.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 8:00 AM)

alang1216 said:


> First off, my hypocrisy is none of your concern and deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Secondly, whatever the truth about CO2, do you accept that the Earth is warming and the seas are rising?


The earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C below temperatures of previous interglacial temperatures. So yes, the planet is still warming and within the normal range of previous interglacial periods.

The sea level has been rising for 20,000 years and the rate of that rise has not materially changed in the last 6,000 years.  So yes, the seas are still rising at the same rate they have been rising at for the past 6,000 years.

Do you believe that rate will triple by the end of the decade? Because that's their projection.  It's completely ridiculous.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 8:02 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Lots of things are perfectly natural but will kill us just as dead.


So what?  That has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 8:08 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Culturally, we are adapted this climate.  Any change will require us to adapt and that will mean winners and losers.  The US is rich and will likely be among the winners.  Should we care about the losers?


Humans live in all sorts of climates.  You believe the planet will get warmer and that that will have catastrophic results.  I don't believe the planet will get any warmer than previous interglacial periods and that it won't be harmful for life. 

Stop trying to make this an emotional moral argument.  Your carbon footprint is no different than mine.  Pretending you care makes you look like a hypocrite.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 8:09 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> I quit filling my gas tank once a month, like the past 25 years ... today's stabilizers let's me go two months between fills without the gasoline going stale ...
> 
> And I *want* a warmer world ... so I also advocate the legalization of tire burning ... and arson along the Texas coast ... no reason, just random ... don't know why I thought of that ...


Me too!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sunday at 9:44 AM)

alang1216 said:


> How many mammoths do you see running around today?  If you want to see a man-made climate disaster, go to the Greek islands.  What was a lush forested land is now dessert.  They chopped the trees down to build warships and changed the climate.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sunday at 10:05 AM)

alang1216 said:


> My links were to NASA so that is just what I was doing.  Their data analysis techniques are likely above my head, never having taken a statistics class, but I understand their conclusions just fine.
> 
> 
> Thanks, I much prefer to be called a 'fool'.



Go back ... stupid ... and read your own words again ... you made the claim that link contained the mathematics of the greenhouse effect ... something I am intimately familiar with ... and I agree the link contains the data this mathematics produces, if we fudge and twist some of the factors involved ...

What you're saying is you don't understand the fraud, so it can't be happening ... that's stupid ... why do you keep posting? ...


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 10:41 AM)

ding said:


> The earth is in an interglacial period which is still 2C below temperatures of previous interglacial temperatures. So yes, the planet is still warming and within the normal range of previous interglacial periods.
> 
> The sea level has been rising for 20,000 years and the rate of that rise has not materially changed in the last 6,000 years.  So yes, the seas are still rising at the same rate they have been rising at for the past 6,000 years.


If there were a way stop sea level rise and global warming, would you think it is a good thing for mankind?



ding said:


> Do you believe that rate will triple by the end of the decade? Because that's their projection.  It's completely ridiculous.


Do I think I (or you) know more than climate scientists?  I do not.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 11:09 AM)

alang1216 said:


> If there were a way stop sea level rise and global warming, would you think it is a good thing for mankind?


Depends upon the unintended consequences of the actions required to control the climate of the planet.  Would you make it harder for other nations in climb out of poverty?  Energy use equals improved living conditions.   We should be burning more fossil fuels, not less.


----------



## ding (Sunday at 11:11 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Do I think I (or you) know more than climate scientists? I do not.


Do you have a brain?  When the data shows a 6,000 year trend and someone tells you it will triple in ten years, do you just blindly accept that?


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 12:51 PM)

ding said:


> So what?  That has nothing to do with anything.


Exactly wrong.  Arguing that we're in an interglacial period has nothing to do with anything.  Sea levels are rising or they are not.  Why has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 12:55 PM)

ding said:


> Depends upon the unintended consequences of the actions required to control the climate of the planet.  Would you make it harder for other nations in climb out of poverty?  Energy use equals improved living conditions.   We should be burning more fossil fuels, not less.


Exactly wrong.  The goal should not be to encourage more fossil fuel use but less.  The more the rich nations use of a finite resource the more expensive that resource will become.  We can afford to pay more, others are not so fortunate.  The smarter alternative is increased efficiency, nuclear, and renewable alternatives.


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 1:01 PM)

ding said:


> Humans live in all sorts of climates.  You believe the planet will get warmer and that that will have catastrophic results.  I don't believe the planet will get any warmer than previous interglacial periods and that it won't be harmful for life.


Plenty of species have gone extinct as climates change, I don't want to be among them.  Any change in the global climate will create winners and losers.  The Sahara was much lusher in previous times.  If that happens now will the people who live there share their new found wealth with the farmers in Bangladesh? 



ding said:


> Stop trying to make this an emotional moral argument.  Your carbon footprint is no different than mine.  Pretending you care makes you look like a hypocrite.


My argument is hardly emotional and I don't pretend to be any better than anyone else.  I only see a looming disaster that others, like yourself, don't see.  Only one of us is right.


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 1:15 PM)

jc456 said:


>


Watched the first 1/3 but it didn't seem likely to answer the original question,


----------



## jc456 (Sunday at 1:16 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Watched the first 1/3 but it didn't seem likely to answer the original question,


He talked about mammoths


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 1:39 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Go back ... stupid ... and read your own words again ... you made the claim that link contained the mathematics of the greenhouse effect ... something I am intimately familiar with ... and I agree the link contains the data this mathematics produces, if we fudge and twist some of the factors involved ...


You say "fudge and twist", I'd wager they'd say they removed the noise in the data and the anomalous outliers.



ReinyDays said:


> What you're saying is you don't understand the fraud, so it can't be happening ... that's stupid ... why do you keep posting? ...


I understand completely.  They don't support your analysis so it must be fraud.  (Kind of like Trump saying the only way he could lose was through fraud.)  Am I stupid to post or you even more stupid to respond?


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 1:41 PM)

jc456 said:


> He talked about mammoths


He said mammoths, mastodons, and elephants were all related.  Duh.


----------



## jc456 (Sunday at 1:47 PM)

alang1216 said:


> He said mammoths, mastodons, and elephants were all related.  Duh.


He said why they vanished


----------



## ReinyDays (Sunday at 2:20 PM)

alang1216 said:


> You say "fudge and twist", I'd wager they'd say they removed the noise in the data and the anomalous outliers.
> I understand completely.  They don't support your analysis so it must be fraud.  (Kind of like Trump saying the only way he could lose was through fraud.)  Am I stupid to post or you even more stupid to respond?



Do you want to have that discussion ... or are you too pussy? ...

We start with albedo ... do you know what albedo is? ... do you know why the published average value for this is 0.3 (-0.2,+0.1)? ... The Wikipedia article explains why this is of critical importance to Earth's surface temperature ...









						Albedo - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Next we can discuss the numeral "4" ...


----------



## Crick (Sunday at 2:43 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Go back ... stupid ... and read your own words again ... you made the claim that link contained the mathematics of the greenhouse effect ... something I am intimately familiar with ... and I agree the link contains the data this mathematics produces, if we fudge and twist some of the factors involved ...


Please explalin the fraudulent mathematical fudging and twisting to which you claim NASA and NOAA have admitted.  I'd also like to see a link to this "admission"


----------



## ReinyDays (Sunday at 3:05 PM)

Crick said:


> Please explalin the fraudulent mathematical fudging and twisting to which you claim NASA and NOAA have admitted.  I'd also like to see a link to this "admission"



Have you gone through the arithmetic and confirmed all the values NASA and NOAA give on that page? ... something I've done dozens of times over these past few years ... it's important you know what values they're using in the mathematical equations ... and how they come up with these values they do use ...

Start with albedo ... or do we need to go over the Solar Constant first? ... and please use the kinetic energy definition of temperature ... the simple fourth-root relationship occurs in both statements of Thermodynamics ...


----------



## Crick (Sunday at 3:42 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Have you gone through the arithmetic and confirmed all the values NASA and NOAA give on that page? ... something I've done dozens of times over these past few years ... it's important you know what values they're using in the mathematical equations ... and how they come up with these values they do use ...
> 
> Start with albedo ... or do we need to go over the Solar Constant first? ... and please use the kinetic energy definition of temperature ... the simple fourth-root relationship occurs in both statements of Thermodynamics ...


Is there some reason you don't actually want to explain what you claim to have found in their process descriptions?  Cause it sure looks as if you think you can baffle me with some bullshit.  I'm certain we both know that you haven't found diddly squat wrong with their data handling.  If you had, you wouldn't be babbling like that.  If you got it, prove it.  I'll do my best to keep up.


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 4:04 PM)

jc456 said:


> He said why they vanished


Did he say why they first appeared or did he say all animals were created on the same day?


----------



## alang1216 (Sunday at 4:09 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Do you want to have that discussion ... or are you too pussy? ...
> 
> We start with albedo ... do you know what albedo is? ... do you know why the published average value for this is 0.3 (-0.2,+0.1)? ... The Wikipedia article explains why this is of critical importance to Earth's surface temperature ...
> 
> ...


I'm with you so far but don't consider that a commitment.  On the other hand I loved watching Sesame Street with my kids.


----------



## ReinyDays (Sunday at 4:59 PM)

Crick said:


> Is there some reason you don't actually want to explain what you claim to have found in their process descriptions?  Cause it sure looks as if you think you can baffle me with some bullshit.  I'm certain we both know that you haven't found diddly squat wrong with their data handling.  If you had, you wouldn't be babbling like that.  If you got it, prove it.  I'll do my best to keep up.



Can you be baffled by high school algebra? ... then I can't help you ... ask a friend if Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be expressed as:

T = (( S ( 1 - a )) / 4o )^0.25 [where S = solar constant, a = albedo, o = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (usu. lower case sigma)] ...

Yeah, it's that last term that cuts your throat ... fourth-root function ... sorry, high school algebra ... *lying* sack of shit ...

=====

My exact words were "fudging and twisting" ... the published value of albedo is 0.3 ... or 0.35 to 0.25 ... we're not sure but somewhere in there ... it's a very very very difficult thing to measure ... running this error margin through the equation gives a 10ºC spread on Earth's surface ... global warming is a single degree? ...


----------



## jc456 (Sunday at 6:48 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Did he say why they first appeared or did he say all animals were created on the same day?


Listen to it


----------



## Crick (Sunday at 7:23 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Can you be baffled by high school algebra? ... then I can't help you ... ask a friend if Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be expressed as:
> 
> T = (( S ( 1 - a )) / 4o )^0.25 [where S = solar constant, a = albedo, o = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (usu. lower case sigma)] ...
> 
> ...


Golly, its a strain but I will do my very best to keep up -  you haven't lost me yet.  So, is that it?  You don't think they took proper account of their error margins on albedo?  One thing to think about is that albedo is not a constant, it has obvious seasonal variation and is affected by loss of ice cover and, according to the study below, changes in SST and the PDO.  The study below found albedo decreasing and doing so at an accelerating pace.  This tells me that it would not be treated as a constant by any calculation, simulation or GCM covering more than a month, say, which renders your objection a bit irrelevant.  

Do you have any other fudging and twisting?  You said this was a scam but I think you've got a long ways to go before that's a viable charge.  

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888


----------



## ReinyDays (Sunday at 7:53 PM)

Crick said:


> You don't think they took proper account of their error margins on albedo?



Do you? ...

TA: What's the albedo of the North Pole today? ...


----------



## Crick (Sunday at 8:21 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Do you? ...
> 
> TA: What's the albedo of the North Pole today? ...


Yes, I do.  

Every time I read a peer reviewed study or from the Assessment Reports and I think about the sort of stuff that deniers post here, I just have to shake my head.  For you to think SB would scare me off makes me think - no, it make me quite certain - that it scares you.


----------



## ReinyDays (Monday at 4:47 AM)

Crick said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> Every time I read a peer reviewed study or from the Assessment Reports and I think about the sort of stuff that deniers post here, I just have to shake my head.  For you to think SB would scare me off makes me think - no, it make me quite certain - that it scares you.



Then fine, your choice ...

You denied SB in another thread ... I stated temperature is proportioinal to the fourth-root of irradiance ... and you claimed it wasn't ...now you claim SB doesn't scare you ...

Fucking *LIAR* ...


----------



## Crick (Monday at 5:51 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> Then fine, your choice ...
> 
> You denied SB in another thread ... I stated temperature is proportioinal to the fourth-root of irradiance ... and you claimed it wasn't ...now you claim SB doesn't scare you ...
> 
> Fucking *LIAR* ...


I have never denied SB.


----------



## jc456 (Monday at 7:44 AM)

Crick said:


> Yes, I do.
> 
> Every time I read a peer reviewed study or from the Assessment Reports and I think about the sort of stuff that deniers post here, I just have to shake my head.  For you to think SB would scare me off makes me think - no, it make me quite certain - that it scares you.


A true word salad right there


----------



## ding (Monday at 7:51 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Exactly wrong.  Arguing that we're in an interglacial period has nothing to do with anything.  Sea levels are rising or they are not.  Why has nothing to do with anything.


That's ridiculous.  Of course the planet being in an interglacial period is relevant.  Especially since we are 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period which literally proves there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.


----------



## ding (Monday at 7:53 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Exactly wrong.  The goal should not be to encourage more fossil fuel use but less.  The more the rich nations use of a finite resource the more expensive that resource will become.  We can afford to pay more, others are not so fortunate.  The smarter alternative is increased efficiency, nuclear, and renewable alternatives.


I disagree.


----------



## ding (Monday at 7:55 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Plenty of species have gone extinct as climates change, I don't want to be among them.  Any change in the global climate will create winners and losers.  The Sahara was much lusher in previous times.  If that happens now will the people who live there share their new found wealth with the farmers in Bangladesh?
> 
> 
> My argument is hardly emotional and I don't pretend to be any better than anyone else.  I only see a looming disaster that others, like yourself, don't see.  Only one of us is right.


Of course your argument is emotional.  You are obsessing over weather.  The sky is not falling.  And you will discover that for yourself soon enough.


----------



## Crick (Monday at 9:58 AM)

jc456 said:


> A true word salad right there


ESL?


----------



## Crick (Monday at 9:59 AM)

ding said:


> That's ridiculous.  Of course the planet being in an interglacial period is relevant.  Especially since we are 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period which literally proves there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.


Given that AGW has overwhelmed the prior cooling, he is correct.  Your prediction that it will soon be getting cooler is unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## ReinyDays (Monday at 2:21 PM)

Crick said:


> I have never denied SB.



I claimed temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... which is why it takes huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... it's the nature of fourth-root functions ...

You had a cow denying this fourth-root relationship ...

You didn't recognize SB when I slapped your pimply face with it, child ... go hide behind your mother's skirts and cry about it ... damn, you *lie* worse than the English ...


----------



## Crick (Monday at 2:30 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> I claimed temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... which is why it takes huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... it's the nature of fourth-root functions ...
> 
> You had a cow denying this fourth-root relationship ...
> 
> You didn't recognize SB when I slapped your pimply face with it, child ... go hide behind your mother's skirts and cry about it ... damn, you *lie* worse than the English ...


You are lying.  I have never denied Stefan Boltzmann.  You might be confused on this point because in your last two posts you stated that temperature was proportional to the 4th root of irradiation.  That is not correct.  It is proportional to the 4th root of EMISSION.  They are not the same thing.


----------



## ReinyDays (Monday at 2:43 PM)

Crick said:


> You are lying.  I have never denied Stefan Boltzmann.  You might be confused on this point because in your last two posts you stated that temperature was proportional to the 4th root of irradiation.  That is not correct.  It is proportional to the 4th root of EMISSION.  They are not the same thing.



Fuck you ... we're using the irradiation of the Sun ... the "S" factor ... we need to go through this factor-by-factor because it's obvious you don't know how we define temperature in the first place ...

AND ...

We use the irradiation statement of the constant ... 5.67×10^−8 W/m^2/K^4 ... see the "watts per square meter" in there, that's a unit of irradiance ... *STUPID* ...

=====

I set you up ... I knew you wouldn't see SB where I used it ... just admit I bested you ... and you've learned, we can move on ...


----------



## alang1216 (Monday at 4:47 PM)

ding said:


> That's ridiculous.  Of course the planet being in an interglacial period is relevant.  Especially since we are 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the previous interglacial period which literally proves there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.


I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot.  All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.


----------



## alang1216 (Monday at 4:48 PM)

ding said:


> I disagree.


Too long but feel free to summarize.  Although he starts with a strike against him since he is not a scientist and he's a fan of Rand.  Neither impresses me.


----------



## alang1216 (Monday at 4:51 PM)

ding said:


> Of course your argument is emotional.  You are obsessing over weather.  The sky is not falling.  And you will discover that for yourself soon enough.


Thanks for the assurances, I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now that an internet poster has set me right.


----------



## Crick (Monday at 5:50 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Fuck you ... we're using the irradiation of the Sun ... the "S" factor ... we need to go through this factor-by-factor because it's obvious you don't know how we define temperature in the first place ...
> 
> AND ...
> 
> ...


I have no recollection of ever having participated in such a conversation.  I think you have me confused with another poster. Or you'r simply fabricating this out of whole cloth.

I have reviewed the use of SB in calculating the expected temperature of the Earth solely from insolation.  It would be used to determine the sun's emittance given its temperature and after calculating the total amount of energy incident on the Earth, you can back calculate the temperature required for the entire surface of the planet to emit that amount of radiation (assuming thermal equilibrium). 

That's all very nice but I have never denied SB.  But, if you'd like to review the mistakes you've made in our conversations over just the past few days, we can do so.  And I won't have to lie about it, will I.

But, IF, you can find the post and show that I did deny SB, I will fess up and apologize.  Till you do, though, I have to conclude you're just lying to get back at me for showing you've made a lot of mistakes.


----------



## ReinyDays (Monday at 6:13 PM)

Crick said:


> I have no recollection of ever having participated in such a conversation.  I think you have me confused with another poster. Or you'r simply fabricating this out of whole cloth.
> 
> I have reviewed the use of SB in calculating the expected temperature of the Earth solely from insolation.  It would be used to determine the sun's emittance given its temperature and after calculating the total amount of energy incident on the Earth, you can back calculate the temperature required for the entire surface of the planet to emit that amount of radiation (assuming thermal equilibrium).
> 
> ...



Stupid *liar* ...



Crick said:


> Scientific Proof | Science Exposed
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ReinyDays said:


> ... yes, we've *PROVED* temperature is proportional to the fourth-root of irradiation ... *lying motherfucker* ...





Crick said:


> No, we have not.
> 
> I have never used the term runaway greenhouse effect wrt AGW.  The consensus among published scientists is quite real.  It is just as significant as the complete lack of any consensus for your point of view.
> 
> ...



This was just last week ... you can't keep your *lies* straight for a lousy seven days ...


----------



## Crick (Monday at 7:49 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Stupid *liar* ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're going to have to point out here which of my statements you believe is a lie because there is nothing here I regret having said or believe is incorrect or dishonest.


----------



## ReinyDays (Monday at 8:57 PM)

Crick said:


> You're going to have to point out here which of my statements you believe is a lie because there is nothing here I regret having said or believe is incorrect or dishonest.



Playing stupid ... good ... *stupid motherfucker* ...


----------



## Crick (Monday at 9:48 PM)

ReinyDays said:


> Playing stupid ... good ... *stupid motherfucker* ...


The text you quoted contains no lies or errors.  That you think you see them there is your problem.  Your real problem.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 6:13 AM)

alang1216 said:


> I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot.  All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.


And it scares you?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 6:14 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Too long but feel free to summarize.  Although he starts with a strike against him since he is not a scientist and he's a fan of Rand.  Neither impresses me.


Basically he's saying you are evil.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 6:16 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for the assurances, I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now that an internet poster has set me right.


Don't mention it.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 10:18 AM)

ding said:


> And it scares you?


Hell yes.  I guess you don't live in Florida or the East Coast.  And don't care about anyone who does.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 10:20 AM)

ding said:


> Basically he's saying you are evil.


Being called evil by a follower of Ayn Rand is a compliment.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 10:35 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Hell yes.  I guess you don't live in Florida or the East Coast.  And don't care about anyone who does.


I don't believe it's a problem like you do so I'm not sure you can say that about me.  I think you are nuts for blowing weather out of proportion.  It's political.  You've been hoodwinked.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 10:36 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Being called evil by a follower of Ayn Rand is a compliment.


Who would that be?


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 10:40 AM)

ding said:


> Who would that be?


Alex Epstein, it was your video wasn't it?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 10:42 AM)

Crick said:


> Given that AGW has overwhelmed the prior cooling, he is correct.  Your prediction that it will soon be getting cooler is unsupportable nonsense.


That's nonsense.  You are saying CO2 save the planet from the cold.  

The geologic record isn't unsupportable nonsense.  Neither is 50 million years of cooling and a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.  Nor is the resulting climate fluctuations because the planet's landmass configuration results in bipolar glaciation with eac h pole at a different temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation.

You don't  know the first thing about our planet's climate.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 10:42 AM)

ding said:


> I don't believe it's a problem like you do so I'm not sure you can say that about me.  I think you are nuts for blowing weather out of proportion.  It's political.  You've been hoodwinked.


So we agree that sea levels are rising and the planet is warming.  We just don't agree if the impact will be good, bad (me), or indifferent.  That fair to say?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 10:44 AM)

alang1216 said:


> Alex Epstein, it was you video wasn't it?


Didn't know that about him.  What difference does that make?  Does it make you less evil for wanting to keep people impoverished?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 10:44 AM)

alang1216 said:


> So we agree that sea levels are rising and the planet is warming.  We just don't agree if the impact will be good, bad (me), or indifferent.  That fair to say?


But we don't agree on the cause and we certainly don't agree that we can change it.  But we do agree that you worry about it.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 12:02 PM)

ding said:


> Didn't know that about him.  What difference does that make?  Does it make you less evil for wanting to keep people impoverished?


Being called evil by Hitler is not the same as being called evil by Martin Luther King.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 12:10 PM)

ding said:


> But we don't agree on the cause and we certainly don't agree that we can change it.  But we do agree that you worry about it.


I don't care about cause, you are the one who does.  We can mitigate the consequences of sea level rise but poorer countries don't have that option.  I'm 100% sure we can fine tune the global climate, I'm just not sure the best way to do it.  I know you don't think CO2 is the cause but enough scientists do that they shouldn't be ignored.  

I think mandating the raising of the average MGP of cars will, at best, lessen the CO2 going into the air.  At worst, it will lessen local air pollution, allow US cars to compete overseas, and cut overall transportation costs.  Win-win-win.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Tuesday at 12:17 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I think mandating the raising of the average MGP of cars will, at best, lessen the CO2 going into the air. At worst, it will lessen local air pollution, allow US cars to compete overseas, and cut overall transportation costs. Win-win-win.



How many additional deaths should we accept for this MPG increase?


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 12:38 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many additional deaths should we accept for this MPG increase?


I don't see that the two are related, so 0.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 12:50 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Being called evil by Hitler is not the same as being called evil by Martin Luther King.


I think it's great that you have the carbon footprint you do while arguing those who are less fortunate shouldn't have the same carbon footprint as you.  Maybe you should switch places with one of them to gain some perspective on life without fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 12:53 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I don't care about cause, you are the one who does.  We can mitigate the consequences of sea level rise but poorer countries don't have that option.  I'm 100% sure we can fine tune the global climate, I'm just not sure the best way to do it.  I know you don't think CO2 is the cause but enough scientists do that they shouldn't be ignored.
> 
> I think mandating the raising of the average MGP of cars will, at best, lessen the CO2 going into the air.  At worst, it will lessen local air pollution, allow US cars to compete overseas, and cut overall transportation costs.  Win-win-win.


I disagree, I believe you are the one who cares deeply about the cause.  You believe that man is the cause and your solution is to limit fossil fuel use while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of fossil fuel use.  If you are truly worried about the plight of poor people around the globe you'd understand their pressing need is energy and not concerns about global warming.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 1:07 PM)

ding said:


> I disagree, I believe you are the one who cares deeply about the cause.  You believe that man is the cause and your solution is to limit fossil fuel use while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of fossil fuel use.  If you are truly worried about the plight of poor people around the globe you'd understand their pressing need is energy and not concerns about global warming.


I have repeatedly said I don't care if the cause is natural or man-made, you can believe me or not.  What poor people need is sustainable growth, not an addiction to imported oil and gas.  Like heroin, it makes for short term happiness and long term disaster.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:12 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I have repeatedly said I don't care if the cause is natural or man-made, you can believe me or not.  What poor people need is sustainable growth, not an addiction to imported oil and gas.  Like heroin, it makes for short term happiness and long term disaster.


It takes energy to power machinery to improve the quality of life.  Why don't you know this?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:13 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I have repeatedly said I don't care if the cause is natural or man-made


It's not what you say that tells what you believe, it's what you do.  And you argue against using fossil fuels.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:34 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Like heroin, it makes for short term happiness and long term disaster.


Kinda sounds like you do care about the cause being man made and have made up your mind about it.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 1:34 PM)

ding said:


> It takes energy to power machinery to improve the quality of life.  Why don't you know this?


Energy is available in many different forms besides fossil fuels.  Why don't you know this?


----------



## Unkotare (Tuesday at 1:36 PM)

Where did they find all the buxom blonde scientists to conduct the study?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:36 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Energy is available in many different forms besides fossil fuels.  Why don't you know this?


I do but fossil fuels are portable and have a high energy density and don't need an electrical grid system. 

So I do know this and I know that third world countries need tried and true technology with a high energy density to power a myriad of machines that run on fossil fuels such as diesel, gasoline or propane.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 1:37 PM)

ding said:


> Kinda sounds like you do care about the cause being man made and have made up your mind about it.


Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.  Lowering the CO2 in our atmosphere may lower global temperatures and slow sea level rise regardless of the cause.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:41 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.  Lowering the CO2 in our atmosphere may lower global temperatures and slow sea level rise regardless of the cause.


If that were truly the case, the previous interglacial period wouldn't have been 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:46 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.  Lowering the CO2 in our atmosphere may lower global temperatures and slow sea level rise regardless of the cause.


Only 1/4 to 1/3  of the associated warming in the IPCC models is attributed to CO2.  The other 2/3 to 3/4 are from feedbacks (water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation) that they pile on which are highly controversial.  You probably don't know this because the IPCC doesn't allow dissenting opinions in their reports.  

The fact that you don't know this and have such strong opinions is astonishing.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 1:50 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.  Lowering the CO2 in our atmosphere may lower global temperatures and slow sea level rise regardless of the cause.


Why do you want the planet to be colder?  The planet is 2C away from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation which would displace 250 million people and destroy everything in it's path which would be all of Canada, NE US, Midwest US, northern Europe and northern Asia.  This isn't a controversial statement.  It's public record.  It's captured in the oxygen isotope curve and the geologic record.


----------



## Crick (Tuesday at 1:55 PM)

ding said:


> Only 1/4 to 1/3  of the associated warming in the IPCC models is attributed to CO2.  The other 2/3 to 3/4 are from feedbacks (water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation) that they pile on which are highly controversial.  You probably don't know this because the IPCC doesn't allow dissenting opinions in their reports.
> 
> The fact that you don't know this and have such strong opinions is astonishing.


If the IPCC didn't allow dissenting opinions why do they rate their conclusions on Confidence and Likelihood.  Without dissent, they'd all be certainties.

From Pg 38 of the AR6 Technical Summary

1) Confidence1 is a qualitative measure of the validity of a finding,
based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence
(e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert
judgment) and the degree of agreement.
2) Likelihood2 provides a quantified measure of confidence in
a finding expressed probabilistically (e.g., based on statistical
analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert
judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative
survey of expert views, or both).
Where there is sufficient scientific confidence, findings can also be
formulated as statements of fact without uncertainty qualifiers.
Throughout IPCC reports, the calibrated language is clearly identified
by being typeset in italics.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 1:58 PM)

ding said:


> I do but fossil fuels are portable and have a high energy density and don't need an electrical grid system.


Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?



ding said:


> So I do know this and I know that third world countries need tried and true technology with a high energy density to power a myriad of machines that run on fossil fuels such as diesel, gasoline or propane.


It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 1:58 PM)

ding said:


> It's not what you say that tells what you believe, it's what you do.  And you argue against using fossil fuels.


What does one thing have to do with the other?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 2:00 PM)

Crick said:


> If the IPCC didn't allow dissenting opinions why do they rate their conclusions on Confidence and Likelihood.  Without dissent, they'd all be certainties.
> 
> From Pg 38 of the AR6 Technical Summary
> 
> ...


Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because of three reasons:

Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).
Dissenting scientific results which might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.
The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019).
This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

_ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 2:01 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?
> 
> 
> It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.


You don't need pipelines.  Just tanker trucks.  But if you want to argue putting in electrical generating and distribution systems is faster to accomplish be my guest.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 2:03 PM)

alang1216 said:


> It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.


Sure but if Bob wants to plant a big crop I don't think he will give a shit about that.  He just needs the machinery to farm at scale so they don't have to import food.


----------



## jc456 (Tuesday at 2:03 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I really don't care if sea levels are rising due to CO2, thermal expansion, or Big Foot.  All that matters is that they are rising, as are global temperatures.


And money will fix it?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 2:03 PM)

alang1216 said:


> What does one thing have to do with the other?


You mean it wasn't obvious?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Tuesday at 2:10 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I don't see that the two are related, so 0.



The lighter cars needed to meet higher MPG standards are more dangerous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Tuesday at 2:12 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Is an electrical grid system more expensive than a pipeline or road network capable of transporting those fossil fuels?
> 
> 
> It would also be nice if they didn't have to import that energy.



I agree, we should assist those poor countries to exploit their own reserves of fossil fuels.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 2:32 PM)

ding said:


> If that were truly the case, the previous interglacial period wouldn't have been 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


Was CO2 the only factor in the ice ages?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 3:05 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Was CO2 the only factor in the ice ages?


Is it the only factor today?

But that was an interglacial period, like today.  And it was warmer with less CO2.  If CO2 drives the planet's climate then why isn't it warmer today with 120 ppm MORE atmospheric CO2?


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 4:37 PM)

ding said:


> Is it the only factor today?
> 
> But that was an interglacial period, like today.  And it was warmer with less CO2.  If CO2 drives the planet's climate then why isn't it warmer today with 120 ppm MORE atmospheric CO2?


I doubt there is a single factor:

The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
Coincidence:


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 4:46 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I doubt there is a single factor:
> 
> The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
> A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
> Coincidence:


That still doesn't answer the question.  Why isn't it hotter now with more CO2 in the atmosphere?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 4:53 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I doubt there is a single factor:
> 
> The Role of the Sun in Climate Change
> A new study bolsters the idea that the uplift of the Himalayas and Andes that began tens of millions of years ago helped trigger the ice ages that followed.
> Coincidence:


The Himalayans were only one cause of transitioning to an icehouse world.  Others (and more important) are plate tectonics thermally  isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents which lowered the temperature threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole with each pole having very different glaciation characteristics because of their  landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulations and orbital forcing which triggers glacial periods when temperature is close to the thresholds.  You can see this on the oxygen isotope curve.  

But none of this has anything to do with comparing the last to interglacial periods of which disproves CO2 driving the planet's temperature.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 5:15 PM)

ding said:


> That still doesn't answer the question.  Why isn't it hotter now with more CO2 in the atmosphere?


Because CO2 is not the only factor involved?  You're obviously asking the wrong person.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 5:18 PM)

ding said:


> The Himalayans were only one cause of transitioning to an icehouse world.  Others (and more important) are plate tectonics thermally  isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents which lowered the temperature threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole with each pole having very different glaciation characteristics because of their  landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulations and orbital forcing which triggers glacial periods when temperature is close to the thresholds.  You can see this on the oxygen isotope curve.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with comparing the last to interglacial periods of which disproves CO2 driving the planet's temperature.


You may or may not be right but I think we can agree that most climatologists would disagree.  If I had to choose between the scientists and you, I'm sorry but...


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 5:34 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Because CO2 is not the only factor involved?  You're obviously asking the wrong person.


But it is today, right?


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 5:35 PM)

alang1216 said:


> You may or may not be right but I think we can agree that most climatologists would disagree.  If I had to choose between the scientists and you, I'm sorry but...


What would they disagree with?  Nothing I wrote there is controversial.  So, no, I don't believe we can agree on that and besides I'm not even sure you can disagree with that because you already admitted you don't know.


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 7:04 PM)

ding said:


> But it is today, right?


There have been climate cycles since the Earth was born and there have been many factors involved.  Why would you suppose that only one was at work today?


----------



## alang1216 (Tuesday at 7:06 PM)

ding said:


> What would they disagree with?  Nothing I wrote there is controversial.  So, no, I don't believe we can agree on that and besides I'm not even sure you can disagree with that because you already admitted you don't know.


I'm fine admitting I don't know something, that is why I rely on the experts.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 8:02 PM)

alang1216 said:


> There have been climate cycles since the Earth was born and there have been many factors involved.  Why would you suppose that only one was at work today?


I wouldn't but the IPCC does.  Which is probably why their models are incapable of history matching.  And since you believe that man is responsible for the recent warming trend, you probably believe it too.  Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## ding (Tuesday at 8:03 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I'm fine admitting I don't know something, that is why I rely on the experts.


Blindly.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 8:22 AM)

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm fine admitting I don't know something, that is why I rely on the experts.
> ...


Wow, is that telling.


----------



## alang1216 (Yesterday at 2:04 PM)

ding said:


> That still doesn't answer the question.  Why isn't it hotter now with more CO2 in the atmosphere?


Since I doubt that CO2 is the only factor, I can't answer that question.  But feel free to ask it again.


----------



## alang1216 (Yesterday at 2:07 PM)

ding said:


> The Himalayans were only one cause of transitioning to an icehouse world.  Others (and more important) are plate tectonics thermally  isolating the polar regions from warm marine currents which lowered the temperature threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole with each pole having very different glaciation characteristics because of their  landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulations and orbital forcing which triggers glacial periods when temperature is close to the thresholds.  You can see this on the oxygen isotope curve.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with comparing the last to interglacial periods of which disproves CO2 driving the planet's temperature.


So you've said.  Have you run an experiment and controlled for every other factor?  If not, I expect this is a climate model you've created.  You may be right but other climate models disagree.


----------



## alang1216 (Yesterday at 2:08 PM)

ding said:


> But it is today, right?


Says who?


----------



## alang1216 (Yesterday at 2:10 PM)

ding said:


> What would they disagree with?  Nothing I wrote there is controversial.  So, no, I don't believe we can agree on that and besides I'm not even sure you can disagree with that because you already admitted you don't know.


You put everything on CO2, I don't know if every climate scientist would with you.  Would they?  I admit I don't know, I don't admit that you do, I have yet to see your credentials.


----------



## alang1216 (Yesterday at 2:13 PM)

ding said:


> Blindly.


I tend to trust the consensus of people who have spent their careers studying that subject.  Trusting an anonymous message board poster would be blindness.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Yesterday at 2:46 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I tend to trust the consensus of people who have spent their careers studying that subject.  Trusting an anonymous message board poster would be blindness.



Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is very trustworthy, eh?


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 3:07 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is very trustworthy, eh?


Yes he is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Yesterday at 4:32 PM)

Crick said:


> Yes he is.



How are his law suits going?
Still owes some court ordered legal fees, doesn't he?
Still hiding his data and methods. 
What is he afraid of?


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:36 PM)

Crick said:


> Wow, is that telling.


I'm all for accepting knowledge on the authority of others.  Just not blindly.  And that is especially true for the ones who say the matter is settled.  I trust those the least and look closer at their claims.


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:37 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Since I doubt that CO2 is the only factor, I can't answer that question.  But feel free to ask it again.


The simple answer is that CO2 doesn't drive the planet's temperature.  Which is why you WON'T answer the question.


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:41 PM)

alang1216 said:


> So you've said.  Have you run an experiment and controlled for every other factor?  If not, I expect this is a climate model you've created.  You may be right but other climate models disagree.


There has never been glaciation at any pole without that pole being thermally isolated from marine currents.  Never.  It's in the geologic record.  The reason why should be self evident.  It's harder for ice to form over water than it is over land.


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:44 PM)

alang1216 said:


> Says who?


The supposed scientific consensus that you keep mentioning as the reason you believe man is responsible for the recent warming trend.

You know....  these guys...


alang1216 said:


> I'm fine admitting I don't know something, that is why I rely on the experts.


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:46 PM)

alang1216 said:


> You put everything on CO2, I don't know if every climate scientist would with you.  Would they?  I admit I don't know, I don't admit that you do, I have yet to see your credentials.


But they absolutely have.  You need to see my credentials to believe the so called scientific experts blame CO2 for the recent warming trend?

I find it odd that you say you rely upon the experts and yet you don't have a clue what the experts are saying.


----------



## ding (Yesterday at 4:47 PM)

alang1216 said:


> I tend to trust the consensus of people who have spent their careers studying that subject.  Trusting an anonymous message board poster would be blindness.


But you still don't know that they believe that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend, right?

What do you know?


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 8:17 PM)

ding said:


> But you still don't know that they believe that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend, right?


The world's cllimate scientists believe it.  What makes you say that he still doesn't know that?


ding said:


> What do you know?


I know that's a stupid question.


----------

