# Proof of AGW fraud



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...



You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming? That those emails exist and are real?

You are aware that the Hockey Stick graph was proven to be false it ignored several major events and had false misleading information in it? That everyone with half a brain agrees that it is discredited and false?

You are aware that AL Gore has been caught lying, misleading and falsifying information on global warming? That he uses resources of something like 30 people all by himself?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...







Try reading the CLIMATEGATE emails mr. PhD.  Go ahead I dare you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...



We can't be held responsible for your deliberate ignorance.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...



Have you bothered to do any Research into the Emails, and the Hockey Stick Graph. Or are you just going by what Far Left Web sites told you to think?

The Emails are pretty damning. Seems pretty clear they were at least Exaggerating the Threat and Danger to keep the Money rolling in, and "alert people to the Problem"

The Hockey Stick Graph Ignored several Key Factors and has been pretty thoroughly Debunk by the Scientific Community.

Gore has been caught in Lies and Distortions and Exaggerations and has in Fact Made over 100 Million dollars off Speaking, and his Movie about GW.


----------



## Valox (Jan 22, 2012)

4) GW is a psyops to help establish a one world government.  Therefore, it is a fraud and should be defeated at every step.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



Lots of people say so. It must be true.



> You are aware that the Hockey Stick graph was proven to be false it ignored several major events and had false misleading information in it? That everyone with half a brain agrees that it is discredited and false?



Lots of people say so. It must be true.



> You are aware that AL Gore has been caught lying, misleading and falsifying information on global warming? That he uses resources of something like 30 people all by himself?



Al Gore uses a lot of carbon, therefore, AGW must be wrong. Duh. That's easy enough.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...




No need to. Lots of people who say they prove fraud told me to read them, so those people must be correct.


----------



## konradv (Jan 22, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



If GHGs are going up, where are they coming from?  You want to talk distortions, how about the way that rise is swept under the rug by the skeptics?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



No need to. Lots of people say those things prove AGW false, so I don't need to do my own research. Hockey stick graph, Al Gore uses lots of gas, and climategate. For crying out loud, its called climateGATE, they wouldn't put the gate on the end if it wasn't true.




> The Emails are pretty damning. Seems pretty clear they were at least Exaggerating the Threat and Danger to keep the Money rolling in, and "alert people to the Problem"


I know, a lot of people say that, it must be true.


> The Hockey Stick Graph Ignored several Key Factors and has been pretty thoroughly Debunk by the Scientific Community.


I know, a lot of people say that, it must be true.


> Gore has been caught in Lies and Distortions and Exaggerations and has in Fact Made over 100 Million dollars off Speaking, and his Movie about GW.


The personal opinions and actions of Al Gore clearly are the most important thing to consider when determining whether or not a scientific theory is supported by the evidence.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

Valox said:


> 4) GW is a psyops to help establish a one world government.  Therefore, it is a fraud and should be defeated at every step.



That's what people are saying. 

and I don't really need to do a lot of reading to know that the climate has changed before, so I just kinda feel like AGW can't be right. It fails to pass my feeling of common sense, and really its sad that scientist would study anything that flies in the face of common sense.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

konradv said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



GHG's have gone up before, haven't they? Therefore I see no reason to analyze that issue any deeper, its obvious it can't be due to man. A lot of people are really skeptical of AGW.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


So you "are you just going by what Far Left Web sites told you to think."


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

konradv said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








I don't know.  Where did they come from before man was even capable of adding to them?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2012)

And a supposed geologist asks a question like that?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



According to Al Gore and his SUV, man made all of them. 

What fraudsters.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







I am happy to see you are finally starting to think for yourself instead of listening to poor scientists promoting their religion!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 22, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





No need to think with myself. I just gotta go with what lots of people are saying. A lot of posters on this board and elsewhere tell me climategate, al gore suv, hockey stick - finally so many of them told me that it just hit me - why think? If lots of people say its so, and some people post links, no need to!


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 23, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



Muir Russell review: full text | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The five key leaked emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 23, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


No need to read them. Lots ofpeople say there's bad stuff in them


----------



## trickydickyUK (Jan 23, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> 3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?



Ask Al Gore about rising sea levels when he has bought an apartment at sea level in San-Francisco. I thing that says it all "don't you?"

Yet people will still live with their heads in the cloud repeating bullshit politics that are dressed up as science.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 23, 2012)

trickydickyUK said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > 3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?
> ...



Sea Level huh?  

Sure he did.  Are you sure that's not ocean view (as opposed to ocean front) property?  That does say alot.....Gracy.....Goodnight.


----------



## trickydickyUK (Jan 23, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> trickydickyUK said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



The point being he is contradicting all he has babbled on about in regards to AGW.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 23, 2012)

trickydickyUK said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > 3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?
> ...



What more proof of AGW fraud do we need? An apartment at SEA LEVEL? The AGW warmists didn't count on us figuring at that crucial piece of evidence, did they? Al Gore hockey stick climategate!!!!


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 23, 2012)

trickydickyUK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > trickydickyUK said:
> ...



No he's not.  The property in San Fran is not at Sea Level.  Your point is a repeated bullshit lie.

A repeated bullshit lie.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 23, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> trickydickyUK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



bet gore burns a lot of gas stupit librul


----------



## BlindBoo (Jan 23, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > trickydickyUK said:
> ...



LOL  I bet he does.....I bet he does.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jan 24, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



He's also fat. If AGW were true - do you think Al Gore would be fat? of course not. you MUST acquit!


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
It is absolute fact.
And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Try doing some research.

False things about climate change you might believe


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Jun 5, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming?



What's the public's email address? I'd like to write an email to the public. Slow drivers in the left lane has been bothering me for years.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.  

CO2 PPM graph:

Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...


and we have a new leader for the moron parade.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Try doing some research.
> 
> False things about climate change you might believe


looking for the e-mails themselves vs. snippets here and there. any idea where those are?

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

interesting read.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...


How fucking stupid are Deniers?

"People say" is proof?

People say Elvis is alive.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2019)

Charles_Main said:


> The Hockey Stick Graph Ignored several Key Factors and has been pretty thoroughly Debunk by the Scientific Community.



Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Just stop


----------



## The Original Tree (Jun 5, 2019)

*Global Warming is like a splinter in your ass that you can't reach and get out yourself.  It's mainly just irritating and generally harmless, and if you are patient, it will simply be dissolved by your body's own defenses.

The only reason The Global Warming Nonsense is still being promoted is because it is big money for people like Al Gore and the Fake Carbon Credit Business, and other hucksters and charlatans and snake oil salesman in academia and government.

Man cannot raise the average temperature of The Earth even by one degree.  But the Earth can all on its own decide to plunge itself in to an Ice Age, or go through a warming trend to bring itself out of an Ice Age.

That is mostly dependent on solar activity or the lack of solar activity, and uncontrollable things like meteorites hitting The Earth and other natural disasters.

Talk about Global Warming when you know True Science is like a splinter in your ass.  The Splinter does not and should not dictate to the entire body what to do, what actions to take, or what to think.   Either you pull the splinter or just ignore it until it goes away.*


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2019)

So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.

Oh...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
> It is absolute fact.
> And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.


Sorry, turd, but your claims are not facts, and plenty of credible people dispute the Chicken Little theory of AGW.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming?
> ...


He didn't say they wrote emails to the public, you astounding dumb fuck.  They wrote emails to each other about the lies they were telling the public, and they were caught.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The Hockey Stick Graph Ignored several Key Factors and has been pretty thoroughly Debunk by the Scientific Community.
> ...


No they don't, shit for brains.  The mostly confirm the existence of the Little Ice Age, which conflicts with the Hockey Stick abracadabra.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


It wasn't "people say," moron.   Their emails were published.  That's what Climategate is all about.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


The hockey stick graph ignores an entire ice age


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Stormy Daniels said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


um...sgt *did* say the people were lying to the public. ie - she wanted to know the publics address so she could write them too.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


And he is brighter than you can even imagine


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

iceberg said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Stormy Daniels said:
> ...


This is what she said:

_"You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming?"_​
She didn't say they wrote emails to the public.  She said they lied to the public and wrote emails to each other talking about it.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


my bad then.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
> It is absolute fact.
> And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.






That is a laughable assertion.  There are thousands of legit scientists who not only doubt AGW dogma, but provide evidence, real, observed, evidence, that the theory is a fraud.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
> It is absolute fact.
> And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.






This too is a lie.  You're not doing well.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 5, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...



Not even a link to some bullshit right wing website?

Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.
> 
> CO2 PPM graph:
> 
> Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph



Exactly.
Case closed.
It is impossible for that nearly 40% CO2 increase to not cause AGW.
We know CO2 has to cause warming, and we know that burning all that fossil fuel adds over 5 trillion tons of carbon a year, to the atmosphere.
And we know it is accumulative, as CO2 is stable and only taken out by things like plants or carbonization of fresh silicate magma.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


  Yres there were e0mail.  E-mails you evidently can not interpret.  Climategate was debunked.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> ...


  Some may question the result but no one is questioning the rise in CO2 concentrations.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



What ice age?


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


please provide debunking link where an objective party reviewed it. i found one that was very biased and quickly moved on.

let's see your unbiased proof it's debunked please.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


your love life?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


Wrong.  There were some sleazy attempts to white wash it, but only the gullible were fooled.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

iceberg said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Try doing some research.
> ...



Read the article and it is completely wrong.
1) Emails contain NO data.
NO data is or ever can be destroyed.
Raw data is always preserved by those who originally captured it and copied to multiple sources, and no manipulation of the raw data is ever allowed, as that would totally nullify its value or ability to trace its history.
Raw data is just useless to disseminate by itself because it always requires context and interpretation that only scientist can do.
2) It is NOT scientists who have politicized AGW because scientists have absolutely no motives or side agendas.  The don't get paid more when they find big problems than when they find everything is fine.
What the emails actually contain, and I know because I have seen them, is cautions and concerns about how scientist have to be careful what they release since data is hard to interpret and there are people deliberately making false conclusions.
Scientists are unused to the politicization and are merely advising each other how to prevent false politicization.
Just look at the article itself.  It makes lots of claims but gives absolutely no real examples of anything.
3)  There is nothing remotely weak about AGW science.  We add over 5 trillion tons of carbon to the air by burning fossil fuels every single year, and CO2 ALWAYS must increase global warming.  The only thing that is weak are future extrapolations as to when accelerations due to the increase of water vapor or melting of methane hydrate will cause a runaway race condition and species extinction.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


 No it doesn't


----------



## RealDave (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yep, you are the gullible.

 Data can need adjusted so it can be blended with other data.

For example, the unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted.  Better start running down the street & screaming "OMG OMG OMG" to that one.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The one 20000 years ago and left a mountain near my nj home


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

The Original Tree said:


> *Global Warming is like a splinter in your ass that you can't reach and get out yourself.  It's mainly just irritating and generally harmless, and if you are patient, it will simply be dissolved by your body's own defenses.
> 
> The only reason The Global Warming Nonsense is still being promoted is because it is big money for people like Al Gore and the Fake Carbon Credit Business, and other hucksters and charlatans and snake oil salesman in academia and government.
> 
> ...



That is a ridiculous lie.  
No academic gets hired based on his AGW views.
Carbon credits was a zero cost transaction idea to get more foreign trade back to the US, by giving 3rd world countries an incentive to rent the ability of the US to do manufacturing cleaner than they could themselves.
No money is ever charged for carbon credits, and it was a totally voluntary system proposal, that never happened.
There was never any profit to be made from stopping AGW or carbon credits.
Anyone who claims there was, is just lying.

Only an idiot would claim humans can not raise the temperature of the eartch by 1 degree because humans are on record for increasing it by 3 degrees already.  We have increased the carbon in the atmosphere by over 40%, by burning fossil fuel that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate.  That is over 5 trillion tons a year.  It is impossible for that NOT to have a huge increase in retained global heat.  It is essentially terrafoming, but in a negative way.  And clearly lots of studies have proved that terraforming is absolutely possible.  

Sure there are natural ice ages and climate changes, but they either take over 120 thousand years for a cycle, or are from big events like comet strikes.  Humans clearly are making changes thousands of times faster than normal ice age cycles, and almost to the speed of a comet strike.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> ...



Who and how?
There is absolutely no question global warming is happening.  The Northwest Passage opening for the first time in 10,000 years is proof enough of that.
So are you saying that is part of some natural cycle, even though we know that the natural ice age cycle is more like 120 thousand years long?
You are making no sense and giving no details to claims that look pretty silly on their own.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


The data was "homogenized" so the cult could lie about it.  They were caught doing it and talking about it in their emails.  What do you imagine "hide the decline" refers to?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Stormy Daniels said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Except that no one has ever found any lies and been able to show them.
You can try to lie by taking emails out of context, but other scientists can do the research and prove you are wrong and there are no lies in the emails by scientests.  They not only have no motive to lie, but with science you can't lie because you will always get caught.  Science always has to face peer review that exposes any lies.  No mistakes on AGW science has ever been revealed.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> ...



So are you really trying to claim that there was a Northwest Passage for easy traversal of shipping over the Arctic Ocean in the 10,000 years before 2007?
That would have to be the single biggest lie I have ever heard anyone ever claim!


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Billyboom said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



OOHPOOPAHDOO was doing satire.
The argument as deliberately pathetic, generalized,  and without any link or substance.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




FactCheck.org says you are totally wrong over a decade ago.
Time for you to move on to something that has not already been so completely debunked.

{...
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.
...}
'Climategate' - FactCheck.org


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Exactly.
Ice ages are about 120 thousand year long cycles that are fairly regular and slow.
While in comparison, we have artificially released over 5 trillion tons of sequestered fossil carbon a years, that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate, and caused as much climate change as an ice age, in less than 200 years.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


And nothing has happened.  The north pole is still frozen as is Antarctica


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Without context you have nothing.  
I could easily come up with a sentence that includes, "hide the decline".
For example, the heat absorbed by the phase change of melting ice would incorrectly make air temperature readings decline from what they would actually mean, so we should hide that decline by adjusting for the energy absorbed by the melting ice.


The problem is you don't understand the data, the process, the science, or anything, but instead already have your mind fixed on what you want instead of reality.  And the reality is that suddenly releasing hundreds of millions of years of fossilized carbon energy MUST cause huge side effects and consequences.  It can't not do that.  And it is up to scientists to predict what the conclusions of those actions will be.  Then we can decide if they are worth the risks, or NOT.  The fact I am in the NOT group does not mean you can't argue against it.  But you have to use science to be worth considering.  Using emails debunks over a decade ago is  just silly.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Wrong.
Every summer, ships now traverse the Northwest Passage.
Are you claiming they don't?
Northwest Passage clear of ice again in 2016 | NOAA Climate.gov

Fresh melt off from Greenland is starting to submerge the Gulf Stream and sent Europe off in a mini ice age.
The Antarctic ice shelf is radidly calving.
Mountain tops are becoming bare.

The changes are dramatic and obvious to anyone.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


There were subs surfaced at an ice free north pole in the 50s.  Furthermore prior to satellite data the ice cover at the north pole was not known.  But you go on pretending

Yawn

Google Image Result for http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uss-skate-open-water.jpg


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 5, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Data can need adjusted so it can be blended with other data.
> 
> For example, the unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted.  Better start running down the street & screaming "OMG OMG OMG" to that one.



No Dave, you don't 'adjust' data and then expect to have a reliable statistical outcome.   This is the problem with AGW, the data is cherry-picked to align with the already determined conclusion.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Data can need adjusted so it can be blended with other data.
> ...


You can not talk sense to a religious zealot


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

{...
*Northwest Passage clear of ice again in 2016*
Author: 
Tom Di Liberto
September 16, 2016



For the last several decades, Earth has had a fever, and it has been spiking in recent years. Nowhere has this been clearer than across the Arctic, where annual average temperature has been warming at twice the rate of lower latitudes. As a result, sea ice has become a dwindling commodityin the far north frequently exposing the southern path through the Northwest Passage—the oft-talked about ship route from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean through the Canadian Arctic.

The Canadian Arctic on August 9, 2016, showing the Northwest Passage nearly free of ice. The "southern route" through the passage, travelled by Roald Amundsen in the early 1900s, is traced in yellow. The more commericaly important "northern route" goes straight through Parry Channel from Lancaster Sound to McClure Strait. NASA/NOAA image from Suomi/NPP satellite.

Cloudless skies across the Arctic on August 9 provided a clear view of open water conditions across the straits that make up the Canadian Arctic. Thinner ice and record-low sea ice extents leading up to the 2016 summer melt season plus warmer oceans during the summer led to well below-average amounts of sea ice across the Arctic. Strong storms during August helped break up and clear out the ice along the southern route of the passage. You can draw a line yourself through iceless seas to create your own path, like finishing a real-time geographic maze.
...}

Northwest Passage clear of ice again in 2016 | NOAA Climate.gov


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> {...
> *Northwest Passage clear of ice again in 2016*
> Author:
> Tom Di Liberto
> ...


It's called Summer.  Its not new either

Remind me when there is no ice in winter


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




Absolute lie.
There was no open water at the North Pole in the 1960s.
The image of open water was on the way TOO the North Pole.
There are people who took snow mobiles to the North Pole, in the summer, even after the 1950s.  They could not have done that if there was ANY possible risk of even a trace of puddles, much less open water.
In fact, it took the USS Natilus days to find a thin vent in the ice so they could break through to the surface.

People always knew what the ice coverage was over the North Pole, because ships were always probing, and natives always traversed for hunting purposes.  And you do NOT need satellites.  We had lots of planes in the 1950s, which vastly superior technology than one can put into a tiny satellite.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




WHAT THE FUCK



So you saying 1950's technology is better than 2019?




How Fucking stupid are you?


.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Data can need adjusted so it can be blended with other data.
> ...



Wrong.
You always have to adjust data.
For example, when you want to check balance of trade against the past, you have to adjust for the increase in GPD  and inflation instead of using gross numbers.
There is no cherry picking with AGW research.  There is absolutely no incentive to do that.  The only ones with a motive to lie are the ones making profits from  selling fossil fuels.  Scientists are not paid more for findings on AGW.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > {...
> ...




Wrong.
There were summers before 2007, but no Northwest Passage.
There has not been a Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years, until now.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


I proved the pole was ice free in 1958

Next


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



That is a deliberate attempt to lie.
What I said is that plane based instruments are vastly superior to satellites because they are closer, heavier, etc.  
The year is irrelevant.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




You have a picture of that 10,000 years ago?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


That's utter bullshit.  Michael Mann cherry picked the tree ring studies he used.  The frauds who "homogenize" the temperature data cherry pick which stations they use.  They also modify the data from the ones they do pick.   

You're totally delusional about what goes on in the climate fraud industry.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Absolute lie.
> There was no open water at the North Pole in the 1960s.
> The image of open water was on the way TOO the North Pole.
> There are people who took snow mobiles to the North Pole, in the summer, even after the 1950s.  They could not have done that if there was ANY possible risk of even a trace of puddles, much less open water.
> ...



Thanks for proving global climate is cyclical and there is nothing we humans can do to stop it.  Instead of trying to blame humans (for fun and profit) may I suggest actually studying the climate so we can protect ourselves from natural cyclical changes?    It's like studying asteroids to see if they will eventually target Earth.  No one blames humans for asteroids but we are looking for ways to protect us from a devastating collision.  Of course, give the radical lefties enough time and they will find a way to blame humans for everything that happens in space too.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




In 1959, the USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole, and reported this :

_“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick.”_


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




Lie? This is your Quote


We had lots of planes in the 1950s, which vastly superior technology than one can put into a tiny satellite.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



It is misleading to compare 'balance of trade' statistical conclusions to 'climate change.'   These are two different sets of data and different fields of study.  As far as 'no incentive' may I remind you that there is a whole industry around so-called 'climate change.'      There is absolutely every incentive to cherry-pick data in order to keep the tax dollars coming.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> We know CO2 has to cause warming, and we know that burning all that fossil fuel adds over 5 trillion tons of carbon a year, to the atmosphere.
> And we know it is accumulative, as CO2 is stable and only taken out by things like plants



We also know we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels.

"An ideal solution is to put the carbon back where it came from?into coal seams, old oil and gas fields, or deep, porous rock formations. This process, called geologic sequestration, is already being used in the North Sea. One particular field yields gas that is heavily contaminated with naturally occurring carbon dioxide which is filtered out and injected into a sandstone formation half a mile below the seafloor. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Energy is planning its own test project in West Virginia, drilling a 10,000 foot well in order to pump carbon dioxide into the deep rock. Although it is uncertain as to how these projects will fare in the long run, the North Sea project continues eight years later and has been effective in sealing 6 million tons of carbon dioxide to date."

The Missing Carbon Sink - The Environmental Literacy Council


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...








The Russians were able to traverse it in the 1880's for one case.  You need to read some history, not the made up crap the globull warmers fill your head with, dude.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 5, 2019)

For a minute there, I was worried this thread would make me think. Whew!


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...








What's funny is you don't even look that the passage wasn't even truly clear.  In every case the merchant ships needed a ice breaker in attendance to make sure they could get through.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...








That is called scientific FRAUD, dude.  RAW data should never be adjusted.  When it is there is only one cause, they are committing fraud.


----------



## The Original Tree (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
> 
> Oh...


*No, I am saying it is not happening at all.  We don't even have accurate global temperature records going back even 50 years.  Everything else from 40 years ago and older is all theoretical projections on sketchy data.

It's probably easier to prove Big Foot is real than Man Made Global Warming is real.




*


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



I have grown weary of Rigby5 statements, which has ranged from absurd to sheer ignorance.

Here he make clear he doesn't know there were hundreds of years at a time in the early part of the interglacial period to the MWP time frame, that showed little to NO Summer ice cover. Yes there are a number of science papers on this, even SSDD showed one in another thread recently. Here I post a couple showing this actually happened:

Birds and Climatic Change

Kenneth Williamson (1975) Birds and Climatic Change, Bird Study, 22:3,143-164, DOI: 10.1080/00063657509476459

Published online: 24 Jun 2009

“HISTORICAL REVIEW

Between 1000 and 1300 average summer temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. Eric the Red, a renowned world citizen of that time, has been much maligned as the first progressive publicity man for giving Greenland a false image in order to attract settlers; but in truth, the southwest of that vast country was warmer and greener by far than at any time until the Fieldfares Turdus pilaris arrived there in the mid-1930s. The sea-temperature of the Atlantic was higher than it has been since, and there appears to have been none or very little ice to hinder the Vikings’ communications between Iceland, Greenland,Newfoundland and Labrador (Mowat 1965). Indeed Brooks (1926) considers thatthe polar ice-cap may have disappeared entirely during the summer months, tobuild anew each winter.”

and,

New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling

December 2010

Martin Jackobsson, et al

Abstract

Terrestrial and marine geological archives in the Arctic contain information on environmental change through Quaternary interglacial–glacial cycles. The Arctic Palaeoclimate and its Extremes (APEX) scientific network aims to better understand the magnitude and frequency of past Arctic climate variability, with focus on the “extreme” versus the “normal” conditions of the climate system. One important motivation for studying the amplitude of past natural environmental changes in the Arctic is to better understand the role of this region in a global perspective and provide base-line conditions against which to explore potential future changes in Arctic climate under scenarios of global warming. In this review we identify several areas that are distinct to the present programme and highlight some recent advances presented in this special issue concerning Arctic palaeo-records and natural variability, including spatial and temporal variability of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Arctic Ocean sediment stratigraphy, past ice shelves and marginal marine ice sheets, and the Cenozoic history of Arctic Ocean sea ice in general and Holocene oscillations in sea ice concentrations in particular. The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
==================================================================

CO2 level was NEVER a factor in all those far lower Summer sea ice level during the Holocene.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 5, 2019)

The Original Tree said:


> We don't even have accurate global temperature records going back even 50 years. Everything else from 40 years ago and older is all theoretical projections on sketchy data.



Yep.  I remember growing up in the 60's in the freezing cold asking "Momma?  How cold is it?"

"I don't know Son, they haven't invented the thermometer yet."

But it was damn cold that year.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

The Original Tree said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
> ...



Which one is big foot


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You can't compare data with economics, what the hell?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

konradv said:


> If GHGs are going up, where are they coming from?  You want to talk distortions, how about the way that rise is swept under the rug by the skeptics?



Have you read lately about the fact that science has acknowledged that they have "grossly underestimated" the amount of CO2 being emitted by under sea volcanoes?  For decades they claimed that volcanoes didn't put much CO2 into the atmosphere and they based their claims on 6 or 8 land volcanoes known to be active.  Turns out that there are estimated to be more than a million undersea vents and volcanoes...some rising more than a kilometer off the sea floor...and it is very well possible that tens or hundreds of thousands of them are actively venting CO2 24/7/365...  You want a source for some additional CO2...look no further than that.

Hell, for that matter, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of us, with all of our industry, and every other living creature on earth combined...a slight upward shift in termite population could easily have a significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2...

The fact is, konrad is that the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...termites, volcanoes, decay of organic materials, outgassing, etc, etc is more than twice the amount of CO2 that humans produce.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It is all he has and apparently he thinks an appeal to sarcasm is an adequate defense of his position...sad...but that is what their side has been reduced to.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Ha ha, so much ignorance you have. It was passed through in a SINGLE season in 1944 and other trips before that happened too:

From Geology.com

Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and his crew were the first to cross the Northwest Passage entirely by sea in 1906. Although the crossing was an important "first," it had little economic value because the journey took three years and used waters that were too shallow for commercial shipping.

and,

The first single-season trip through the passage was by Henry Larsen and crew in 1944.  

and,

In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters - Storis, Bramble, and SPAR - became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep draft route. They covered the 4,500 miles of semi-charted water in 64 days.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Liar.

The wiki page clearly says that image was:
USS Skate (SSN-578) - Wikipedia
{... USS _Skate_ – Skate (SSN-578) in August 1958, possibly at Drifting Ice Station Alfa.  ...}
And the captain of the USS Skate specifically stated there was heavy ice and they were unable to surface near the pole.
{..._Skate_ was unable to surface precisely at the Pole on the August voyage due to dangerous ice conditions as noted in the captain's 1960 book, _Surface at the Pole: The Extraordinary Voyages of the USS_ Skate,[4] where Calvert said, "Seldom had the ice seemed so heavy and so thick as it did in the immediate vicinity of the pole. For days we had searched in vain for a suitable opening to surface in."[5] The closest was to make radio contact at the surface from a polynya around 30 nm away, but not to surface fully owing to the risk of damage from ice.[4] _Skate_ did manage to surface and make contact with Drifting Ice Station Alpha at 85ºN, 300 nm away.
...}

And obviously planes and subs can do much BETTER ice analysis than satellites, which are much too FAR AWAY!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
> It is absolute fact.
> And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.


\

You seem to be wrong on everything you say...where do you get all your bullshit?  Or do you just make it up as you go?










Here is the Sea Dragon and her sister ship the Skate at the north pole in 1959






And as you have been shown, the peer reviewed literature says that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
> 
> Oh...



Who ever said that the earth isn't warming?  It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and it still isn't as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age...what would make anyone think that it won't warm up at least to the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




Totally wrong.  You clearly either did not read or did not understand what you were supposed to read.
There has always been ways by hugging along the coast, dependent on warmer rivers to break ice, or by using Coast Guard Cutters that can break through ice.  That is NOT a commercial Northwest Passage.  
All you have to do is read where is says, "64 days".  A real Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean should only take about 5 days or so.  It is not long if the ice allows a straight shot.  When one is talking about 64 days, that is either slow ice breaking, or zigzagging while hugging the coast.
Think a little before writing next time.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



the whole point of that graph was to try and make the roman warm period, the minoan warm period, and the medieval warm periods disappear..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> iceberg said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Here..is just one email out of thousands...in this one, the "scientists" admit to fabricating data and stated that they had great fun doing it.

This is from Goeff Jenkiins...he was head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. In this email, he is writing to Phil Jones at East Anglia.

_“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information_ [via Australia], *“inventing” the December monthly value*_, letters to _Nature_, etc., etc. I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time... We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall _[of the United Nations Environment Program]_ (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. *We could also give this to Neville Nicholls* _[climate scientist at Melbourne’s Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre]_?… I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but it’s just meant to save time in the long run”._

Saving time by simply making up temperature data...the fraud has been going on for a very long time and it just gets more blatant all the time.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> ...



Liar.
Again, these images are NOT at the North Pole, but at  Drifting Ice Station Alpha at 85ºN, 300 nm away.

Try to do some reading from more than a single source next time.
Anyone can claim an image is from somewhere else, but the history records are clear that no one was able to surface at the North Pole until after the year 2000.

Here is the real description of the USS Skates 2nd pole trip, where it did surface.

{...
While the _Skate_ was unable to surface on its first voyage to the pole, on 17 March 1959, she became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole with Calvert describing the historic moment in his book, saying, "Slowly we blew the tanks and the Skate moved reluctantly upward. It was apparent we were under heavier ice here than any we had experienced before." While at the pole, Calvert and the crew planted an American Flag in a cairn they built out of ice blocks and put a waterproof container in the cairn with a note commemorating the event. The crew also held a ceremony for the late Arctic explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins and committed his ashes at the pole.[8] In 1931, Sir Hubert had conducted an Arctic expedition in the disarmed research submarine _Nautilus_ (ex-USS _O-12_). After reaching the Pole, the Skate continued its mission to pioneer arctic operations during periods of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. When the submarine returned to port, she was awarded a bronze star in lieu of a second Navy Unit Commendation for demonstrating "... for the first time the ability of submarines to operate in and under the Arctic ice in the dead of winter...." In the fall of 1959 and in 1960, _Skate_ participated in exercises designed to strengthen American antisubmarine defenses.
...}






Obviously there was NO clear open water.  It was all iced over.

An NO ONE with any sense would ever claim there is more ice now than in the last 10,000 years.
Clearly all the data says the ice is now less than ever in the last 10,000 years.
The data shown before was showing ice core samples from Greenland, and that has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with floating ice that is totally dependent on ocean water temperatures and nothing at all to do with land temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




Here are graphs from 3 separate peer reviewed, published studies...as you can see, the ice extent is greater now than it has been at any time in the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age which we are still in the process of warming out of...

Not only was the northwest passage open, but according to these graphs, practically the whole arctic circle was open to navigation during the summer as it was most likely ice free .

Now feel free to deny peer reviewed, published literature in favor of your beliefs...


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
> ...



That is idiotic.

It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again.  And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.

You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.

And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You are absolutely laughable...and do feel free to provide some of this "data" that you claim says that the ice is less now than it has been for the last 10,000 years.  I have provided at least 3 peer reviewed published studies that say otherwise and so far all you have done is make claims that you can't back up...


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are you an idiot?

Clearly the scale on the Holocene is 10,000 years, so there is no way anyone could see the classic hockey stick of the last 30 years or so.
Nor is there anyway anyone could produce hard data over ocean ice coverage.  That would be impossible.  They would have to be guessing based on land ice core samples, which are not really valid at all for floading ice, that are much more dependent upon things like currents.

Don't you know anything about climate or history?
Of course all the graphs should show that the climate is supposed to be getting colder over the last 10,000 years.
The last ice age was over a long time ago, and we now are supposed to be entering into the next one.  It is supposed to be getting colder.
But the HOCKEY STICK is the fact the last 50 years are NOT getting colder as it should, but it is getting MUCH warmer instead.

You really should not put up data you have no understanding of.
You have not proved anything except how little you know about anything.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



So you are a science denier...  Got it.  You will deny any and everything that doesn't agree with what you believe...and apparently what you believe is not based on any sort of science because you don't seem to be able to produce anything like actual science to support your claims.

And by the way...it was nice of you to demonstrate that you can't read even a simple graph.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, you did not show that there is more ice now.
There is NO ice data from before there were planes and submarines to explore the ice.
And the graphs you did show were of such as large scale that they do not at all show the last 50 years.
They hardly even show the last 1000 years.
You clearly do not know how to read a graph at all.
As what you published shows you are totally wrong.

It is easy show the real data.
Here is one that at first glance appears similar to what you posted.




But look closer.
The Hockey Stick is visible.
If you look along the right edge on the Temperature Anomaly axis, you will see the year 2016 with an arrow point to a point on the axis, very close to 1 degree above the dotted median of the axis.  That clearly is higher than almost every single spike anywhere during  the entire Holocene.
Anyone then who does not recognize this as an enormous hockey stick, would have to be blind, stupid, and irrational.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are an idiot.
Obviously there can not be actual floating ice coverage data of any accuracy for more than 60 years or so.  
Your graphs are fake suppositions and NOT at all measured real data.
They can't be real.
With the ocean melt off since 2007, there is no ancient floating Arctic ice to collect or measure.  And even worse, is that according to you, there never was.  According to you there could not ever have been any ancient Arctic floating ice samples because it was always too warm.
So then you clearly have to be lying.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...







And YOU have been ignoring that your so called open Northwest passage has had a ice breaker WITH them to clear the ice.  Talk about a liar, you are a bad one at that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...







How old do you think the oldest ice is in the Arctic?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Clearly in the image that is NOT open water.
Those are melt off pools on top of thicker ice that would prevent any ship passage. 
Clearly the submarines looked for thin ice and punched up through ice that still covered the Arctic Ocean.
While things were already warming up from AGW since 1840, in 1987 there clearly was still no open passage through the Arctic ice.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You proved you are a liar.
The 1958 log by the captain of the USS Nautilus said the ice at the pole was too thick to surface at all.
The 1959 voyage from the USS Skate also said the pole was NOT open then either, but at least he was able to break through it.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



The subs surfaced at the geographic north pole, get over it you are a religious fool of the climate cult


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Grow up dork
USS Skate SSN-578 First submarine to surface at the North Pole

*FIRST SUBMARINE TO SURFACE AT THE NORTH POLE*

*Information below was copied from the USS SKATE page of Joel Jensen*

*More SKATE info via SUBNET*



*USS SKATE (SSN-578) History*

*USS SKATE (SSN-578) was the third submarine to bear this name and the third nuclear powered submarine constructed by the United States. Her namesake in World War 2 conducted seven war patrols and later served as a target ship for the atomic bomb test at Bikini in 1946.*

*The keel of the SSN-578 was laid down on July 21, 1955, at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics corporation in Groton, CT. The ship was launched May 16, 1957, by Mrs. Lewis L. Strauss, whose husband was then chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. SKATE was commissioned seven months ahead of schedule on December 23, 1957, under the command of Commander James F. Calvert, USN.*

*During the first months after joining the Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, SKATE completed a shakedown cruise to northern European ports and participated in a fleet exercise that included a thirty-one day period of complete submergence, sealed off from the earth's atmosphere.*

*In August 1958, SKATE made her first cruise to the Arctic where she operated under the ice packs for ten days. During this period she surfaced nine times through openings in the ice, became the second ship to reach the North Pole, and successfully navigated over 2,400 miles beneath the ice. On her return to the United States, the ship was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation for "... braving the hazards of the polar ice pack..."*

*In March 1959, SKATE again headed north, this time to pioneer arctic submarine operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. In twelve days under the pack, SKATE forced her was up through the thin ice to the surface ten times and steamed over 3,000 miles. In a dramatic high of this cruise, on March 17, 1959, SKATE became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole... Where the ashes of famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins were committed to the arctic waste. On her return to port, SKATE was awarded a Bronze Star in lieu of a second Navy Unit Commendation for demonstrating "...for the first time the ability of submarines to operate in and under the arctic ice in the dead of winter..."*

*From January to August 1961, SKATE underwent her first overhaul at Electric Boat Division, Groton, Connecticut. Skate's reactor was refueled for the first time after more than three years of operations.*

*In July 1962, SKATE again charted a course from New London, Connecticut to the North Pole, while the USS SEADRAGON (SSN-584) departed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and headed North. This trip was marked by the rendezvous of SKATE and SEADRAGON in the arctic ice region. After the historic meeting, SKATE and SEADRAGON operated together for over a week. One operation included a double surfacing at the North Pole.*

*SKATE underwent he second regular overhaul from April 1965 to September 1967 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia after nearly four years of Atlantic Fleet operations. This overhaul included her second nuclear refueling in seven years of operations.*

*SKATE was assigned to Submarine Development Group TWO in January 1968 and participated in the development of new tactics and equipment.*

*SKATE deployed to the Mediterranean in October 1968 to participate in NATO exercises.*

*In March and April 1969, SKATE returned to the Arctic to conduct submerged operations under the polar ice pack in company with PARGO (SSN-650) and WHALE (SSN-638). During this trip new concepts of submarine polar tactics were researched. SKATE received Meritorious Unit Commendations for her participation in the 1970 SQUEEZE PLAY exercises and for her arctic operations with HAMMERHEAD.*

*SKATE underwent her third refueling overhaul from February 1971 to September 1973 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia. After completing overhaul, SKATE was assigned to Submarine Squadron Two and home-ported at the Naval Submarine base, New London, Connecticut.*

*Early in September 1974, SKATE left New London to participate in a major NATO exercise in the North Atlantic and then continued on to the Mediterranean in October and returned to New London in late January 1975.*

*During 1974 SKATE was assigned to Command Second Fleet in evaluation of the Interim Sea Control Ship. During April and May 1975, SKATE was again involved in tactical development as she successfully conducted SSN swimmer operation while participating in exercise SOLID SHIELD. SKATE's anti-submarine warfare capabilities were lauded when she was awarded Submarine Squadron TWO ASW "A" in July 1975.*

*Early in September 1975 SKATE left New London to participate in operation UNITAS XVI, being the first nuclear ship to participate to participate in this annual exercise. SKATE toured ports in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Trinidad, and Venezuela and returned to New London, Connecticut in early 1975.*

*In April 1976, SKATE deployed to the Mediterranean. After deployment, SKATE conducted various exercises including the training of SEAL teams, Special Forces, and Marine Force Reconnaissance Troops.*

*On October 17, 1977, SKATE left New London to join Submarine Squadron SEVEN in the Pacific Fleet. SKATE arrived at her new homeport, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on November 24, 1977.*

*SKATE underwent her fourth overhaul from February 1978 to July 1979 at Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.*

*In September 1979, SKATE deployed to EASTPAC for a shakedown cruise and participation in Fleet Exercise 2-79. Since that time she participated in RIMPAC 1980, CNO Special Projects, ASW Exercises and mine-laying operations Type Training.*

*In July 1980, SKATE made her first Western Pacific Deployment. She operated with units of the U.S. Seventh Fleet and Allied Navies and returned to port on December 23, 1980, the 23rd anniversary of her commissioning.*

*SKATE received the 1980 Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Golden Anchor Award for enlisted retention excellence and the 1981 Commander Submarine Squadron SEVEN Damage Control "DC" and Supply "E" awards.*

*SKATE made her second Western Pacific deployment in 1982, her third in 1983-1984 and her fourth and final in 1985.*

*SKATE was decommissioned in 1986 and was recycled in 1993.*


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



When there was permanent ocean ice, as there was before 1950 for example, you could take cores, and determine age.
That easily made if possible to determine when the ocean has last been open water.
But that ONLY works as long as there was no open water at all.
Once there is open water, than there is no ancient ice to core and measure from.
So according to you, there is no way to tell.
The ONLY want to tell what the past floating ice history was is if there was no open water melt off.
And ice core can give you a picture of 10,000 years ago, but only if there had never been any melt off.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



LOL permanent ocean ice at the north pole...………….It melts every summer kid, the parts that don't melt move.  You are playing with yourself in public


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Absolute lie.
> ...



Nonsense.
Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.
The current warming is not at all natural, much too fast, and at the wrong time.
So clearly we did cause it by adding 5 trillion tons of previously sequestered fossil fuel into the atmosphere every single year.
And that means we can also stop it by reducing our carbon output and encouraging more plants to absorb the excess we created.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Macro climate cycles are not regular, but you keep making up stuff


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Currently the oldest ice in the Arctic Ocean is only about 50 years old, there is very little of that left, and soon there will not be any.

The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov

{...
*The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing*
*...}*
December 13, 2016


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Yes subs can surface though several feet of ice at the North Pole.
So what?
It was not open water, and now it is.
That is called a difference.
See how that works?

Only a child would not remember the images of the 1950s Arctic summer expeditions.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




Are you an idiot?
Clearly your own post and quote says the USS Skate had to break through ice to get to the surface.  There was no open water back then at the pole.
There is now.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Not it did not!
Haven't you read anything anyone has posted so far.
Ice at the North Pole NEVER use to melt off in the summer.
It never melted off at all.
It stayed frozen over for ove 10,000 years.
There was no Northwest Passage for any commercial shipping, even in summer.
There was only zigzay coast hugging, that took way too long, or ice breakers.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Look kid there are photos of the OPEN WATER

You really are not that bright are you?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



That is just a lie.
There have been over 12 regular macro climate cycles called ice ages.
They are all about the same length and intensity, going back over a million years.
Before that thing were not as regular, but that like was due to additional heat from catastrophic events, as well as lingering heat from the gravitational condensation of planet, and its radioactive element decay.






Interglacial - Wikipedia


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Are you handicapped


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Wrong again doofus because the last ice age actually lasted 1.8 million years before cresting 20000 years ago

Are you handicapped?

*The last Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene Epoch, began almost 1.8 million years ago and lasted until approximately 11,700 years ago.* During this time, massive glaciers covered most of the surface of the Earth. There have been four known Ice Ages on Earth in the 4.6 billion years that the planet has existed. It is very possible that there were many more that occurred that are undocumented from before the advent of mankind, about 2.3 million years ago.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



I already found the actual description of what you are claiming is the USS Skate that the North Pole in 1959, and proved that the image was NOT at the North Pole.

I am not going to look it up again and again post the correct caption.
You look it up.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



There are 4 known ice ages kid

You are handicapped


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




Are you an idiot?
Look in the background.
Do you see open water?
No, you see solid snow and ice.
That means these 2 subs shown broke through ice and when to a pool of melt off on top of the ice.
If that were open water, there would be clear water as far as the eye could see.
But that is assuming this even was at the north pole, of which there is no evidence.  Images can be anywhere.  What one needs is a logs.  And all the logs we have seen on wiki say they all had to break through thick standing ice.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



LOL like Al Gore proved that all the North Pole ice would be melted in 2010 and no child would ever see snow

Seriously kid you are mentally ill and delusional if you think you can recreate history

There is also video of the skate surfacing at the North Pole in March at the end of winter when the ice is at its thickest

skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video

But you stay there in denial


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



What does that have to do with the picture at the North Pole?


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You are a delusional fool this is March at 40 below zero
skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



That is the North Pole in March before the Summer thaw


skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



If you prefer to use the term interglacial period instead of ice age, that is fine.
Doesn't matter to me at all.
The point is that there have been over 12 interglacial periods, they last about 120,000 years long, and according to their natural cycle, we are no naturally supposed to be cooling.
It changes nothing except to confuse average people who talk about the last ice age of the mammoths and mastodons, instead of calling it the more accurate, last interglacial period.

It does not change the fact that natural climate periods are on the order of a hundred thousand years long, so our current warming of the same magnitude in less than 150 years can not possibly be natural.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



That video was taken in March before the Summer thaw, September and October have the least ice


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




Looking at that news real it sure looks thin..


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



It is thin because the ocean moves, it can not get very thick


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




Huh?

The great Sahara Desert changed from tropical to dry in only a few hundred years.

Man wasn't driving cars then.

.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



You assessment is not accurate.
The captain of the USS Skate explained that ocean movement of the ice would crack open fissures, but that was not melt-off and it quickly refroze over.  So clearly it was much, much colder than compared to now.
About 11 degree colder in fact.

{...
“the _Skate_ found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. 
...}


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



From POST 29, you wrote:

"And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice. Now you can. In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years."

Then you wrote this later:

"Who and how?
There is absolutely no question global warming is happening. The Northwest Passage opening for the first time in 10,000 years is proof enough of that.
So are you saying that is part of some natural cycle, even though we know that the natural ice age cycle is more like 120 thousand years long?
You are making no sense and giving no details to claims that look pretty silly on their own."

Now you move the goalpost, changed part of your 10,000 year claim to include SHIPPING:

So are you really trying to claim that there was a Northwest Passage for easy traversal of *shipping* over the Arctic Ocean in the 10,000 years before 2007?
That would have to be the single biggest lie I have ever heard anyone ever claim! "

_bolding mine
_
Then again your incorrect statement

"Wrong.
There were summers before 2007, but no Northwest Passage.
There has not been a Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years, until now."

Then this latest dishonest statement:

 "Totally wrong. You clearly either did not read or did not understand what you were supposed to read.
There has always been ways by hugging along the coast, dependent on warmer rivers to break ice, or by using Coast Guard Cutters that can break through ice. That is NOT a commercial Northwest Passage.
All you have to do is read where is says, "64 days". A real Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean should only take about 5 days or so. It is not long if the ice allows a straight shot. When one is talking about 64 days, that is either slow ice breaking, or zigzagging while hugging the coast.
Think a little before writing next time. "

First, no mention of commercial shipping " will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice. Now you can. In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years." that was YOUR FIRST post on this.

I gave you evidence that NP was indeed traversed in 1944, you realizing you were wrong, moved the goalpost to add the commercial shipping idea. You claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE to traverse it until 2007. 

You are a proven liar and stupid too boot.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



6 inches is less than 2 feet thick, the video shows 6 to 10 inches.  The video was taken in March which is right before the beginning of the Summer thaw the point of MOST ice.  You really need to get a grip, the North pole ice cap always moves and heaves ice cores would never ever show sedimentary layers.  That happens on glacial ice.  But you go right on making up stuff like Gore did, you are not mocking me


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Hey dude, no picking on my retard...…………..

he he he


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



That has NOTHING to do with climate.
That was just weather.
And weather is very fickle, subject to many different combinations of accidental events.

Weather is the inconsistent lack of uniformity in atmospheric energy and moisture. 

In contract, climate is the sum of all weather, where everything evens out.

But the Sahara has its own unique and strange weather history that has nothing to go with global climate.  And it did not go from tropical to dry, but dry to topical and back to dry.

{...
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.

During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.

The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal _Science_.

*When the rains came*

Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
...}

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything.  all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...

You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Are you an idiot?
> 
> Clearly the scale on the Holocene is 10,000 years, so there is no way anyone could see the classic hockey stick of the last 30 years or so.
> Nor is there anyway anyone could produce hard data over ocean ice coverage.  That would be impossible.  They would have to be guessing based on land ice core samples, which are not really valid at all for floading ice, that are much more dependent upon things like currents.



You are so far off that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself...you claim that we can't do temperature reconstructions, or ice cover reconstructions in one breath, then in the other you claim that you know what the climate is supposed to be doing apparently based on some temperature reconstruction which you claim can't be accurate.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Exactly.
The USS Skate documented heavy ice, and no open water.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




Wait so the huge Sahara has nothing to do with climate change but artic ice does?


You stupid


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




The news real showed otherwise.


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> No, you did not show that there is more ice now.
> There is NO ice data from before there were planes and submarines to explore the ice.
> And the graphs you did show were of such as large scale that they do not at all show the last 50 years.
> They hardly even show the last 1000 years.
> ...



What a doofus...clearly you don't even know what the hockey stick is...and that graph doesn't show one...what that graph shows is that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  It shows the same thing as the graphs that I have been showing you, and in case you didn't know, when it is warmer, there is going to be less ice.....or do you think that ice didn't melt when it was warmer in the past.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Didn't you even read?
It clearly said an average of 6 to 8 feet of ice over the whole Arctic region.
The video does not show 6 to 10 inches on average.  
If there is a recent fissure, you can get thinner ice, but it quickly thickens up through refreezing from the cold.
The POINT is that now open water is NOT from fissures, but by MELTING!
Can't you understand the incredible difference in temperature?
The Arctic is now 11 degrees warmer, on average.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Your graphs are fake suppositions and NOT at all measured real data.



So you claim to know what the climate has been like for the past 10,000 years...what measured data are you using to tell what the climate might have been like more than 100 years ago?  More than 500 years ago?  More than 5000 years ago?

You are contradicting yourself all the time but are apparently to oblivious to what you are saying to realize it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Let me guess since we only have less then 50 years worth of data you still think it's enough to claim we have global data going back a 100 years?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.



What measured data are you using to determine how long natural climate cycles are?  You just claimed that if it isn't actually measured data, then it can't be real.  So who was measuring the onset of ice ages 120,000 years ago?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists

{... 
*'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists*

Danish and US researchers say warmer air and sea surface could lead to record lows of sea ice at north pole next year

The Arctic is experiencing extraordinarily hot sea surface and air temperatures, which are stopping ice forming and could lead to record lows of sea ice at the north pole next year, according to scientists.

Danish and US researchers monitoring satellites and Arctic weather stations are surprised and alarmed by air temperatures peaking at what they say is an unheard-of 20C higher than normal for the time of year. In addition, sea temperatures averaging nearly 4C higher than usual in October and November.

“It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university.

Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.
...}


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Currently the oldest ice in the Arctic Ocean is only about 50 years old, there is very little of that left, and soon there will not be any.
> 
> The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov
> 
> ...



Ocean ice is at best temporary in nature because it moves around...there is, however ice above the Arctic circle that is more than one million years old, and it is with ice cores taken from that very old ice that we get our best glimpses of what the past climate was like.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> 'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
> 
> {...
> *'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists*
> ...



Let me guess...newspapers like the guardian are where you get your "science" from.  Is that science in your mind?  Do you think newspaper articles are more accurate than peer reviewed, published scientific papers?  Do you deny actual science in favor of newspaper articles?


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Ya know what's cooler, the astrophysicist working on the mathematical formula for the big bang who discovered that their formula predicts that 85 percent of the universe is missing.....

Or in a sane persons view, the equation is wrong


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > 'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
> ...


There are no scientific papers that have any reliable proof of past earth temps needed to say that temps are rising faster now....

Just the way it is


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Your post just reminds me of I was just reading about the bullet holes in the universe yesterday.


*Something* is blasting "cosmic bullet holes" through our galaxy


We don’t know what it is. We don’t even know if it’s made of regular matter — but we do know that _something _blasted a series of holes through some stars in the Milky Way.



It’s a dense bullet of something,” said Ana Bonaca, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who discovered evidence of the impactor.

Bonaca analyzed a series of stars called GD-1 — a very long, thin, Milky Way star stream. GD-1 stars have been studied ever since they were discovered in 2006, and Bonaca has been using data from the recently launched Gaia telescope to analyze them in more detail, finding something bizarre smack in the middle of the stream.


[*px !important;">[/iframe]
This type of stellar stream is created by the tidal (gravitational) force of the Milky Way, which bends and stretches the stream, producing a gap about midway through the stream.

But when Bonaca looked at GD-1 more recently, she found a second gap — and a weird one at that. The second gap is not smooth as the first one but has a ragged edge — as if something was shot through it.*


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Lol as if something went thru our sun the hole would stay visible.  It's kind of sad really but for all the knowledge of the human race today, we know no more about what we are or where we came from than a neandertall


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented.  There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


The climate chaotic.  The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical.  This is chaotic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you an idiot?
> ...




Wrong.

I said that if there were open water in the arctic ocean, that then would have no way to get a record of past ocean ice earlier than that.
The ONLY way you can have a record of past ocean ice is if it never, ever, melts off.

So it is only you have have a contradiction.

What I said about your graphs is that since they likely were made after the melt offs of 2007, they likely are not actual data, but instead guesses based on land ice cores from Greenland or some place like that.  That could be totally wrong, because land and ocean temperatures can be vastly different.

But the over all is that it is supposed to be cooling now.  The arctic ice should be increasing.  The Arctic ice was increasing for the last 7000 years, until only very recently.  In just the last couple years, Arctic temps are about 11 degrees above normal.  That is scientific fact that no one can deny.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense.
> ...



Ice  cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.
If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data.  And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Wrong simpleton, earth temps have been rising for 20000 years, you babble about 2007 as though that was a long time ago


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps

You really are special


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



That is ridiculous.  At about 30 seconds into the news real, it said there was absolutely no open water near the pole, and they had to break through the ice.  There was NEVER any open water shown anywhere near to the Arctic region.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


It was March simpleton not Sept or Oct 

You are aware of seasons right


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...




You call a few inches heavy ice?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > No, you did not show that there is more ice now.
> ...



No, it is clear you do not understand graphs.
The scale of the graph is a span of 10,000 years, so the blip of the hockey stick tip is totally invisible.  You can't see it.  The interval of the last 1000 years worth of data totally overwhelms it and averages it out of existence on the graph.
The ONLY way we can tell where the hockey stick tip extends, is that they put an arrow with the year 2016 pointing near to the 1 degree increase mark, on the far right axis.  

Of course the last 1000 years have been cooler than the 7000 years preceding that.  It is supposed to be cooler.  We are supposed to have ended the warming at the end of the last interglacial period, and and starting to be cooling off again.  But the last 50 years are what is wrong.  They are NOT cooling, but heating higher than anything else on the entire graph. Such quick changes do NOT show up on graphs that have too great of a span of time as the scale.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That is not at all true.
Night is completely different from day, but it is not at all chaotic.  Change that is regular and predictable cycles is not chaotic.  Things that influence climate are not at all chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, but climate is not at all chaotic, unless something additional is added, like a comet strike or humans burning billions of tons of additional carbon a year.  Humans and comets are chaotic, not normal climate influences.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.


Yea...over thousands of years...not decades


Frannie said:


> Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not temps



You friggin dolt. It's not that it IS ice...but what is in the ice that is measuredIceCore.htm

IceCore.htm


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Wrong.  Earth temperatures were rising about 20,000 years ago, but have been cooling for the last 7,000 or so.
The whole point is that 2007 was not long ago.
Changes now are happening much faster than they ever normally could.
So clearly the increase in the speed of change shows an additional artificial force, mainly, humans burning hundreds of millions of years of sequestered fossil fuel in only a few decades.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Wrong.  The depth of the layer indicates precip, but the type of ice indicates temperature.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago, your 120000 year cycle is pure nonsense


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So March would expect more ice than Sept, but very little difference.
Back then the ice did not melt, so there was a very thick layer of perennial ice that never melted of could have melted.
No one said it was Sept or Oct.
The point is no US ship or anyone else saw any open water at any time of the year back then, (except immediately following a new fissure).
That is completely different now, with very little ice remaining in summer, and almost all of it melting off.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.
> ...


Actually over millions of years kid


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Who was there to measure the melt....

No one so you are jerking your pud again


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



The news reel said the ice averaged from 6 to 8 feet thick.
It said that in new fissures, the ice closed it to inches thick almost immediately.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


In winter retard

Did your mom drop you


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


There is only one type of sea ice moron

Are you a special olympian


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.






Interglacial - Wikipedia


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


We are in an interglacial.  The last ice age began 1.8 million years ago and created 20000 years ago.

Can you elaborate on the different types of sea ice

Yawn


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Wrong.
There is no climate cycle that is over a million years long.
The most significant climate cycle in the last 10 million years has been the interglacial cycle of 120 thousand years.
Before that things were different, but that is due to things we know little about.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



That is ridiculous.
Humans have been looking desperately for a Northwest Passage for centuries, so of course humans were there to measure the melt off like in 2007 and again in 2016.
Now there are significant annual melt offs that give us a viable Northwest Passage.  That did not at all exist before 2007.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So the USS Skate happened to see what March was like.
The USS Natilus did it in the summer, and still thick perennial ice and no melt off or open water.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> You friggin dolt. It's not that it IS ice...but what is in the ice that is measuredIceCore.htm
> 
> IceCore.htm





Frannie said:


> There is only one type of sea ice moron
> 
> Are you a special olympian



Stubbornly stupid is no way to go through life


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


You do know that NASA is predicting a new ice age and that we will need to up co2 output in order to stay warm

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Science


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Lesh said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > You friggin dolt. It's not that it IS ice...but what is in the ice that is measuredIceCore.htm
> ...


You would be the expert at that

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Why are you ignoring the coming ice age

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Because it fucks up your religion


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Wrong.
From its color, density, crystalline pattern, gases, etc., you can tell the age, temperature, and many other characteristics from ocean ice cores.
Ice that came from really cold temperatures will retain snow crystaline formations.  Ice from warmer temperatures will have melted off all the snow features into more of a homogeneous bulk.

{...
Glacier ice is formed as each year's snow is compacted under the weight of the snows of later years. Light bands correspond to the relatively fresh, clean snows that fall in the summer when warmer conditions bring more moisture and precipitation. Dark bands mark the polar winter season, when little new snow falls on these frigid deserts and blowing snow is mixed with dust, discoloring the white snow. The layers are only millimeters to centimeters thick. Counting the yearly layers can date them. The oxygen in the water molecules also holds a key to past climate. Scientists are able to use the oxygen atoms in the glacial ice as a proxy for air temperature above the glacier.
...}
How do scientists use ice cores to determine past climates?


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Sea ice is not used to determine past climates kid, glacial ice can help determine that they are not the same thing.  Simple mistake for the simpleton that you are.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



No, the interglacial has ended, and we are back into the start of another cold glacial period, not interglacial.

Once you have prennial ice like the Arctic ice was for about 10,000 years, the layering added is not sea ice but accumulation of snow, just like any glacier.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Lol so you just forgot about global warming because NASA called it off

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So can I burn my used tires now


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



That is silly because the solar maxima is in 2020, so is about to happen.  The solar cycle is about 13 years long and has been slowly diminishing in  magnitude.  We hardly care about the solar cycles any more at all.
But a Mini Ice Age would be insigificant.  Solar cycles are very short compared to interglacial periods that are 120 thousand years long.

Things we can't do anything about do not concern me.
Things we do that cause a great deal of harm, do concern me.
If we cause a runaway positive feedback conditions like on Venus, then we could make it hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on the planet.
In which case very little life would survive.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



No you are wrong.  Ocean ice that was added by layer of snow and never melted, is identical to glacial ice and just as useful.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


You are not arguing with me but with NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Amount of this at north pole.......  never more than two years in broken pieces....

Great for examining the last 2 years of known weather


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Wrong.
The solar cycle is only 11 years long and has very little effect except on satellite communications.

{,,,The sun operates in cycles that are marked by periods of increased and decreased temperature, and lasts roughly 11 years in total.  ...}

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

Even if the next event is a solar minima, the next solar maxima is only 5 years later.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Wrong.  Most likely the reporter is not getting his fact straight from the NASA scientist.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 5, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Before that did not use to be true.
Ocean ice accumulated at the north pole and did not melt off.
Now it does and therefore is useless for data.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Dude you want to argue with me but I am just referencing NASA scientist

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age

So get a grip, you think NASA will hire you to change their predictions


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


Wrong doofus the info is straight from NASA global warming is called off, accept it

Solar Minimum is Coming | Science Mission Directorate


----------



## Frannie (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


20000 years ago people walked from Russia to Alaska, not in 2007 retard


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
> It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
> It is absolute fact.
> And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice.  Now you can.  In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.



Just the way you phrased that first sentence illustrates how little knowledge you have on this subject...  "Disputing AGW" is NOT a single simple question.. You can believe in the GHouse theory and increased CO2 contributing to warming and that man plays a role in that...

BUT -- then there's the PUBLIC DOMAIN misconceptions like

1) the world is gonna end in 12 years.
2) there is a "tipping point" beyond which we can do nothing to recover the planet.
3) that the net sum of "feedbacks" in the thermodynamic climate system of the planet is dangerously positive and will lead to ACCELERATED or RUN-AWAY GW effects.
4) that it's proven that our little 0.8DegC increase in surface temp is "unprecedented" in magnitude or rate in recent geo history..
5) that we ALREADY are experiencing major effects of GW for that 0.8DegC change in temperature every time there is fire or weather disaster...

*ALL of the critical predictive parameters of GW have been consistently revised DOWNWARDS since the 80's*, but the screaming fearful predictions still live on... About CO2 having superpowers above and beyond its own innate ability to warm the surface and atmos...About total melt-downs of Antarctica and/or Greenland for which there is very little evidence.. 

OF COURSE there are unsettled issues in GW science. ANyone following can show you how the "climate sensitivity" constant has been revised down to about 1/4 of what it started out as..

But you're probably not here to DISCUSS any science.. Likely here to demonstrate and toss out protest signs and meme pics....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Try doing some research.
> 
> False things about climate change you might believe



Even the FIRST item in this list is lacking of detail... The sun HAD been warming (total solar irradiation) since the Little Ice Age in the 18th century... It reached a PLATEAU of its climb around the 60's... The argument that this warming CANNOT explain the CURRENT warming in the 20th century -- is just plain bad science... 

WHY? 

Because the Earth's climate doesn't change in a year or a decade. There are massive heat STORAGE in the oceans and the time constants on HEAT retained in the Atmosphere are multi-decadal and to some extent multi-century.. 

Don't believe this -- Look up the arguments used to show that the "trigger point" for GW is irreversible BECAUSE the time constants are so long.. There are short term and longer term time constants involved in the effective lifetime of CO2 warming of the atmosphere.. The LONG term are in the 100 year range.. 

Besides, any system with STORAGE (of heat) does not require an INCREASING forcing to heat the planet.. If the sun ramped up from 1750 to 1960 and STAYED HOT -- the oceans are STILL storing that heat. And the temperature equilibrium could continue to rise... 

So -- I did NOT go past "False Thing #1" because this is amateur hour attempts to explain GW science to Grunge readers....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 6, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Try doing some research.
> ...


LOL...

Yep that is where he gets his talking points... SKS and GRUNGE.COM.. Both far left wing and as antiscience as you can get.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> That is nothing chaotic about climate.



I am still waiting for you to be right about something...anything.  It seems that you live in a fantasy world and whatever you make up is true to you.  The fact is that the climate is chaotic and there is little question about that fact even among climate scientists...Here..have a look at some more actual science..

Scientists Are Running Out of Space for Climate Data

c_lip:   As climate models run, they produce detailed snapshots of conditions around the globe at hourly, daily or monthly intervals. And because the climate is chaotic, simulations don't always play out the same way, so scientists run them over and over again.
_
Decadal Climate Variability

_Clip:  Nevertheless, the fact that the climate is chaotic has fundamental implications for the predictability of this type of question._

The non-linear dynamics of Climate

Clip: 
_The fact that it can go erratically, and often abruptly, from the neighborhood of one center to the other is the essence of a chaotic behavior._

I could go on and on with source after source stating that climate is chaotic, but since you are a science denier, there is little point.  Suffice it to say that once again, you are wrong..  Hell, even the IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, non linear, chaotic system.



Rigby5 said:


> The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
> But there are cycles.



Yet another failure to understand what the hell you are talking about.

Universal Law for the Distribution of Odd Periodic Cycles within Chaos in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: A Fine Classification of Odd Cycles (Year III)
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.



Rigby5 said:


> I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented.



Any more evidence?  Are you kidding?  You haven't provided the first piece of actual evidence so far.  Thus far, you have done nothing but fantasize about what you believe, and deny actual peer reviewed, published science.  I keep waiting for you to actually provide some evidence but it doesn't appear that it is ever going to happen.  Apparently you believe your fantasies are evidence....well, the fact is, that they are evidence....just not of the sort you seem to think.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I said that if there were open water in the arctic ocean, that then would have no way to get a record of past ocean ice earlier than that.
> The ONLY way you can have a record of past ocean ice is if it never, ever, melts off.



Yes I know what you said...You claim that there is no way to get a record of past open ice...then you also claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years.  Exactly how do you make a claim with one breath that there is no way to know what the past history of open ocean ice looks like, and then with the next breath, claim that the open ocean ice has not been clear for 10,000 years which is a statement about the history of open ocean ice?  

Even when your contradictions are pointed out to you, you remain unable to see them.




Rigby5 said:


> What I said about your graphs is that since they likely were made after the melt offs of 2007, they likely are not actual data, but instead guesses based on land ice cores from Greenland or some place like that.  That could be totally wrong, because land and ocean temperatures can be vastly different.



They are from peer reviewed, scientific papers published in credible and reputable scientific journals.  They have been examined by the scientific community and accepted.  You have not provided any scientific evidence to the contrary.  At this point, you are simply denying scientific evidence with no alternative evidence of your own.



Rigby5 said:


> But the over all is that it is supposed to be cooling now.  The arctic ice should be increasing.  The Arctic ice was increasing for the last 7000 years, until only very recently.



And again with the contradictions...You claim that it is not possible to determine what the arctic ice was like when the research shows that there has been less arctic ice for most of the past 10,000 years and then claim that the ice has been increasing for the past 7000 years.  If it is not possible, according to you, to determine that the ice has been less in the past, how is it possible to determine that the ice has been growing?

That is a serious question and I would like to hear an answer for it.

You are so far out in left field that I am really beginning to feel sorry for you.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Ice  cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.



What the hell is an ice code?



Rigby5 said:


> If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data.  And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.



Yeah...you keep saying that.  You keep saying that there is no actual measurement data which could show that the ice is less now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...then you claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years.   To know that would require measurement data according to you.  So on what evidence do you claim that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years if measurement data is not possible?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> No, it is clear you do not understand graphs.
> The scale of the graph is a span of 10,000 years, so the blip of the hockey stick tip is totally invisible.  You can't see it.  The interval of the last 1000 years worth of data totally overwhelms it and averages it out of existence on the graph.
> The ONLY way we can tell where the hockey stick tip extends, is that they put an arrow with the year 2016 pointing near to the 1 degree increase mark, on the far right axis.
> 
> Of course the last 1000 years have been cooler than the 7000 years preceding that.  It is supposed to be cooler.  We are supposed to have ended the warming at the end of the last interglacial period, and and starting to be cooling off again.  But the last 50 years are what is wrong.  They are NOT cooling, but heating higher than anything else on the entire graph. Such quick changes do NOT show up on graphs that have too great of a span of time as the scale.




I read graphs just fine...and unlike you, I don't interpret them to mean something that they don't. If you look at year zero, at the bottom right of the graph, that represents the present...the end of the black temperature line is the present temperature...now as you follow the black temperature line to the left, you see that it dips down into the little ice age and then starts climbing, the further back in history you go. By the time you get back to the period of the medieval warm period, the black line shows a higher temperature than the present...by the time you get back to the roman warm period, the line shows an even warmer temperature, and by the time you get back to the minoan warm period, it was even warmer...and again, if the earth was warmer back then, then there would have been less ice unless you think that ice didn't melt when it was warm back in the old days.


And your obsession with the hockey stick is laughable...it has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous. Why do you think michael mann has spent millions of dollars trying to keep his research data hidden? He knows that if it ever gets out and actual scientists ever get a chance to look at it, and write scientific papers on it, he will be disgraced to the point that his career, and al the money will be nothing more than a memory.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Regardless of what you believe, science itself says that the earth's climate is chaotic.  The IPCC defines the climate as a coupled, chaotic, non linear system.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you still haven't provided the first piece of actual science to support anything that you have said.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> You are not paying attention.
> Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
> Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
> The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.
> ...



Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying.  Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.






Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica.  If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



How could you know since you don't accept anything but actual direct measurements?

By the way...have you noticed that there are no other warmers on this thread?  Generally they gather like magpies hurling their beliefs at the science that us skeptics are producing.  You are so wrong, on everything you say, that even the hard core crazies aren't coming to help you out.  That is bad when the real nut case global warmers don't want to be associated with you because even they aren't prepared to help defend you.

You do have my sympathy...to be so wrong.....on everything is truly tragic.  The educational system really let you down.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


But the question is, do we have the right to tell him that his God is not real?


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > You are not paying attention.
> ...


Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice vcd that is millions of years old



I don't think he "thinks" at all.  I believe he just listens to the voices in his head and repeats whatever they say.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Since he can't produce any evidence to support his claims, by his own admission whatever he believes isn't real.  If you believe a thing, you should be able to provide evidence of it.....or be prepared to admit that your belief is a matter of faith...


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It's not just him, no one can present any evidence and now the so called scientist are actually predicting cooling that is normal with the solar minimum

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice vcd that is millions of years old
> ...


He repeats the chants of his religion which was just killed by NASA 

NASA Warns Solar Minimum Could Lead To Mini Ice Age


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Shhh! What are you trying to do, take all the fun out of it?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> You can not talk sense to a religious zealot


Bingo!


----------



## RealDave (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.
> ...



Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.

C per year emissions for year 2015 was about 10 GtC 

You are not even close, not even in the same solar system.

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.


----------



## Frannie (Jun 6, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


CO2 is a life essential nutrient as well


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



Your claim which is already refuted, is refuted again with this science paper:

TRANSITS OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE TO END OF THE 2018 NAVIGATION SEASON ATLANTIC OCEAN   ↔   ARCTIC OCEAN   ↔   PACIFIC OCEAN

R. K. Headland and colleagues                                                                                           Revised 1 December 2018 Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1ER. 

Excerpt:

"The earliest traverse of the Northwest Passage was completed in 1853 but used sledges over the sea ice of the central part of Parry Channel.  Subsequently the following 290 complete maritime transits of the Northwest Passage have been made to the end of the 2018 navigation season, before winter began and the passage froze.  These transits proceed to or from the Atlantic Ocean (Labrador Sea) in or out of the eastern approaches to the Canadian Arctic archipelago (Lancaster Sound or Foxe Basin) then the western approaches (McClure Strait or Amundsen Gulf), across the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea of the Arctic Ocean, through the Bering Strait, from or to the Bering Sea of the Pacific Ocean.  The Arctic Circle is crossed near the beginning and the end of all transits except those to or from the central or northern coast of west Greenland.  The routes and directions are indicated.  Details of submarine transits are not included because only two have been reported (1960 USS Sea Dragon, Capt. George Peabody Steele, westbound on route 1 and 1962 USS Skate, Capt. Joseph Lawrence Skoog, eastbound on route 1). Seven routes have been used for transits of the Northwest Passage with some minor variations (for example through Pond Inlet and Navy Board Inlet) and two composite courses in summers when ice was minimal (transits 149 and 167).  These are shown on the map following, and proceed as follows:"

=====================================================
Your idiotic claim has been utterly smashed!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



*Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!*

You make a fool of yourself here since that isn't a "Hockey Stick" at all. It was paper published by Climate science abuser Dr. Mann that weakly covered the Northern Hemisphere, with primary use of Bristlecone tree ring data, which grows in a small areas of the American west.

What you are looking are based on a spread of data,* Half of it are ice core data,*, as shown in the LINK.

There is no 1998 Hockey Stick paper on the data list.

You keep running ahead of your ass too much.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Rigby5 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”  

*– IPCC AR4 WG1*"

LINK

You are wrong yet again!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...


So is water. Does that mean you can't drown, stupid?


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.



That is a stupid argument long dispensed with.

Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas but CO2 is a forcing agent that increases the amount of water vapor


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.



Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also...all of the CO2 in the atmosphere weighs less than 3/4 of a trillion tons but he thinks we produce 5 trillion tons a year.  I don't think I have ever encountered anyone...even the most rabid warming hysteric who has been completely wrong on every single claim they made, but he is batting 1000 so far.  I don't thin he has made a scientifically valid statement since he showed up on this thread.

The one that cracks me up the most though is his response to studies that state that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. He steps up and says that we can't possibly know how much sea ice there was in the arctic over the past 10,000 years because there were no direct measurements..then in the next breath he states with absolute conviction that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years...then when his contradictory statement is pointed out, he isn't able to see the contradiction...

How far out there can one person get?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2019)

They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"



Those deep oceans are sneaky bastards....hiding and hoarding heat rather than sharing with the more shallow oceans...


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also



The correct number is 40 BILLION tons of CO2 per year

Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second

So because "some guy" gets a statistic wrong the entire theory falls apart?

Doofus

And 40 BILLION tons of a gas...is a lot of gas. Greenhouse gas


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also
> ...



Our 40 billion tons of CO2 is a mere fraction of the amount of CO2 produced by termites alone.

You guys seem to have a problem with grasping the scale of human CO2 emissions in comparison to the natural CO2 emissions produced by the earth itself from decay, animals, volcanoes, etc.  The fact is that humans don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Here, have a look at a short little video which puts our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 into some context for you...maybe it will help you see how tiny our bit of CO2 is next to the amount of CO2 that nature produces..


----------



## Lesh (Jun 6, 2019)

And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW

Stop being stupidly dishonest


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"
> ...



How powerful is the CO2 molecule that it can direct its laser like heat beam with remarkable precision down into the deep oceans


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW
> 
> Stop being stupidly dishonest



Ha ha, what a nasty little jerk you are, SSDD posted a video for you, which you make clear you didn't bother to watch it. Here is what SSDD stated that should have given you a clue what he was talking about, but that ZOOMED right over your head.

"Here, have a look at a short little video which puts our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 into some context for you...*maybe it will help you see how tiny our bit of CO2 is next to the amount of CO2 that nature produce*"

_bolding mine
_
Nature emits around 97% of the TOTAL yearly amount of CO2 emissions, Man the other 3%

That is a fact YOU can't deny.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW
> 
> Stop being stupidly dishonest


Prove this assumption...  NO one else has been able to in over 50 years..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:






See, they make it look like it went way up recently 'cause man, but it obviously just did that naturally. Stupit libruls!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what??????


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


So it's a fraud. Can't you read, Frank?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another idiot that uses the Michael Mann school of fraud..

Tell me what happens to your hokey schtick when it is properly averaged into the 500 year data points instead of the 5 year point plot being tacked on the end of a 500 year data point plot set....

I am amazed that anyone uses this obvious deception any more...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You failed to consider the *differing *RESOLUTION of the data for those two charts.

The add on to the big chart is wrong.

THAT is the fraud YOU missed.....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

Here's another one:




Obvious fraud. They admit only looking at the Northern Hemisphere. Everyone knows Southern Hemisphere temps cancel Northern and then some. Hockey stick graph. How dumb. People say it's so. Plus what does New Hampshire have to do with this? Oh, poo, pah, doo!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Lesh said:


> And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW
> 
> Stop being stupidly dishonest



How many published, peer reviewed papers would you like to see that seriously challenge the claim that our influence on the total atmospheric CO2 can even be detected?  Like I said, we don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who ever suggested to you that argument by sarcasm is a rational defense of one's position?  Hint....they lied to you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How many published, peer reviewed papers would you like to see that seriously challenge the claim that our influence on the total atmospheric CO2 can even be detected?


Yep, we rock, sir. That's exactly the kind of fraudulent crap they pull out of who knows where. They'll say silly shit like "I have no intention of debating the fact that an overwhelming, worldwide, scientific consensus exists." But then they always supply some stupid link to a site not run by smartass deniers like us. Pathetic. Must be. Lots of people say it's so.


SSDD said:


> argument by sarcasm


???


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many published, peer reviewed papers would you like to see that seriously challenge the claim that our influence on the total atmospheric CO2 can even be detected?
> ...


Whenever someone brings up "consensus," they only prove that they don't know the first thing about science.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Whenever someone brings up "consensus," they only prove that they don't know the first thing about science.


_Poof_, congratulations, you now know nothing about science!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever someone brings up "consensus," they only prove that they don't know the first thing about science.
> ...


That was certainly convincing.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 6, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...




Did a second grader or third grader write this post?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW
> ...




Post those "peer reviewed" papers from actual climate scientists then.


Zero won't take that long.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 6, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Better than your assertion that 97% is not consensus.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 7, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



Zero is what you post when asked for evidence.  I don't make claims I can't support, and I don't accept claims from anyone, even sources that I like unless they can support the claims with actual science.

Unlike you warmers....I can actually provide real science to support our positions.  I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”








If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, *which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

*“*Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found *a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. *Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”*


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature






CLIP" 
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, *with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) *CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)* Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

*“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”  




*


Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 7, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...





otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?  I wager that you can't.  If you question the prevailing hypothesis of any other field of science, you get bombarded from every direction with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of the hypothesis...when you question the AGW hypothesis, you get told that evidence exists, but you never see it, you get called some names, and you get a spiel about consensus.  That isn't science...that is politics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 7, 2019)

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


That isn't what I asserted, shit for brains.  As expected, you continue to believe that "consensus" is science.  It isn't.  It's politics, which means it's bullshit.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2019)

GWB seemed to know instinctively how to handle this kind of situation:


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2019)

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...







I suggest you look at how they arrived at that 97% consensus number.  But only look if you care about science.  If all you care about is propaganda, than by all means carry on being a mushroom.  You seem to be good at it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2019)

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


consensus on what?  post their evidence.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?



Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?
> ...







Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term,  maybe that is why it is so rare in SCIENCE!.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2019)

Haha, now it's "the mainstream" hypothesis. What a clown!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2019)

westwall said:


> Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term


And another clown. Try reading.
*Scientific consensus*


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?
> ...


Just the opposite


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2019)

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Ever since the planet was engulfed in ice


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term
> ...







I'm a scientist,  doofus.  I know more about science than you ever will.   Consensus is political, not scientific.   

That tells you all you need to know about climatology......it ain't MEASURABLE!

If it were there would be no need to talk about it and reach a consensus.   You could MEASURE it. 

Duh...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term
> ...


Con-sens-us....  Coning the senses of us...

Its a con.  Nothing more.  Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception.  Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON..  Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails.  Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason a CON doesn't want you to discus it..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


How about you post up the empirical, verifiable, observed evidence to support your supposition.  Even the IPCC fails to do this as they put up a failed model and tell everyone that it is empirical evidence.  A model is NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. What the IPCC is doing is scientific fraud. Only a fool believes a mathematical construct that can not equal the system it is designed to mimic.

Ask any engineer if they would fly a plane who's model showed it would fly but crashed every time it tried to take off? They would tell you to get a new model that reflected reality.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

westwall said:


> I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.


Hahaha. Very funny, blowhard. Meanwhile this remains reality:


> *Scientific consensus* is the collective judgment, position, and opinion *of the community of scientists in a particular field of study*. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]
> 
> Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.
> 
> Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?
> ...


The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Haha, now it's "the mainstream" hypothesis. What a clown!


Mainstream within the body branch of science as opposed to some obscure little known hypothesis.  Are you arguing that AGW is not the mainstream hypothesis among climate scientists?


----------



## Lesh (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science



Since there IS consensus...you are "clearly" full of shit


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term
> ...



Maybe you should actually read that definition...can you point to any reproducible experimental results coming out of climate science?  All i see are guys like Michael Mann spending millions trying to keep his data and methodology out of the hands of other scientists in an effort to not become a laughing stock.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science
> ...


So lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or how about a single published, peer reviewed paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....

Lacking either one of those things, what exactly would consensus be based on I’d not money and lots of it?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science
> ...


Not only is there scientific consensus, it's only grown over time, worldwide, despite the increasing desperation evident in these little unscientific, highly political islands of say anything anarchy.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
OK...so lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  If that sort of fundamental evidence is missing, exactly what is the consensus built upon/


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> so called greenhouse gasses


Look, we even have folks here denying the existence of greenhouse gases. Flat Earth must be next...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > so called greenhouse gasses
> ...


I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...  Just one.   Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?


----------



## Lesh (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?



Providing evidence to someone who uses terms like "so called greenhouse gasses" is an exercise in futility

Friggin Deniers...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?
> ...


Spoken like a person who knows full well that she cant post a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  I am certainly able to post up actual science to support my claims.

The only “deniers” around here seem to be you warmers...denying the realty that you can’t post up any actual science to support your beliefs.

And as to my “so called” greenhouse gasses....feel free to post up a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

Yet another statement I can make in perfect confidence that neither you, nor anyone else will post any such evidence and embarrass me...because no such evidence exists...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

"THE OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICAL IS GULLIBLE"

Another bollixed up thing SSDD has apparently absorbed without question:


> skep·ti·cal
> /ˈskeptək(ə)l/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...





> gul·li·ble
> /ˈɡələb(ə)l/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...


THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENTIFIC IS "UNSYSTEMATIC, RANDOM"


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2019)

Lesh said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?
> ...


So the answer is no


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> "THE OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICAL IS GULLIBLE"
> 
> Another bollixed up thing SSDD has apparently absorbed without question:
> 
> ...


And still no observed empirical data


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> And still no observed empirical data


_Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And still no observed empirical data
> ...


No matter how many times you post this lie up it will not change the fact it is a lie..

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason those propping up the CON do not want you to discus it..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Oh c'mon, that was lazy. Really now, actually read that NASA link, then try to prove which of you is most in denial..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



I have read that link... And they have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Their whole premise is based on a failed model...   Get a Clue..


----------



## westwall (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And still no observed empirical data
> ...








Clearly you have no clue of what the Scientific Method even means.  I will give you a hint here.  The "evidence" that you refer to is not evidence, but OPINION.  Color me unsurprised that you are so ignorant of science that you conflate opinions with facts.  Do you understand what a fact is?

There is another scientific axiom that you anti science loons also ignore, "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION"

The only real evidence that you clowns have ever had was correlational.  Then, when even that began to fail you began changing the names. 

But here's the most damning bit of logic for you religious fanatic,  anti science deniers..  You demand that no discussion be engaged in.  Why is that?  Religious nutjobs, like you, demand you read the scriptures and only the scriptures.  Scientists on the other hand engage in vigorous debate on the merits, or demerits of a theory.

In the words of a man far smarter than any of us will ever be....  45 seconds in is where your anti science religious nuts fall apart.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And still no observed empirical data
> ...



Typical of what you people post up as evidence that mankind is altering the global climate.  Lets take a look at what passes for evidence in your mind shall we?

first off they make the claim that the warming we have seen over the past 150 years or so is 95% probably due to our activities...no actual evidence to support that claim, bit there it is...they don’t mention that the present climate is cooler than the climate of the past 20,000 years.

They talk about “heat trapping properties of CO2 and make reference to quaint 19th century science, but none mention any ,Odeon science or offer up any evidence derived by that quaint 19th century science.

Then thy go on to offer up specific “evidence” by heading.

1.  Global temperature rise...they claim the change is driven largely by CO2, but offer no actual science to support the claim.  They make reference to the 20th century warming but don’t mention that gold standard (according to climate science) temperature reconstructions show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 20,000 years.

Arming oceans...the earth is warming out of the little ice age...warming should be expected...and since it is not yet as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age, there is no rational reason to expect that it won’t get at least as warm as it was prior to the onset of the little ice age.  In any event, they offer no empirical evidence that we have anything to do with the warming oceans...

Shrinking ice sheets...the ice sheets have been shrinking for 14,000 years now..They make no reference to any actual evidence that we are somehow responsible now...  They make some claims about ice losses in the Antarctic, but don’t mention that those losses are due to underwater volcanic activity in the western Antarctic region.  

Glacial retreat...again, they make some claims, but offer no empirical evidence that we are in any way responsible...nor do they mention the fact that glaciers have been retreating since the end of the little ice age...bottom line...no evidence to support the claims.  See a trend forming here?

Decreased snow cover...again..exiting out of the little ice age and it still isn’t as warm as it was at the onset of the little ice age...Recent years have shown an increase in snow cover and they don’t mention that either...  bottom line, no evidence to support the suggestion that we have anything to do with snow cover whatsoever.

Sea level rise.....sea level has been increasing for 20,000 years...the rate is about the same as it has been for the past few hundred years...and once again, no empirical evidence that we have anything at all to do with sea level rise...they say we do, but don’t offer up anything like actual evidence.

Declining arctic sea ice...the fact is that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  And again, the offer nothing like actual evidence that we have anything to do with changes in arctic sea ice...lots of claims, but no evidence to support them.  Does this sort of thing really pass for evidence in your mind?  

Here is a sea ice cover reconstruction from a peer reviewed, published paper...one of many showing clearly that for most of the past 10,000 years, there has been less ice than there is at present.  In case you aren’t good at reading graphs, the present is on the right side of the graph at the zero...  The only time there has been more ice up there was during the little ice age which the earth is still warming out of .

The graph below is actual science...Feel free to look up the peer reviewed published paper Stein, et al, 2017...This is what actual empirical evidence looks like as opposed to mere opinions which make claims but don’t support them.





Extreme events...even climate science is no longer attempting to blame bad weather on climate change...all the evidence says otherwise, but if you would like to see multiple published, peer reviewed papers stating this, I would be happy to provide some.

Ocean acidification...again, a non issue.  Climate science has dropped any claims of ocean acidification...the empirical evidence leads to the opposite...but just for fun, how acid do you think the oceans were before the onset of the present ice age when the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 1000ppm as opposed to the 400 of today?  The empirical evidence tells us that 400ppm represents no threats to the oceans...especially since practically every creature in it evolved to its present form with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm.

Once again...do mere claims, not supported by any actual empirical evidence rise to the level of “evidence” in your mind?  Accepting claims that aren’t supported by any actual evidence is by definition gullible...you seem to typify the gullible of the world.

The challenge to provide a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is still sitting on the table...and there it will sit, because there isn’t a single shred of evidence in existence to challenge it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...




Can you point to any actual observed, measured evidence to support any of the claims being made there?  Or do you generally accept claims without any actual evidence to support them?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


BUT...... Their failed models say that everything you posted is wrong....  **snicker**


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!



> cyn·i·cal
> /ˈsinək(ə)l/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...





> de·ni·er1
> /dəˈnīər/
> _noun_
> 
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....

*"What is a Logical Fallacy, Exactly?*
The word "fallacy" comes from the Latin "fallacia" which means "deception, deceit, trick, artifice," however, a more specific meaning in logic (a logical fallacy) that dates back to the 1550s means "false syllogism, invalid argumentation."

*An Error in Reasoning*
One of the earliest academic discussions of logical fallacies comes from the book_ Elementary Lessons in Logic : Deductive and Inductive_, published by MacMillian and Co. in 1872 where the modern definition of logical fallacies is used: "the modes in which, by neglecting the rules of logic, we often fall into erroneous reasoning." Today, this basic definition is still used, and often abbreviated to just "an error in reasoning." It is not a factual error.

*The Difference Between Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases*
In the early 1970s, two behavioral researchers, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky pioneered the field of _behavioral economics_ through their work with _cognitive biases_ and _heuristics, _which like logical fallacies, deal with errors in reasoning. The main difference, however, is that logical fallacies require an argument whereas cognitive biases and heuristics (mental shortcuts) refer to our default pattern of thinking. Sometimes there is crossover. Logical fallacies can be the result of a cognitive bias, but having biases (which we all do) does not mean that we have to commit logical fallacies. Consider the _bandwagon effect_, a cognitive bias that demonstrates the tendency to believe things because many other people believe them. This cognitive bias can be found in the logical fallacy, _appeal to popularity_.

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

The cognitive bias is the main reason we commit this fallacy. However, if we just started working at a soup kitchen because all of our friends were working there, this wouldn't be a logical fallacy, although the bandwagon effect would be behind our behavior. The _appeal to popularity_ is a fallacy because it applies to an argument.

I would say that more often than not, cognitive biases do not lead to logical fallacies. This is because cognitive biases are largely unconscious processes that bypass reason, and the mere exercise of consciously evaluating an argument often causes us to counteract the bias.

*Factual Errors are Not Logical Fallacies*
To illustrate this point, let's consider the _availability heuristic_, a cognitive bias that describes the tendency for one to overestimate the likelihood of more salient events, usually the result of how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. This bias can be demonstrated in believing that you are more likely to die in a plane crash than an automobile accident because of all the plane crashes you see in the news. As a result of this bias, one might argue:

Plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents. Therefore, it is safer to drive in a car than fly in a plane.

This is not fallacious; it's factually incorrect. If it were true that plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents, the conclusion would be reasonable. The argument itself does not contain flawed reasoning; it contains incorrect information. While we can say the reasoning behind the argument was fallacious, there is no logical fallacy present in the argument. Similarly, if I told you that the sun was about 30 miles from the earth and the size of a football stadium, I would not be committing a fallacy—but I would be a moron. Factual errors are not fallacies.

*Logical Fallacies Can Be Committed by the Arguer or Audience*
In this book, I will be using the term "fallacious" in the following ways, all of which support the primary purpose of this book—*to promote better reasoning*.

*Fallacious Arguments.* Arguments that are fallacious contain one or more non-factual errors in their form.  

Just as a woman has the right to get a tattoo, she has the right to get an abortion. (Weak analogy) 

*Fallacious Reasoning. *When an individual is using erroneous thinking (including bypassing reason) in evaluating or creating an argument, claim, proposition, or belief. This is where cognitive biases frequently play a role.

I was pro-abortion before, but now that this speaker made me cry by showing me a photo of an aborted fetus, I am against abortion. (Appeal to emotion)

*Fallacious Tactics.* Deliberately trying to get your opponent or audience to use fallacious reasoning in accepting the truth claims of your argument.

Look at this photo of an aborted fetus. How can you tell me that you still are pro-choice? (Appeal to emotion)

Note that fallacious tactics are not a deficiency in reasoning (morality, perhaps) on the part of the arguer, although people who fall victim to these tactics do demonstrate fallacious reasoning. These tactics are still labeled logical fallacies, but the arguer would not be held responsible for committing a logical fallacy. When charities run ads, they don't bombard us with data and moral arguments; they show us a photo of a suffering child who needs our help. These charities know what they are doing. They are not lacking in reason; quite the opposite, in fact. They are using effective persuasion techniques.

*Logical Fallacies are Deceptive*
Another characteristic of logical fallacies is that they are not always easy to spot, especially to the untrained mind. Yet they often elude our critical faculties, making them persuasive for all the wrong reasons—sort of like optical illusions for the mind. Some, however, are as clearly wrong as a pig roast at a bar mitzvah (yet still fool too many people).  For example,

“Don’t grow a mustache, because Hitler had a mustache. Therefore, you will be like Hitler!”

After reading this book, you can probably match about a dozen fallacies with the above argument. The error in reasoning should be apparent—sharing a physical characteristic with a fascist dictator will not make you a fascist dictator.

*Logical Fallacies are Common and Worthy of Identifying by Name*
Over the years, I have received questions from perhaps hundreds of students of logical fallacies who have presented what met all the other criteria of logical fallacies but was unique, very specific, or already fit nicely under a more general category of logical fallacy. For example, the _appeal to emotion_ fallacy is a general category of fallacies, and there are many in that category such as _appeal to anger_, _appeal to pity_, _appeal to fear_, and many more. These are all common enough to be worthy of their own fallacy. But what about "appeal to indignation"? This certainly could be fallacious, but so rare that it's just not worth naming since it fits under the appeal to emotion fallacy. If there is a general category under which the rare fallacy fits, it is less likely to be named.

*Dr. Bo's Three Criteria for a Logical Fallacy*
In this book, we are using what is referred to as the _argument_ _conception of fallacies_ (Hanson, 2015). That is, what we are identifying as a "logical fallacy" goes beyond the standard conception of "fallacy" where the error in reasoning must apply to argumentation. More specifically,


*It must be an error in reasoning* not a factual error.
*It must be commonly applied to an argument* either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
*It must be deceptive* in that it often fools the average adult.
Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as *a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation*. Logical fallacies can comprise _fallacious arguments_ that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation."

Source What is a Logical Fallacy, Exactly?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....


Lol. Again, predictably, you resort to strawman fantasies based upon the simple posting of a couple dictionary definitions.  Must've struck home!
The whole world continues laughing.. With me.. At you delusional boneheads!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

Look, real scientists getting their hands dirty! Imagine learning new things by doing! Expanding our knowledge base!:
NASA to More Accurately Measure Ozone Discovered by “Accident"
So much fun! Sorry, no time to waste entertaining your Debbie Downer gibberish. Too busy creating and testing the equipment necessary to generate all that data fools like you rely upon to stupidly misinterpret while somehow denying it even exists.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...
> 
> The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE


H-o-l-y s-h-i-t. You have got to be batshit crazy! That is not peer reviewed science, son. That's called a business prof playing_ Hey, let's pretend CO2 levels are analogous to stocks!_


> *Jamal Munshi*
> *Sonoma State University | SSU · Department of Business Administration*
> 20.07
> · PhD


Hwell,.. with those climate science bonafides,.. look out!
Man, I'm tempted to try whatever TF you're smokin'


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you have sarcasm, and some low grade humor.  What you don’t have is a single shred of observed measured evidence Thad supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  I always enjoy watching the various ways you guys avoid that embarrassing fact.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....
> ...



And even more predictably, you aren’t offering up any observed measured evidence to support your beliefs.  That is the most predictable behavior among warmers.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Look, real scientists getting their hands dirty! Imagine learning new things by doing! Expanding our knowledge base!:
> NASA to More Accurately Measure Ozone Discovered by “Accident"
> So much fun! Sorry, no time to waste entertaining your Debbie Downer gibberish. Too busy creating and testing the equipment necessary to generate all that data fools like you rely upon to stupidly misinterpret while somehow denying it even exists.



By accident/. Does that fall under the heading of blind squirrels finding a nut?    And if they are producing all this data to put us skeptics in our place, why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...
> ...



Do you have any complaint or correction to make regarding the paper or is a logical fallacy concerning the author the best you can do?  The paper was peer reviewed and published..i am sure the reviewers would be interest in any glaring errors they made in their assessment of the paper’s content.

And i can’t help but notice that you failed to mention the other 6 peer reviewed papers that found very similar results.

Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...and i can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide any published, peer reviewed science that called any of the 7 papers...  might that be because there are none..or would you just have no idea do where to look for actual research...your sources clearly don’t deal in that sort of information.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?


Been done. Science! Going on for centuries now. Even blind squirrels can't help finding nuggets here and there. You "don't seem" willing to acknowledge any of it. Yet you can't help using it again and again to argue against its very existence. Swine demanding the casting of ever more pearls to pee and shit all over.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...


I checked out the first for kicks and giggles, Sherlock, and boy was it crap! The author has zero climate science credentials. Put your best foot forward there did you? Why would anyone continue? Sadomasochism? You're an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?
> ...




Same old lie.  What is to acknowledge?  You guys don’t post up any actual science..  And when I go looking at the actual scientific literature, ie peer reviewed published papers, there is nothing there that even remotely supports the opinion pieces you guys typically post.  Do feels free to post some actual science that supports your position.

I wasn’t, always a skeptic...but I have always referenced the actual literature...If you look at the actual science as opposed to news magazines, and opinion pieces, it is hard to not become skeptical of the mainstream message.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?
> ...


What is it like to have to make excuse after excuse for not being able to post up a single piece of real evidence to support your claim.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...
> ...


So what was your specific problem with his findings? Like I said, i am sure that the reviewers and publishers would be interested in reviewing any errors in the paper they missed.

Or is a logical fallacy regarding the author the best you can do?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



So which part do that do you believe to be observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  If you cant manage a cut and paste, then just name the paragraph.

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among you people..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?


You are the only one in denial here...I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science...you on the others hand only seem to be able to respond with logical fallacy.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...
> ...



Is an ad hominem really the best you can do?

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc. The ad hominem attack uses an accepted fact about a person to undermine their credibility despite the lack of causal connection between the two parts of the argument.

Do you have any specific complaint about the technical aspect of the paper?  Any evidence that he is wrong?  The reviewers and publishers didn’t..what did you find wrong with it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> What is like to be in constant denial of Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet?


I asked which part of that you thought was observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  What’s the matter?  Embarrassed to even point anything out?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science


Bullshit.


SSDD said:


> evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability


By definition, there can be no "AGW hypothesis" that doesn't account for what you call "natural variability." AGW and any non-AGW are additive, not distinct. And the data makes plain that we would be experiencing cooling rather than warming were it not for the AGW portion. So the the non-AGW portion is negative. Now just how could a negative produce record positive warming year after year? I know, insane denial!


> the term commonly refers to the observed and continuing increase in average air and ocean temperatures since 1900 caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases in the modern industrial economy.[5] In the modern context the terms _global warming_ and _climate change_ are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but _climate change_ includes both _global warming_ and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region.[7][8] Many of the observed changes in climate since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]





> an·thro·po·gen·ic
> /ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
> _adjective_
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science
> ...



So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?



Grumblenuts said:


> ]the term commonly refers to the observed and continuing increase in average air and ocean temperatures since 1900 caused mainly by emissions of greenhouse gases in the modern industrial economy.[5



OK..so that is a claim...where is the observed measured evidence that the warming is due to greenhouse gasses.  When did we change from natural warming out of the little ice age to man made warming and where is the evidence that we weren’t going to warm at lest to the temperature prior to the onset of the little ice age...because we are still not as warm as it was prior to the onset of the LIA?



Grumblenuts said:


> In the modern context the terms _global warming_ and _climate change_ are commonly used interchangeably,[6] but _climate change_ includes both _global warming_ and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region.[7][8] Many of the observed changes in climate since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.[2]



That claim is simply a lie.  There are literally hundreds of published papers finding that there is nothing happening in the present climate that is in any way unprecedented.

Here is the gold standard (according to climate science) GISP2 temperature reconstruction which shows temperature changes far greater, and far faster than anything we have seen.  And do note that it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  Keep in mind that this is n ice core taken above the arctic circle and reflects arctic temperatures.  Ice cores taken in the Antarctic show a very similar record over the past 10,000 years and be reminded that climate science has stated clearly that the arctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens in those regions follows across the globe.





And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

The link will take you to a global map where you will find green,red,yellow and blue location markers.  The red markers indicate locations where studies have been done that found the temperature to have been warmer than the present prior to the onset of the little ice ge...the blue markers indicate cooler, the green markers indicate wetter, the yellow markers indicate drier conditions...the gray markers indicate little change since the onset of the LIA.

Do feel free to point out something specific in the climate today that you believe is unprecedented.

Do i think any amount of science will alter your belief on the topic?  No.  Your position is clearly based on politics and not actual science as evidenced by the fact that you post opinion pieces in support of your belief rather than actual science.  But someone else who is perhaps interested in actual  science may find the links I posted informative.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Facts aren’t your friend


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?
> ...


And yet, still dumbfounded cause you can’t post observed data!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?


I said what I meant quite coherently. Neither of your stupid either/or assertions there follows logically at all. You really can't read, can you? No wonder you're so ready to believe denial crap makes sense and is "peer reviewed." The Kochs don't pay all those big bucks to fabricate truth.


SSDD said:


> And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.


No shit, Sherlock. None of those had industrial revolutions. Currently we do. Grow up. Face reality.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am posting up actual peer reviewed published science
> ...


So your position is the earth should be engulfed in ice? It was, it’s been melting before you existed, it will continue barring another ice age! Look up in the daytime sky and see that bright yellow object? It’s the sun, it warms our planet!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?
> ...


Industrial revolution,


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?


Naw, but your posts do stink


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?
> ...


Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm? Why has the earths average CO2 level been around 2,575ppm so by the geological record we are CO2 STARVED..  You idiots never think anything through.  The geological records also show CO2 lagging temperature rise by 200-800 years. How does this magical gas drive our climate when the empirical records show it is incapable of this?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?


That warm feeling is the shit in your pants...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm?


Tell me, Moron. Why would the Earth burn at all? Was it combustible back then? Here's an idea, try making sense.


Billy_Bob said:


> Why has the earths average CO2 level been around 2,575ppm so by the geological record we are CO2 STARVED..


Um, question marks normally follow questions. That's like really incoherent in any case.


Billy_Bob said:


> The geological records also show CO2 lagging temperature rise by 200-800 years. How does this magical gas drive our climate when the empirical records show it is incapable of this?


Oh, there it is, a question mark at last. See, here's the thing. Just because you may like comparing apples to oranges, declaring absolute truths about things stemming from nothing in evidence, putting carts before horses right and left and so forth, doesn't mean sane people owe you any kind of explanation for your weird contrivances. Your evident frustration stems from your own stubborn disregard for reality. It's no one else's fault. Sure, you've found some like minded goobers on the interwebs. Miserable, self-deluded idiots abound. But you had to seek them out. You did that because you wanted to believe their nonsense. Now, if some sunny day, you step back and decide perhaps you ought to be listening to actual climate experts instead.. well, I'm confident you could find them too. Hope springs eternal, they say..

Watch now as I go back even further in time.. Wowza!





Better yet, more your speed:






Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..






Finally, modern humans like 2 million years ago.. Homo sapiens say 200 thousand.. Just a tiny blip on any of those scales.. Kind of necessary though in order for us to give a shit right now, eh?

So why look to atmospheric CO2 levels back like 250 times our entire existence as a species for guidance about how best to continue our existence? Fucking beats me? Completely unnecessary for us to be worrying about right now.. Can you say deliberate distraction? Must take a shit load of self-delusion and denial!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm?
> ...



And nothing you posted challenges my assessment. CO2 on our planet is in a state of starvation. If we tried to take it backwards, below 270ppm, no significant plant life would exist.  You people are delusional morons..

Here is a bit more information for you... Please tell me how a lagging indicator of temperature rise is driving anything..



 

CO2 is lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.


Let me guess...you didn’t even read your link..or you did, but simply couldn’t understandwhat was said...

Clip:  
We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8)*, but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. *The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Your study says that changes in CO2 always lag temperature...and the author acknowledges simple correlation...and correlation does not equal causation..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 9, 2019)

Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense. 

"the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.
"and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.

The real meaning of what was said is clarified in the highlights:


> ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.
> 
> "the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.
> "and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.
> ...


You are ignorant of the facts... Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.


It's a complex system we continue studying. If the results simply indicated "noise" the climate scientists would have concluded they explain nothing. Are you a climate scientist? Are you just some innocent, unbiased observer? No and No, else you wouldn't be here shilling on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. It remains complex at this point. Some conclusions can be drawn, but

The current correlations unsurprisingly "do not explain all"
"► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.



What you seem unable to grasp, or put into context is the fact that the earth is still warming out of th little ice age...or the fact that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause.

When the earth is cooler, as is the case during deep ice ages, shorter glaciations, and cooling events like the little ice age, the earth’s on CO2 making machinery is slowed down.  Decay of organic materials is a major source of CO2, as are the oceans...and insects such as termites which produce more CO2 than we do.  When it is cooler, decay slows down, insect populations reduce, and the oceans out gas far less CO2.

As it warms, all those natural sources of CO2 begin to become more efficient.  It takes quite some time though so early I’m a warming phase, it is to be expected that CO2 production would lag temperature increases by a longer period of time.  As the cool temps fall further behind, the and the natural process that produce CO2 become more efficient, the lag between an increase in temperature and increased CO2 in the atmosphere decreases.  

The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause



Grumblenuts said:


> "the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.



Did the author make some reference to a demonstrable relationship beyond correlation?  If not, then simple correlation is what we are talking about.  The author wa simply being honest in his findings.



Grumblenuts said:


> "and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.



Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific truism that all scientists need to keep in mind all the time.  The hard fact is that simply because events achieve a high degree of correlation does not mean that they are even related, much less a case of cause and effect.

Here are a few examples of unrelated things which correlate very nicely..it is very important, especially for scientists to keep in mind that these juicy correlations dont mean anything...it is for science to dig below the sheets to attempt to identify the mechanisms of cause and effect, not build a case out of correlation...which climate science is particularly guilty of in numerous instances.















Here is a link to a helpful site dealing with correlation and causation dorm a data science perspective.

Why correlation does not imply causation?

The author mentions ocean temperatures and this goes to the reduced lag time between a temperature change and an increase in CO2.  Cold water sequesters far more CO2 than warm water.  As the oceans warm, they outgas more CO2...and as they warm, the time between temperature change and outgassing is shorter.  The bottom line is still that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause of warming.

Keep in mind that at the onset of the ice age that the earth is still warming out of, the atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm and ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm.  Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of temperature.  If an ice age can start with CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, our 400 represents no threat.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.
> ...



If the climate scientists determined that the human effect on the global climate couldn’t be separated from the noise, then the crisis driven funds-in would dry up, and climate science would become about as exciting nd lucrative as meterology or paleontology.

The fact is that nu human fingerprint can be derived from the noise of our chaotic climate, so climate science builds crisis from correlation.  This is why I can ask for observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability with perfect confidence that no such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

And even more telling, I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.  

Now what sort of crisis can reasonably be claimed when no published paper even does that basic science?  I mean, that is the most basic information required to even make the claim that we are having an effect on the global climate...much less the claim that we are heading for disaster if we dont change our ways.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> correlation does not equal causation





> In statistics, the phrase *"correlation does not imply causation"* refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
> _{...snip...}_
> *Usage*
> In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "is a _sufficient_ circumstance for".
> ...


From simply glancing at this image:






The CO2 and temperature amplitudes definitely appear interdependent. Where there's one there's the other. Determining which leads which time wise taking any random sample appears far more obscure. The CO2 scaling appears lacking until that positive spike at the end is taken into account which alters the amplitudes of the rest. Making the time scale linear is a no brainer, but I'd at least consider making the CO2 and temperature scales logarithmic for such a comparison. That said, the average historical Earth surface temperature is easily observed to be about -4 degrees C and the average (or "mean", "median", "normal") atmospheric CO2 about 240 ppm. Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one. We indeed appear fortunate to have had an extended then unprecedented rise in  CO2 relatively recently, but that final spike doesn't bode well at all. Too much heat. Likely far worse than being too cold.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.
> ...


So Billy, you think he knows the oceans hold CO2? And when it gets warmer the oceans release stored CO2? And that’s why CO2 trails temperature increases? I don’t think he does


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause


Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence. Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well. Your insistence upon that being the only factor though is idiotic. However, thanks to that same, clearly evident, feedback loop that you've largely described well.. that one you've now acknowledged exists, thank you,.. the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.


SSDD said:


> Keep in mind that at the onset of the ice age that the earth is still warming out of, the atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm and ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm. Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of temperature. If an ice age can start with CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, our 400 represents no threat.


Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > correlation does not equal causation
> ...



The only correlation you can derive from that graph, and likewise, the only causation that you can rationally claim is that increased CO2 is the result off warming and not a cause...and as to the spike at the end, that is an artificial artifact resulting from the invalid attachment of a short term instrumental record onto a long term proxy record...another no no that climate science is routinely guilty of...it is known as mike’s nature trick named after Michael man and the use of the trick to derive his now infamous hockey stick....research, by the way which he has now spent millions trying to hide so that his methodology will not be made public...possibly ending his caree.

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?  Do you realize that plants stop growing at about 260ppm?  If you look at the hidtory of the earth, the amount of CO2 averages over 2000ppm...except during cool periods which we are in.  We are still in an ice age and low CO2 numbers are normal for cool periods.  The present ice age began with CO2 levels at about 1000ppm.  You guys routinely either deliberately overlook that fact or are simply unaware...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause
> ...


Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?


From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 10, 2019)

Meanwhile in Europe, governments gets to double Electric Costs for individuals and businesses for a "climate change tax" based on electric usage.  Nice huh?  All based on a HOAX.  An Europeans mostly go along with it like Lemmings.

What are they doing with the tax revenue?  Buying Carbon Credits?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence





> Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.
> 
> During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.
> 
> ...


Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?
> ...


LOL

Normal is not 240ppm.  There would be little or no plant life at that level. From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease. The paleo record show that our average CO2 on earth is well over 2,500ppm.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.


By definition, science doesn't claim any absolutes. However, the same analysis obviously applies equally to any opposing theory you manage to cook up, so you really have no point here at all. Now you wanted to see empirical evidence supporting AGW..  plenty right here Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet !


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Ah, that was you, not SSDD. I clearly said:


> From simply glancing at this image:


Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.


> Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.


No it doesn't. There are many spots where it's clearly reversed. Need them blown up for you or what?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Again,


Grumblenuts said:


> Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..


..without soil, no significant terrestrial plant life,.. no trees, no significant fossil fuel deposits, plant or animal respiration, humans to worry about.. entirely different world and only increasingly so as one looks back in time. Pointless then going back there to find what most accurately affects us today. 400,000,000 years is more than enough. 200,000,000 better...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence
> ...


Why do you think we need arctic ice? You do know it once didn’t have ice right? You have a brain? You ever use it?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.
> ...


Warmers wrong again....
420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Climate Time Machine


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Climate Time Machine


Did you think the ice age was natural?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease.
> ...


All areas of "crossover" are lagging the change.. Your delusional..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Climate Time Machine


Old Crock reincarnation....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.
> ...


How many times must you be told that a Model, which can not predict anything, IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 10, 2019)

Billy-Bob:


> “I grew up Democratic. I’ve always voted Democratic. And I’m a liberal person. That’s just who I am naturally,” he said. “[As a parent] you wonder about your kid’s future and all that. But to tell you the truth, I don’t talk about politics publicly because I think, I’m in the entertainment business—who cares what I have to say? I think they only care in a curiosity sense. I think they want you to comment on politics, because then they can hand your ass to you.”
> ...
> Instead of hating on the people trying to do good in the world, Thornton suggested, why don’t we celebrate? “I just think it’s ridiculous. If somebody’s going to try and do something with their lives, tip your hat to them.”


Somehow, I gather that's not you


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence.



You like definitions....here is one for you.

Demonstrable -
*adjective*
able to be demonstrated or proved

So you claimed a demonstrable interdependence.  Let’s see it.  This goes straight to my statement that there has never been a scientific paper peer reviewed and published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified nd ascribed to greenhouse gasses. 

In order to demonstrate that CO2 can lead to warming, you are going to need to show some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Good luck with either of those.  You have just come face to face with one of the great assumptions of climate science...everyone “knows” that CO2 causes warming...bit there isn’t any actual observed, measured evidence to establish any truth to the assumption.

Don’t worry about not being able to provide any evidence to support your claim that CO2 causing warming is demonstrable.  I have been asking for, and looking for such evidence for 3 decades now...it doesn’t exist.



Grumblenuts said:


> Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well.



Yet another assumption for which no evidence exists...Again,dont sweat not bring able to provide evidence to support your claim that the relationship is demonstrable.



Grumblenuts said:


> the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.



At what concentration does this ‘runaway” warming kick in?  The present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 at 2000 ppm and atmospheric CO2 has been in excess of 7000 ppm with no runaway warming efffect...how much CO2 is required to set a runaway effect into motion?  And is that demonstrable as well?  You say it as if it is...



Grumblenuts said:


> Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!



How long do you think life has been on the planet.  Most forms of life alive today had evolved to their present state prior to the onset of the present ice age...again, the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels of about 1000 ppm..  Further, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, and the Tertiary periods all had atmospheric CO2 levels ranging from close to 3000ppm down to about 1000ppm with no runaway warming effect.  The fact of history itself refutes your belief in a run away warming effect on earth...but again, at what concentration do you believe this runaway effect will kick in?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?
> ...


And what chart was that?  If you are talking about Billy’s chart, it most certainly doesn’t show 240 ppm being normal on earth...it shows normal in excess of 2000ppm.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence
> ...


I have asked before which part of that you think is observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...thus far, no answer


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.
> ...



It science does empirically measure and quantify effects.  Thus far, no paper has been published in which the warming due to our activities has been empirically measured...and yet, all of you warmers seem to know how much warming we have caused...where did you get that number?...since it certainly wasn’t from any peer reviewed, published paper.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Continue jumping up and down all you want. When you're done being foolish.. read the damn chart. You'l find the average there to be "about 240 ppm." Yeah, no plant life likely, no kidding. Said that too.



Can you even read a graph?  This one is so straight forward that I am embarrassed for you.  The heavy blue line is Temperature, denoted by the temperature bar on the right hand side of the graph...clearly what you were reading as CO2...  The black line represents CO2, and the concentration bar is on the left hand side of the graph...where it says “Atmospheric CO2 (ppm)”. As you can see, the “average” is nothing like 240ppm.  And also as you can see, CO2 drops to very low levels during ice ages..  Try looking again and tell me what you think the actual average CO2 concentration on planet earth is.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Again,
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> ...


The scale of your graph is billions of years....clearly scale is difficult for you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

Try not to spend all that Koch money in one place, son.

30 years and still in complete denial, eh? Reading really isn't that hard compared to all that gum flapping you do:


> The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from *experimental* *observations* by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[7] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by *measuring* radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[8] The effect was more fully *quantified* by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.


.
_-More-_


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Try not to spend all that Koch money in one place, son.
> 
> 30 years and still in complete denial, eh? Reading really isn't that hard compared to all that gum flapping you do:
> 
> ...



So when you come face to face with the fact that none of the claims of demonstrable you revert to logical fallacy...and the completely asinine suggestion that I am getting Koch money>. Really?

Fourier, whose hypothesis was demonstrated to be fatally flawed by professor Woods and his experiment very shortly after it was published.  He media invariably fails to note that fact.

Tyndall, who also noted that CO2 was the most feeble of the IR absorbing gasses.

If you have any scientific ability at all, you know that Foote demonstrated that water vapor warms more efficiently than dry gasses...big surprise.

And Savante Arrhenius...what was he known for again?   Hats right..he was a chemist who theorized a radiative greenhouse effect.  What your sources fail to mention is that no less than James C. Maxwell, one of the biggest of the big dogs didn’t think much of Savante’s hypothesis.  And then there was Clausius, ever hear of him?  He practically invented the science of thermodynamics, which oddly enough deals with Savante’s hypothesis...he didn’t think much of the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect either.

Don’t you find it interesting that in an effort to demonstrate the science of a radiative greenhouse effect, you m use resort to quaint 19th century science which demonstrated very little and was mostly disregarded as fantasy by some od the biggest names of the period?  And the “science” hasn’t advanced beyond that quaint 19th century hobby level endeavoClearly you cant de”demonstrate ant sort of interdependence between CO2 and temperature beyond the demonstrable fact that increased CO2 is the result of higher temperatures, not the cause of higher ntemperatures.

It’s sobering to come face to face with the sheer paucity of actual science that supports your beliefs isn’t it/?  By the way, i don’t guess you realize that all your “science”is based on models, not empirical science.  No actual science has been done in the field since those 19th century scientist performed their science fair level experiments by todays standards.  Isn’t it odd that climate pseudoscience would rly on failed models when. Dealing with an entity as eminently observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it.

And i cant help but notice that you failed to mention your abject failure at reading a simple graph...and you didn’t say at what CO2 level this runaway greenhouse effect you believe in so fervently kicks in.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I am getting Koch money>. Really?


You should be flattered. Must be some reason for you to keep ignoring / denying all the facts . At least that one fits without necessarily involving stupidity. Carelessness and greed, sure, but..
In reality, you're entitled to express your opinions, not your own facts. Endless stupid assertions, deliberate conflations, misrepresentations.. 
You funny, but looks only get one so far.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting Koch money>. Really?
> ...


Let us know when you post observed empirical facts


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Let us know when you post observed empirical facts


Sure. Lucky you. Just your speed!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting Koch money>. Really?
> ...


Which ‘facts” would that be.  The only piece of actual science you posted so far supported my position that CO2 trails temperature increase..  The rest have been opinion pieces.  Guess i see why you would restrict yourself to that sort of information...i mean...your graph reading skills leav much to be desired and that is the easiest part of reading real science.

And you still haven’t said at what CO2 level this mythical runaway greenhouse effect kicks in...you claimed it exists and is a real danger...what’s the matter, don’t want to embarrass yourself by stating what you really believe in public.     Not surprised.

And you haven’t demonstrated any reverse relationship between CO2 and temperature yet..you claimed it was true and you claimed it was demonstrable... what’s the matter?  Climate science letting you down when it comes to producing actual empirical evidence?

And it is probably best that you stick to opinions, name calling, and logical fallacy, science clearly isn’t your thing.  Ever notice how when you get asked tough questions about claims you have made that you cant back up with evidence, you fall back to what you are good at...ie namecalling, logical fallacy, and opinion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Fourier, whose hypothesis was demonstrated to be fatally flawed by professor Woods and his experiment very shortly after it was published. He media invariably fails to note that fact.
> 
> Tyndall, who also noted that CO2 was the most feeble of the IR absorbing gasses.
> 
> ...


A little hypocrisy eh? You are denigrating Foote's 19'th century experiment as quaint, but cite other 19th century physicists as experts.

You are lying about Foote's experiment and Tyndall's results by omitting what they really concluded. Shame on you.


.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Let us know when you post observed empirical facts
> ...


You just can’t get anymore special than this from your own link;

“We can't take Earth's temperature directly, but we do have a lot of information from weather stations, ocean buoys and remote sensing instruments. The information lets us see changes in climate. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech“


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> A little hypocrisy eh? You are denigrating Foote's 19'th century experiment as quaint, but cite other 19th century physicists as experts.
> 
> You are lying about Foote's experiment and Tyndall's results by omitting what they really concluded. Shame on you.


Yep, this pack of turds is truly shameless.


> Ever notice how when you get asked tough questions about claims you have made that you cant back up with evidence, you fall back to what you are good at...ie namecalling, logical fallacy, and opinion.


No self-reflection. Denial and attempted reversal is all they offer. No counter theory. See nothing. Hear nothing. _What global warming? What record increases in temperature, thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding, sea level rise, melting glaciers? Oh, that's not global warming. Oh, that was just a natural variation. A local weather change. Nothing to indicate a change in global climate... and blah, blah, blah!_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> You just can’t get anymore special than this from your own link;
> 
> “We can't take Earth's temperature directly, but we do have a lot of information from weather stations, ocean buoys and remote sensing instruments. The information lets us see changes in climate. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech“


Oh, let me guess. "Special" because you can't either so would never even try. But, boy can you deny!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > A little hypocrisy eh? You are denigrating Foote's 19'th century experiment as quaint, but cite other 19th century physicists as experts.
> ...


You present nothing but hearsay, opinion, and flat out lies. When given direct questions you him and haw using the Saul Alinsky principals of deflection, name calling and professional degradation. You present no facts and when questioned NEVER answer the questions.

You are a piece of ignorant  shit. Useful idiot and elitist shill.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You present nothing but hearsay, opinion, and flat out lies.


Gee, you sound angry! Good! Now you know how the rest of the world feels reading your crap. Here's your sale:


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You present nothing but hearsay, opinion, and flat out lies.
> ...



Not angry, just showing others that you are not to be trusted and that your opinions mean squat...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You just can’t get anymore special than this from your own link;
> ...


I can’t either what? You provided a link that admits temperatures can’t be observed! On an ask from me for observed empirical data! Pwned


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> _What global warming? What record increases in temperature, thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding, sea level rise, melting glaciers?_


In every instance these are lies.

ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) has shown that thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding are all at the lowest they have been in 100 years.

Empirical studies in the last three years show glaciers are now expanding and growing, Temperatures are flat and no ocean rise is being seen. Ocean temps are falling and the circulations that caused the last 30 years of warming are now cooling... 

I guess you got to get your lies in before it becomes undeniable that your a liar..


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > A little hypocrisy eh? You are denigrating Foote's 19'th century experiment as quaint, but cite other 19th century physicists as experts.
> ...


Weather is weather


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> ]
> A little hypocrisy eh? You are denigrating Foote's 19'th century experiment as quaint, but cite other 19th century physicists as experts.



Merely pointing out that far mor respected men of the time didn’t think much of the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect...and the science hasn’t advanced much sine...of course you can only travel so far on a dead end road...which is why you guys must refer to quaint 19th century science fair level experiments when you are asked for any



Wuwei said:


> You are lying about Foote's experiment and Tyndall's results by omitting what they really concluded. Shame on you..



Been through it all before...sorry you are so easily fooled, or so desperate that you must lie...shame on you for suggesting to someone like grumble that there actually is some real science that supports the AGW hypothesis.  Typical...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, this pack of turds is truly shameless.



Says the guy who routinely discounts peer reviewed, published science, and cant produce any actual science himself.  All opinion pieces from you and nothing to support your claims that the science is demonstrable.



Grumblenuts said:


> No self-reflection. Denial and attempted reversal is all they offer



Sorry guy, you are th one who is stuck in denial...What exactly do i need to reflect on...i can produce peer reviewed, published science to support your claims....you ar the one who denies actual science in favor of opinions...and it is you who is attempting reversal...I am offering up actual science and you are the one using opinion to try and counter.



Grumblenuts said:


> No counter theory.



Are you really that thick?  Are you unaware of the fact that the only hypothesis which hasn’t littered the scientific landscape with failed predictions for the past 3 decades is natural variability...then you nsuggest that man made climate change looks like natural variability.



Grumblenuts said:


> See nothing. Hear nothing. _What global warming_


_

Laughable..you are the one who re4fuses to see peer reviewed, published science that disagrees with your belief.  And who has said that there is no warming?  How many times have I pointed out that the earth is still warming out of the ice age?  How many times have i pointed out that it still isn’t as warm as it was prior to the onset of the little ice age?  How many times have i pointed out that there is no valid reason to suspect that it wont warm up at least to that point again?  Guess you missed the fact that all i have v-been doing is pointing out counter hypotheses...  you ckearly have the hear nothing nothing down pat.



Grumblenuts said:



			What record increases in temperature, thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding, sea level rise, melting glaciers?
		
Click to expand...


Which proxy temperature, precipitation, weather reconstruction are you using to claim “record” anything?  Care to show an t such reconstructions from some peer reviewed, published science rather than just more opinion pieces based on unsupportable assumptions?



Grumblenuts said:



			Oh, that's not global warming. Oh, that was just a natural variation. A local weather change. Nothing to indicate a change in global climate... and blah, blah, blah!
		
Click to expand...

_
Still waiting on some actual science?  Do you have any idea what that might look like?  You would be laughable I’d watching you flounder in your misconceptions, and opinions weren’t so sad.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



He is just trying to deflect from his proclamation that the science was demonstrable...I guess when he started looking, he found out that he was mistaken and just cant deal with that.  I suppose it was a shock to find out that the average CO2 concentration on earth even during recent epochs is about 6 times higher than the present..and then there was that claim of runaway warming if CO2 gets much higher than 240ppm based on his gross misreading of a simple graph.  It has to be tough to have your misconceptions pointed out in such a public forum.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Merely pointing out that far mor respected men of the time didn’t think much of the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect...and the science hasn’t advanced much sine...of course you can only travel so far on a dead end road...which is why you guys must refer to quaint 19th century science fair level experiments when you are asked for any


Still with hypocrisy eh? 
You think science hasn't advanced much since then!!! Surely you jest. But of course you said many times you don't believe modern physics. 



SSDD said:


> Been through it all before...sorry you are so easily fooled, or so desperate that you must lie...shame on you for suggesting to someone like grumble that there actually is some real science that supports the AGW hypothesis. Typical...


You were wrong then and you are still wrong. Foote demonstrated that CO2 absorption of IR raises the temperature. Shame on you for lying to Grumble, but lying is your game, isn't it.

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

Yep, quite the show. Hey, don't worry about me, Wuwei. Far from the first time I've dealt with such wankers. Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics. But these pretenders hold no actual cards. They simply deny everything and grossly misrepresent (lie like hell, as you say) about everyone else's works. They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results. Denial never requires doing any science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics.


What aspects of modern physics do you find arguable? Or maybe a digression like that belongs in the Science and Technology forum.

.


----------



## james bond (Jun 11, 2019)

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The reason why Grumblenuts is posting this consensus cr*p is because that is what secular/atheist scientists have rendered science today.  It isn't about best theory, but best consensus.  It's called "settled science."


----------



## james bond (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results. Denial never requires doing any science.



What bugs me is the people who live an extravagant life, wasteful of resources and heedless of others are those on your side crying about AGW.  If they give this up, then I would start paying more attention to AGW.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics.
> ...


Yeah, a digression for another day at least. But briefly, I find much of both quantum physics and Einstein's warped space notions highly warped. The math has obviously been made to work out for the most part but that's just been the excuse all along. Such notions have mainly served to protect expensive institutional investments and held back our progress as a species. I'd leave it at that, but since loony james has arrived I'll just leave you with this:


> *Law of Conservation of Energy*
> The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant ("is conserved"), although energy within the system can be changed from one form to another or transferred from one object to another. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed.



 Newton never referred to his theories as "laws" and this typical modern version goes well beyond his careful assertions. Only in theory is there such a thing as a "closed system" so not a good start. If you dug a hole next to a golf ball you wouldn't claim the ball gained any form of energy as a result. We commonly (lazily) describe energy, work, and power as scalars. In reality, they're not only vector functions but complex ones to boot. Modern physicists are only beginning to wake from their long nap. High time we got back to presuming the Aether.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, quite the show. Hey, don't worry about me, Wuwei. Far from the first time I've dealt with such wankers. Somewhat ironic in this case though in that I'd also likely argue with you about many aspects of modern physics. But these pretenders hold no actual cards. They simply deny everything and grossly misrepresent (lie like hell, as you say) about everyone else's works. They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results. Denial never requires doing any science.


Yes indeed, you are certainly putting on a show of ignorance. I find it rather amusing that you have not yet defined, in your own words the AGW hypothesis.  Nor have you place any science up to show your position has a lick of credibility.  Same Shit, Different Day by a different alarmist.  And yes, You lie like hell as you have yet to produce any empirical evidence that has been observed and rendered it to the Null Hypothesis.

In a nut shell, You talk a lot of crap and provide no substance...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


"take Earth's temperature directly" Read, McFly. That means they can't just stick a meat thermometer in it somewhere, wait 30 seconds and call that a measure of Earth's temperature, let alone its change in "warming" or "climate." You can't and haven't either. Think, McFly!


> You provided a link that admits temperatures can’t be observed!


Lie, McFly!


> On an ask from me for observed empirical data! Pwned


Dumb, McFly!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Absolutely hilarious and supremely ironic.  Wuwei tends to jump on bandwagons and he thought he had himself a new bud.

Wuwei thinks that QM was handed down from mount Olympus complete, perfect, and unshakable.

His primary reason for stalking me around the board is his endless frustration at not being able to get me to hop on the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model crazy train that is QM.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 12, 2019)

I just dont get all this time and energy spent on debating the science? To what end? The public is totally disinterested which is not debatable. Seems to me an exercise in group navel contemplation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Absolutely hilarious and supremely ironic. Wuwei tends to jump on bandwagons and he thought he had himself a new bud.
> 
> Wuwei thinks that QM was handed down from mount Olympus complete, perfect, and unshakable.
> 
> His primary reason for stalking me around the board is his endless frustration at not being able to get me to hop on the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model crazy train that is QM.



Looks like you found a new bud. I am not frustrated. I am fascinated by your utter disbelief in science to the extent that you invent new definitions, and have a self contradictory fake physics. It isn't just QM you deny, it's the basic laws of thermodynamics and radiation physics. You haven't been able to shake QM. It must frustrate you. 


.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> I just dont get all this time and energy spent on debating the science? To what end? The public is totally disinterested which is not debatable. Seems to me an exercise in group navel contemplation.


You are right. The public is disinterested. But it isn't a debate for the public.  When somebody totally butchers the laws of physics in a sad attempt to prove their point, it's fodder for this forum.


.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You are right. The public is disinterested.


Not really, but:


> While public interest in science continues to grow, the level of U.S. scientific literacy remains largely unchanged, according to a survey by the Institute for Social Research.
> 
> Funded by NASA, the study found that 51 percent of Americans are interested in science, but only 28 percent have a sufficient level of scientific understanding to follow and engage in debates about current science and technology policy issues.
> 
> The level of scientific literacy has remained constant for nearly a decade.


_-More-_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Looks like you found a new bud.


LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


What do you think that comment means?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are right. The public is disinterested.
> ...


Yes, a good percentage of the public is interested in things like the Pluto fly-by and the moons of the larger planets. I was referring to very fundamental physics such as laws of radiation physics. The public is much less interested in that. (My unsupported opinion.)

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.


Yes I know. I was just teasing SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. I hardly think so. Not after this experience. I'm sure you and I better agree on the important things.
> ...


It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.

How about you provide any definition I made up...what happened to you that made you such a liar?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.


That's exactly what you are doing right now. 



SSDD said:


> How about you provide any definition I made up...what happened to you that made you such a liar?


Nope. Not a liar.

You gave a colloquial definition to redefine "spontaneous emission".
You defined anything "man-made" to never be involved in a spontaneous process.
You redefined the second temperature term in the SB equation to always be colder.
You redefined black body radiation so that it doesn't radiate near a hotter object.
You redefined the CMB to be "resonance frequencies".
You redefined the nature of the second law of thermodynamics.

There are probably other examples where you alter fundamental terms so you can deny proven science. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny when the monkeys think they are teasing the spectators when really all they are doing is flinging excrement.
> ...


Your memory is a liar also...the discussion was about spontaneous processes...you tried to introduce the definition for a spontaneous emission as a definition for spontaneous process...the error was yours as a result of your ignorance.  You lie like a rug.

I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont...and I never redefined CMB...I pointed out that CMB was initially discovered via a resonant radio frequency...you are either a bald faced liar or one of the most stupid people on the board...and since all this has been explained to you over and over, it appears that bald faced liar describes you best...

Feel free to bring a quote from me in which I redefine anything.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont.



Great it seems you now you agree that

Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
and light sticks and galvanic cells are spontaneous chemical processes
Man made things can be spontaneous
Black bodies radiate to warmer objects
The cold CMB does penetrate the atmosphere and hit a warmer antenna.
The energy of the Clausius definition refers to net energy and that allows two way radiation exchange.
The above statements are the actual science that appears in countless references, and are agreed upon by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Are you now saying you agree with the above science?
.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have redefined nothing...it is you wackjobs wo attempt to redefine physical laws in an attempt to make them say something they dont.
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


As usual when you are replete with bitter insults you are generally wrong.

Spontaneous emission is an example of the more general spontaneous process.
A *spontaneous process*_ is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. Outside intervention is so_mething that changes the process after it has started.​
That *science* definition covers both radiative and chemical examples. Why do you call that lying? It's basic science. Do you still not believe the other items I outlined that I claimed that you redefined and you claimed that I was lying? Why didn't you mention them too?


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
> 
> and light sticks and galvanic cells are spontaneous chemical processes
> 
> ...


Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light.  Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.

Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.

Please post up what you think man has made that is spontaneous that did not require work to create it.

CMB is low energy photons which can be emitted in the direction of warmer matter but has no or the revers effect if a photon is matter and not pure energy. As matter it will cool the object as it will take energy from the warmer object before it can be re-emitted.

There so much you think you know and you don't...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results.


You still have not presented the hypothesis you think is valid....  Come on boy, post  up the hypothesis you think is valid.  AGW is a HYPOTHESIS as it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERIMENT.

We keep asking for the evidence and the hypothesis your using and all you do is circle jerk..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Phosphorescence is a spontaneous emission
> ...



I have been over spontaneous processes with him over and over...there are probably 6 or 7 incarnations of him losing the same discussion scattered across the board..  he obviously isn't as smart as he thinks he is by half...but tedium?  He has tedium down pat.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > They offer no counter theory so never need present experimental results.
> ...


Dont ask him to actually discuss the science...science is hard.  He would rather relax and luxuriate in the ease of unsupportable opinion and logical fallacy...no effort required.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> science is hard. He would rather relax and luxuriate in the ease of unsupportable opinion and logical fallacy...no effort required.


Yes, after watching you, Billy, and jc circle jerk for so long while producing no substance, I ashamedly admit to spontaneously emitting non-phosphorescent matter several times all over your avatars. It's like there's no stopping it once the process starts. And yes, I do seem to enjoy a period of basking and relasking in the cool after glow. Please come up with a coherent counter theory to explain our globe's plainly evident record warming. Oooh, aaah, make it stop!

eta: NASA, NASA, NASA!

bwahahaha! Oooo..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) has shown that thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding are all at the lowest they have been in 100 years.
> 
> Empirical studies in the last three years show glaciers are now expanding and growing, Temperatures are flat and no ocean rise is being seen. Ocean temps are falling and the circulations that caused the last 30 years of warming are now cooling...
> 
> I guess you got to get your lies in before it becomes undeniable that your a liar..


And, of course, the Kochs have catapulted your propaganda through Ryan Maue.


> The *Cato Institute* is a libertarian think tank founded by Charles G. Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.


The real big picture:






Please stop crying. We've had more than enough rain here already.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) has shown that thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding are all at the lowest they have been in 100 years.
> ...


So do you have all of the data on what weather is normal?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

What's hilarious is that Ryan clearly can't help using the same (genuine) data source as everyone else (NASA/NOAA) prior to massaging like crazy.
Here he shows that we're already ripping up the record this year (see "% of Normal YTD column") well before our hurricane season has even begun.


jc456 said:


> So do you have all of the data on what weather is normal?


Whaa? Offering nothing again?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > science is hard. He would rather relax and luxuriate in the ease of unsupportable opinion and logical fallacy...no effort required.
> ...



Your a moron... Phosphoresence material will return to zero energy storage just like anything else in science. Without an energy source and work being done it will not florese.




Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) has shown that thunderstorms, rainfall, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, flooding are all at the lowest they have been in 100 years.
> ...



You cant even read your own graph...          now that's funny!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> What's hilarious is that Ryan clearly can't help using the same (genuine) data source as everyone else (NASA/NOAA) prior to massaging like crazy.
> Here he shows that we're already ripping up the record this year (see "% of Normal YTD column") well before our hurricane season has even begun.
> 
> 
> ...


LOL

Again having problems reading the graph...  Why do you lie about things so obviously wrong?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahaaa! Oh, stop! Please! Before I spontaneously emit again!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


JC

These people have no morals. They will lie to get power and money..





Empirical  evidences shows our range of 14 deg C throughout history.  Our interglacial ranges are about 6-8 deg C. They have no fucking clue what the earths 'normal' temperatures are to be. Its a sham and a lie. I would say normal is relevant to the position in the cycle we are.




We are at the end of our current interglacial. Normal is about to be 6 to 8 deg Cooler than we are today...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> We are at the end of our current interglacial. Normal is about to be 6 to 8 deg Cooler than we are today...


So are you admitting that, thanks to AGW, we are warmer than we would be now? Or do you continue to just deny and admit nothing as usual?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have been over spontaneous processes with him over and over...there are probably 6 or 7 incarnations of him losing the same discussion scattered across the board.. he obviously isn't as smart as he thinks he is by half...but tedium? He has tedium down pat.


You are lying again. I always refer to the science definitions. That is the only thing that makes sense. You are misquoting the definitions and saying the science is wrong. You have lying down pat.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


And this is why you idiots believe in AGW...  And you have yet to provide us with the hypothesis, in your own words.

*"eta: NASA, NASA, NASA!"*

Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > We are at the end of our current interglacial. Normal is about to be 6 to 8 deg Cooler than we are today...
> ...




NO you moron.  We are exactly where we should be just prior to cooling into the next glacial cycle ACCORDING TO EMPIRICAL RECORDS.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.





You would have to go back 450,000 years to find an interglaical with length longer than today and our current temperature spike is consistent with previous interglacials just before the fall back into the glacial portion of the cycle.

Hate to break it to you alarmists, but this is NATURAL VARIATION!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...


Yes, you are convincingly clueless as to your own reliance upon the "Authority" (NASA/NOAA) for your own ridiculous attempts to discredit that very same "Authority" (NASA/NOAA). All the data backs AGW. I need provide no more. You have nothing. Grow up. Just imagine how exciting actually giving a shit about others could really be..


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Dont ask him to actually discuss the science...science is hard. He would rather relax and luxuriate in the ease of unsupportable opinion and logical fallacy...no effort required.


You are lying again. I have gone through the science ad nausium. Here it is again.



Wuwei said:


> As usual when you are replete with bitter insults you are generally wrong.
> 
> Spontaneous *emission *is an example of a general spontaneous *process*.
> 
> _*A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. Outside intervention is something that changes the process after it has started. *_​



_That *science* definition covers both radiative and chemical examples._ Why do you call that logical fallacy? How can a definition be unsupportable? Do you still not believe the other items I outlined that I claimed that you redefined and you claimed that I was lying? Why didn't you mention them too?

You never answered why you redefined the following which is not well accepted science: Why are you afraid to answer?

You defined anything "man-made" to never be involved in a spontaneous process.
You redefined the second temperature term in the SB equation to always be colder.
You redefined black body radiation so that it doesn't radiate near a hotter object.
You redefined the CMB to be "resonance frequencies".
You redefined the nature of the second law of thermodynamics.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> What's hilarious is that Ryan clearly can't help using the same (genuine) data source as everyone else (NASA/NOAA) prior to massaging like crazy.
> Here he shows that we're already ripping up the record this year (see "% of Normal YTD column") well before our hurricane season has even begun.
> 
> 
> ...


So you can’t prove extreme until you prove normal. So post that data! What’s wrong bubba? Pwned


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...
> ...


Show us normal then


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...
> ...


Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling).  And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.
> 
> Galvanic cells require work to create the imbalance, without work being accomplished you have a worthless pile of technology.



So, both you and SSDD don't understand the definition, or are making up your own. Please focus on the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble.

_A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. 
*Outside intervention is something that changes the process after it has started. *_

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
You can watch the cartoon, or start reading after the first bold faced heading.

Notice that phosphorescence and batteries follow the definition.

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.
> ...


Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.

Chemical batteries require energy to create the imbalance.

To meet the definition of "spontaneously" it must create its own energy without outside work being done. These clearly do not meet that criteria.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Phosphorescence requires the storage and build up of energy, ie:sun light. Without sunlight it can not emit energy, because it has no stored energy. Work must be done for this to gain energy.
> ...


“spon·ta·ne·ous
/spänˈtānēəs/
_adjective_

performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
"the audience broke into spontaneous applause"
synonyms: unforced, voluntary, unconstrained, unprompted, unbidden, unsolicited, unplanned, unpremeditated, unrehearsed, impulsive, impetuous, unstudied, impromptu, spur-of-the-moment, extempore, extemporaneous; More
(of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
synonyms: natural, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, unaffected, easy, free and easy; More
(of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
"spontaneous miscarriages"”


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.
> 
> Chemical batteries require energy to create the imbalance.
> 
> To meet the definition of "spontaneously" it must create its own energy without outside work being done. These clearly do not meet that criteria.



Your first two sentences are correct, but the following are way off. You still haven't understood the bold faced part of the definition. That is where you are having trouble. You are making up your own definition.

_A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. 
*Outside intervention is something that changes the process after it has started. *_
_*
Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com*_

The science definition is at the link. Did you read it or understand it? It is very simple to understand. Watch the video.


_*.*_


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.
> 
> View attachment 265172
> 
> ...


There's nothing "consistent with previous interglacials" there. Most notable is the increasing temperature variation as time marched forward to the point where most recently it's banging up and down like a chart recorder riding in the back of a pickup truck driving through the Badlands.Yes, that NOAA supplied data, minus your childish scribbling, indicates that we should be cooling. Other NOAA data clearly shows we're not.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Without the insertion of energy nothing would florese.
> ...


You don’t understand spontaneous. Fk everything else. You have to get past that definition first. Waiting


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


"1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."

Bingo...

"(of a process or event) *occurring without apparent external cause*."


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


He won’t respond


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > If you look at previous interglacials we are long in time span at the current temperature.
> ...



Your not interested in the science. You are a political whore.. 

And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


He’s another wash, rinse, repeat idiot.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?


You're not, you're arguing, ("your" & "your"  - hey, correct!), you're arguing.  Aaaah, I feel better now


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?
> ...


WOW...

Now were resorting to Grammar policing...  Another indication of a failed alarmist trying to save face by deflecting his own idiocy..

Bravo. You have hit every single one of the alarmist playbook directions.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Ooops, just emitted on your avatar again. Sorry


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.


We are The Borg. All your supposed empirical evidence belong to us. All the equipment. All the data. All the charts. We supply it. You supply nothing. You pee and shit on all of it. You beg for more. We tire of this childish game. You will be assimilated. We are the Borg...


----------



## jillian (Jun 13, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> 
> 1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.
> 
> ...


Would you care to lie some more? 

Vladimir is proud of you


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?
> ...


When you got no response, grammatical checking kicks in


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

jillian said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...


He’s your bud? Seems you know what he likes comrade !


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your not arguing science your arguing fantasy.. Keep your broken models, they will crash just as they have for the last 50 years or so as you have failed to fix the most basic of scientific processes in the earths atmosphere (this shows us that your authorities still do not have a grasp of what it is they are modeling). And still no explanation of the AGW hypothesis, so you don't have a clue what it is your arguing for. DO you always argue from a point of ignorance?
> ...


You know you have lost the discussion when you start correcting grammar and punctuation rather than providing evidence to support your position.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And another appeal to logical fallacy/authority devoid of empirical evidence.
> ...



Typical warmer...when you have nothing, resort to the old appeal to ridicule...that's as good a logical fallacy as any I suppose.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> "1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."
> 
> Bingo...
> 
> "(of a process or event) *occurring without apparent external cause*."


Can you name a process in physics that you think is spontaneous by your definition?


.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."
> ...


Sure, the surface of earth radiating to the atmosphere after absorbing the sun’s radiation!


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I don't think Billy or SSDD would agree with that. Ask them.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Why? Do you  think they don’t think the earth absorbs the sun’s radiation and emits IR to the atmosphere? Naw, you’re fkd as usual


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "1. Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."
> ...


The sun....

Without energy from the sun we would approach 2.1 deg K.  The earth receives energy from the sun and as a black body will emit radiation as it cools.  There was work and then there was entropy back to cold. Even the earth is not a spontaneous system according to science.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Want to see evidence of the alarmist fraud in climate science?  Look no further than time magazine.  The UN chief is posing in the water at Tuvulu...billings it as one of the most vulnerable places in the world due to climate change...sea level rise specifically.  He knows full well that a 2018 study found the land mass of Tuvulu to be growong..in recent decades the land mass has increased by 3%...but he engages in the fraud non the less for the money the fraud brings in.  And which prominent scientific society stepped up to correct the lie?  Which prominent institution  of education  pointed out the error?  Which environmentalist organization stood up to say that he is wrong. There is your bald faced evidence of fraud by the whole climate change community...that is just one example...they are legion...That is what climate pseudoscience is all about.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd I love it when you idiots use Logical Fallacy and Appeals to Authority in an effort to keep people from seeing how utterly devoid of science and fact you are...
> ...


Which observed measured data...we keep asking, you keep not delivering.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

"Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."
"Can you name a process in physics that you think is spontaneous by your definition?"

Ultimately, the Aether is the source, supply, drain, sink,.. the medium required for all energy transfer to take place. All results from local "perturbations" of The Aether.


> Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena. My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment. - Nikola Tesla





> Magnetic Inductance is a polarized dimensional relation for the magnetic modalities of appearances (so to say) of the Ether, and Dielectric Capacitance is thus a non-dimensional inertial relation for the dielectric modalities of the Ether. For the magnetic induction the Ether modality is known as the magnetic permeability, for the dielectric induction the Ether modality is known as the dielectric permittivity. - Ken L. Wheeler


So, on one hand I can agree with the notion of The Sun being our most obvious local driver then immediately snatch that away and credit The Aether which is and always has driven everything we can experience or observe. However, on the other hand there's the concept of getting ridiculous. Of course, in modern physics parlance, two dissimilar metals in close proximity (a battery) noticeably producing a current can be considered "spontaneous." Phosphorescence as well for all practical purposes.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Where else would it radiate to?  What a goob.  Is there any topic you dont lie about?

It is what happens to the energy once it is in the atmosphere that is rather subject of disagreement.  Now you are trying to redefine the whole subject...typical..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> "Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or *external stimulus*."
> "Can you name a process in physics that you think is spontaneous by your definition?"
> 
> Ultimately, the Aether is the source, supply, drain, sink,.. the medium required for all energy transfer to take place. All results from local "perturbations" of The Aether.
> ...



If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness, and store it in complete darkness, it will never eff nit the first photon of light.  It is only after it absorbs em energy that it phosphoresces... clearly not a spontaneous process...and there is no electricity in a battery till it is charged...the final step in the manufacturing process...and when all that electricity is gone, wes whatever process it was powering ceases...again...clearly not a spontaneous process...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness,


You're adding an irrational qualifiers. Most things aren't manufactured in darkness. The manufacture itself is quite irrelevant. A "process" may be presumed to start from any state and proceed from there. Manufacture is "premeditation"  but two dissimilar metals producing a current in a dump is not. Many rotting logs and tree roots glow at night "without premeditation or *external stimulus*" in any practical sense.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness,
> ...


What is the name of your battery that works without a charge?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> What is the name of your battery that works without a charge?


Let's see, I dub thee "Dump Battery" or an "ASB - Activation Series Battery", but Galvanic Cell would suffice - "an electrochemical cell that derives electrical energy from spontaneous redox reactions taking place within the cell". Galvanic reactions can be presumed to exist between untouched dissimilar metals buried deep within the Earth. Natural radioactive processes as well having no historical connection with the Sun.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness,
> ...



A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

The point was that without any input from the surroundings, you dont get phosphorescence...the fact that phosphorescence requires energy from its surroundings means that it is not a spontaneous process

Wuwei was specifically referring to processes that produce light..  on the metals you are right...on the logs you are not...put the metals in a vaccum with no energy input from the surroundings and they will still produce current...the log won't rot though.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

The log rots because it is being consumed by organisms...definitely not a spontaneous process


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The log rots because it is being consumed by organisms...definitely not a spontaneous process


A log is a living thing. It decays  just like a human


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The point was that without any input from the surroundings, you dont get phosphorescence...the fact that phosphorescence requires energy from its surroundings means that it is not a spontaneous process


This is where you get sublimely ridiculous. The part that goes without saying is "current." It makes no sense to have the term at all otherwise. There'd be nothing to distinguish phosphorescence or luminescence from anything exhibiting luminance. Words have meaning for good reason.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The log rots because it is being consumed by organisms...definitely not a spontaneous process


The point was some rotting logs produce luminescence. I even provided a link. But rotting is spontaneous in any practical sense as well. I would agree if you said most people don't think of a log rotting as being spontaneous. They don't think of it as any sort of reaction. They think "quick." But we're supposedly discussing science. In science spontaneous generally connotes occurring without ongoing or premeditated human intervention or input. Light from an electric lamp is thus not spontaneous. A fire started by lightning or discarded, oily rags, yes. Started by an arsonist, no.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The point was that without any input from the surroundings, you dont get phosphorescence...the fact that phosphorescence requires energy from its surroundings means that it is not a spontaneous process
> ...



Yes words mean things..
*Phosphorescence*, emission of light from a substance exposed to radiation and persisting as an afterglow after the exciting radiation has been removed. Unlike fluorescence, in which the absorbed light is spontaneously emitted about 10-8 second after excitation, phosphorescence requires additional excitation to produce radiation and may last from about 10-3second to days or years, depending on the circumstances.

This isn't that compliczted... if energy from the surroundings is required or cause the excited state...the emission isn't a spontaneous process.

And the speed at which the process happens is irrelevant to whether it is spontaneous or not


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The log rots because it is being consumed by organisms...definitely not a spontaneous process
> ...



When we decay it is because we are being consumed by organisms


Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The log rots because it is being consumed by organisms...definitely not a spontaneous process
> ...



Bioluminescence of that sort is the result of chemical processes within living organisms...which require energy from their surroundings...also not a spontaneous process


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous...words mean things for a reason


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> This isn't that compliczted... if energy from the surroundings is required or cause the excited state...the emission isn't a spontaneous process


Humans create and use language for human ends. If _continuous outside_ input is required -or- (obviously human) premeditation... 
If it goes by itself...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous...words mean things for a reason


In isolation, no. But in a forest, yes. Depends how you bound the system. Having no surroundings - no exchange of air, moisture, sunlight, pressure, heat, radiation, .. -  is not natural. Smells like teen pseudoscience.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Not if the log or root itself is dead, thus "rotting." Nor dead portions of living branches or roots.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

> *Natural science* is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.
> 
> Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and earth science. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields).
> 
> In Western society's analytic tradition, the empirical sciences and especially natural sciences use tools from formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature".


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous...words mean things for a reason
> ...


maybe a more complete definition will help you out...or maybe no amount of definition will convince you that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

*Spontaneous Process Definition*
A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own. For example, a ball will roll down an incline, water will flow downhill, ice will melt into water, radioisotopes will decay, and iron will rust. No intervention is required because these processes are thermodynamically favorable. In other words, *the initial energy is higher than the final energy
*
Note how _quickly_ a process occurs has no bearing on whether or not it is spontaneous. It may take a long time for rust to become obvious, yet when iron is exposed to air, the process will occur. A radioactive isotope may decay instantly or after thousands or millions or even billions of years.


*Spontaneous Versus Nonspontaneous*
*Energy must be added in order for a nonspontaneous process to occur.* The reverse of a spontaneous process is a nonspontaneous process. For example, rust doesn't convert back into iron on its own. A daughter isotope won't return to its parent state.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 14, 2019)




----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I have no pertinent disagreement with those definitions. Again, what you fail to grok is the implied "current", "ongoing", "further"... "A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any {current, ongoing, or further} energy input from the surroundings." "{current, ongoing, or further} Energy must be added in order for a nonspontaneous process to occur."


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2019)

I think if ongoing, current or further were implied, it would be part of the definition....you shine a light on a phosphorescent material and turn the light off and it will continue to glow till the absorbed energy is expended...it can take hours or longer...bit when the absorbed energy is expended, the process stops till more energy is supplied. 

The definition says what ti says...anything else is an interpretation on your part that really means nothing


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous..


Again, whether this "energy" comes from immediate surroundings or rotting is attributed to "internal organisms" (fungi, bacteria) all within the system being considered part of the experiment or under study, it's spontaneous, else not. By definition, if you shine light on something from outside after the experiment has begun all resulting light produced back is not spontaneous. Only the portion that would have been produced without your interference is spontaneous.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You don't follow the conversation, say something stupid and then insult others. You keep doing that.
I will make it easy.
JC said the sun radiating, etc was spontaneous
You believe the sun is doing work. ( See post #453
Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling.... )

Therefore whatever results from the sun doing work (the earth radiating) is not spontaneous.
So according to your butchered physics what JC said is not spontaneous because work is being done.

Try reading for comprehension. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness, and store it in complete darkness, it will never eff nit the first photon of light. It is only after it absorbs em energy that it phosphoresces... clearly not a spontaneous process...and there is no electricity in a battery till it is charged...the final step in the manufacturing process...and when all that electricity is gone, wes whatever process it was powering ceases...again...clearly not a spontaneous process...



*You don't understand the physics of spontaneous processes!*

Illuminating a phosphor is not spontaneous. 
After illumination, put the phosphor in the dark again. 
It will spontaneously emit because no further energy is powering it.
That makes it a spontaneous process. That is the meaning of the physics definition. 

*If you don't abide by the physics definitions, you are talking absolute nonsense!*

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The point was that without any input from the surroundings, you dont get phosphorescence...the fact that phosphorescence requires energy from its surroundings means that it is not a spontaneous process



This is the physics definition. You keep missing the bold faced sentence. Anything outside this definition is not physics. 

Spontaneous Process: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
_A spontaneous process is a process that occurs on its own without outside intervention. *Outside intervention is something that changes the process after it has started.*_​
.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


That’s not what I said at all, dude embellish much


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The point was that without any input from the surroundings, you dont get phosphorescence...the fact that phosphorescence requires energy from its surroundings means that it is not a spontaneous process
> ...


What’s your point?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> That’s not what I said at all, dude embellish much


Right. I paraphrased the important point I was getting at --- the sun radiation part, not the earth radiating part. That was for SSDD.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> What’s your point?


If you don't know what the point is, you are not understanding what SSDD thinks, and what the actual science is.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I agree with you, but you disagree with SSDD who believes the sun is doing work and therefore the radiation is not spontaneous. 
( See post #453 Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling.... )

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > That’s not what I said at all, dude embellish much
> ...


Yeah, cause it isn’t what I fking said! You’re just one mthr fking liar. No fking class punk


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > What’s your point?
> ...


I don’t think you know your point


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous..
> ...


Tree dries out like a human


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Tree dries out like a human


Your point? 

Thanks. Brings up an example I've been considering. An old man ("a human") dies. His progeny are to see that his 'remains" are buried in a casket further contained within a concrete vault, all centered in a graveyard plot bearing the family headstone and all purchased long prior for these purposes according to his wishes as stated in the Will.

So the funeral takes place. The casket is lowered into the vault. The vault lid is positioned. Each family member shovels a little dirt on top and they start heading off. Two scientists arrive as the vault handlers pack down the last bits of rough soil. They synchronize their stopwatches and say "Go!" The experiment has now officially begun...

See, unbeknownst to the family, these scientists had checked every detail in advance. They had inspected the hole, the vault, the casket, the body, everything... Only after they were 100% satisfied with the pristine quality, cleanliness, sanctity, caulking.. in short the dry, pure, wholesome, sanitary nature of the entire business, did they finally give the go ahead to the funeral home to bring the body to the gravesite.

One scientist had bet the other $1000 that the body would not rot encased in such an air and water tight shell. He swore repeatedly that without the chemical processes within a living organism, without energy from the surroundings, even if the body were somehow being consumed by organisms, though we had the mortician thoroughly disinfect and double embalm the old fart just to make sure,.. he could not rot and even if he did it simply couldn't be considered spontaneous.

Well, guess what? A month later the peer review panel had the casket exhumed and inspected the remains, the other scientist quietly snickering to herself all the while. And soon after they declared their near immediate unanimous decision, noses all firmly in hand, she laughed all the way to the bank.. and more on her way back home!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Tree dries out like a human
> ...



The problem with your scenario is that all the air tight perfect seal almost guarantees that a body will turn to sludge.  Embalming only provides a temporary halt to the breakdown process and rarely permeates the body well enough to kill all organisms and does nothing about the enzymes our bodies start to release upon our demise that break down cell walls.

Our bodies, unlike plants are made up mostly of liquid filled cells surrounded by membranes that are mostly liquid.  Thos membranes break down and we begin to turn to sludge in an environment with no airflow whatsoever.  Airflow serves to dry out the cells and rather than burst they tend to mummify.

Eventually microbes and what ever other creatures can get to us will will devour all of us to dust or if conditions are just so, we may mineralize and parts obecome fossils,  but the process can take a very long time...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness, and store it in complete darkness, it will never eff nit the first photon of light. It is only after it absorbs em energy that it phosphoresces... clearly not a spontaneous process...and there is no electricity in a battery till it is charged...the final step in the manufacturing process...and when all that electricity is gone, wes whatever process it was powering ceases...again...clearly not a spontaneous process...
> ...



It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight.  You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.

No matter how much reinterpretation you engage in, you are not going to make energy flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.


It is the science definition. Not my interpretation. 
Spontaneous emission of radiation generally decays exponentially. So what? Nobody ever said that it would go on indefinitely. That's absurd. 

Spontaneous process - Wikipedia
_A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state. _​
You are simply in denial of the physics definition and the science behind it. You desperately want to deny back radiation and will bastardize physics and substitute your own fake physics to rationalize yourself. Let's face it you are a science nihilist. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.
> ...



Are you stupid?  Or are you just dishonest?  Or are you stupid and dishonest?  Here is your definition.


A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.[1][2]

and there is where you stopped..did you stop there because you thought it agreed with you?  Did you stop there because you thought you might fool someone?  Did you stop because you just didn't want to  have  to admitting that you were wrong and would rather lie?

Les continue with YOUR DEFINITION right to the end...I will bold it for you when we get there.

The sign convention for free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamicmeasurements, in which a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in the free energy of the system and a positive change in the free energy of the surroundings.

Depending on the nature of the process, the free energy is determined differently. For example, the Gibbs free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant pressure and temperature conditions whereas the Helmholtz free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant volume and temperature conditions.
*
Because spontaneous processes are characterized by a decrease in the system's free energy, they do not need to be driven by an outside source of energy
*
Decrease in free energy...it said it right there in the first sentence of YOUR DEFINITION and you didn't even know what the hell it meant or you would rather lie than admit that you did and that it meant that you have been wrong all along...which is it?

Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..

Now take your lying wrong ass off somewhere and for Pete's sake, try to learn something before something before you come back.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You did it again. You state the obvious and start a rampage of bitterness.

Your included phrase is simply a further clarification of exactly what I quoted. It is nothing for you to get excited over.

*Because spontaneous processes are characterized by a decrease in the system's free energy, they do not need to be driven by an outside source of energy*

Just what do you think you are rebuking? You don't understand Gibb's Free Energy.

I said it many times. First there is an energy input to the system which increases the internal energy *That is not spontaneous.*

Then when there is no further external energy input the system can discharge the energy. *That is spontaneous*.

When the Gibb's Free energy is depleted the spontaneous process stops. It's really simple. You really don't understand the science at all. Think of the two phases (1) charge a battery. (2) Disconnect the charger and use the (spontaneous) energy from the battery. (3) When the battery is depleted, charge it again.

I think I'm talking to a blank wall. You will never ever understand physics.

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So, despite your earlier reticence, you now agree that a rotting organism well represents a spontaneous process while sternly avoiding explicitly saying so or exhibiting any appreciation for the story telling delivery or injected humor. Tough crowd. Tough crowd indeed.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight.


True. Both are generally spontaneous. Both produce "a decrease in the system's free energy." Neither need "be driven by an outside source of energy." 


> Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2019)

"Disposable" battery makers often manufacture their own brand of flashlights because they can't help but love how the obsolescence is designed in so easily. They make sure the batteries fail after a certain period of time, whether chemically spent or not, by:

1) making them non rechargeable.
2) making sure most of those "lasting longer" than designed leak their acidic, electrically conductive crap all over the place.

Now just make sure the on/off switch is positioned perfectly so as to be shorted out by said crap and voila! The flashlight *spontaneously* turns itself on. The batteries get warmer so then leak enough to short themselves out, hopefully also eating through some of the flashlight's delicate contact material, thereby destroying the flashlight as well...  no matter how thoroughly the owner attempts to clean the damned thing upon discovering it dead in its drawer. Now THAT's American capitalism at its finest, baby! Rinse and repeat...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 15, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Now THAT's American capitalism at its finest, baby! Rinse and repeat...


We are getting off topic but another fine capitalist trick is to sell printers for 25 cents, and ink refills at 70 dollars. I'm exaggerating on the printer cost but not on Canon ink refills. 

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> We are getting off topic


Don't be silly. Proof of fraud. Stick in a bold "spontaneously" somewhere and you're golden!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 15, 2019)

Few are likely familiar with AGS (Anthropogenic Globe Spinning), a distant, decidedly unspontaneous cousin of AGW. Well, without further ado, I give you the man responsible, Bill French!


Bill French, everyone! Bill French!
https://www.movaglobes.com/shop/


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.
> ...



Try a real DICTIONARY meaning of the word, from Merriam-Webster



> con·sen·sus | \ kən-ˈsen(t)-səs   \
> 
> *Definition of consensus*
> 
> 1a *: *general agreement *: *unanimity the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey



It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.

REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.

There have been MANY Consensus failures over the last few Centuries, which is why good scientists use Reproducible research instead, over a group belief based on a standard, that too often gets overturned by a few or even ONE person.

Recall how Stomach Ulcers were caused by "spicy foods", or "stress" or, "Coffee" and so on, it was a Consensus belief, which was smashed by a single person who discovered that a simple Anti-Biotic treatment made it vanish, but at first he was rebuffed by the.... ahem... the consensus.

From Medicine Net



> A peptic ulcer is an area of damage to the inner lining of the stomach, esophagus, or duodenum (the first part of the small intestine). Over 25 million Americans will have a peptic ulcer at some point in their lifetime. People of all ages can suffer from ulcers. Men and women are equally affected.
> 
> Peptic ulcers were formerly thought to be caused by stress, coffee consumption, or spicy foods. Now it is clear that about 60% of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection that can usually be cured. Another 20% are caused by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen (Advil, Nuprin, etc.), and another 20% have miscellaneous causes such as cigarettes or no clear cause.



This one from DISCOVER Magazine

*The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery*
*The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
*
Excerpt:

For years an obscure doctor hailing from Australia’s hardscrabble west coast watched in horror as ulcer patients fell so ill that many had their stomach removed or bled until they died. That physician, an internist named Barry Marshall, was tormented because he knew there was a simple treatment for ulcers, which at that time afflicted 10 percent of all adults. In 1981 Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called _Helicobacter pylori_. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: antibiotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.

_red bolding mine_

LINK
===========================================================================================
You need to drop this stupid Consensus bullcrap since they have been wrong many times, Alfred Wegener, J. Harlan Bretz, Semmelweis and more tried to correct the group belief in something, but that took years even 50 or more years before the consensus group were wrong and ONE person was right.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist.  Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings".  Its  a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
> 
> REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.


Okay, calm down... You calm? Now look again at the definition I provided:


> Consensus is achieved through _{...yada, yada...}_, replication (of reproducible results by others), _{...yada, yada...}_


Got it? That is the main point. Not just "an OPINION based on reports". And I agree with you. There's lots of sucky institutional bias involved. No one suggested otherwise nor that it was perfect. I could write a book of ranting and raving about issues here and driven too much by need to publish there. Opinion? Of course! But the intent is improvement over relative chaos. Best practices. And so here we are. Easy to criticize by bringing up examples of apparent failure. How about the successes? Where would we be now if medicine still relied mainly upon those screaming loudest about having the latest, greatest,most wondrous cure of all time?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist. Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings". Its a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.


No shit. That's why simple "consensus" has never been the real issue. Scientific consensus, yes! The "scientific" part means checks and balances are built in to try and mitigate the negative effects of confirmation bias. Can you say "Scientific consensus"? I knew you could! Do I expect you to ever begin doing so here? Hell no! Not from what I've witnessed here so far..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
> ...



You used the editable Wikipedia definition, while I used the long standard definition from Merriam Webster, where they made it clear it an OPINION based on "reports" (confirmation bias comes into play here) was their position. 

Here is one from CAMBRIDGE Dictionary:



> *consensus*
> noun [ S or U ] uk  /kənˈsen.səs/ us  /kənˈsen.səs/
> generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people:
> 
> ...



Once again it is a collective OPINION, which doesn't really establish true understanding of anything, since Consensus positions can be just as incorrect whether it is done by 2 people or by millions of people, they can still be wrong. That is why Science can't run on consensus positions because it doesn't establish anything, while REPRODUCIBLE research does.

From BUSINESS Dictionary:



> Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.



From Duhaime's Law Dictionary



> A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution.



From Vocabulary.com



> *agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole*
> “the lack of *consensus* reflected differences in theoretical positions”
> “those rights and obligations are based on an unstated *consensus*”



In that link, they also make this statement you should ponder over since there are plenty of evidence that YOUR concept of Consensus doesn't exist anyway:



> Ever notice how people disagree about just about everything, from who's the best baseball player to how high taxes should be? Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world, it's hard to find a consensus on anything. There are just too many opinions. However, in a smaller group, reaching a consensus is possible.



All standard definitions of Consensus doesn't contain the word Reproducible in it, you are being mislead by Wikipedia which can be edited to include such a word.

*I notice you completely IGNORED the fact that consensus has been wrong many times over the years, why are you ducking this reality which utterly destroys the usefulness of declaring consensus positions?* Wegener versus most the members of Geology, Bretz versus most of the members of Geology, Marshall versus the field of Gastroenterology and so on, the lone person destroys the consensus position every time, HOW? with better reproducible research showing it was the correct one.

It is clear you don't understand how science research is done and how published papers gets validated over time with reproducible results that supports the initial research or that it gets taken down, when it is shown to be without merit, which happens more often than you realize.

Politicians use consensus, while scientists use Reproducible research, that is the distinction you fail on over and over.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Consensus doesn't exist anyway as shown here:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism 

Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

248 total papers, 147 on natural contributions to climate change (sun, ocean oscillations, clouds)

There are plenty more....

By *YOUR* consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> By *YOUR* consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.


Oh, you mean "Scientific Consensus" as opposed to simple consensus? Is that why you can't bring yourself to say it? Because THAT doesn't exist,.. even though you can't help appealing to it.. Relying upon it "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" to feebly attempt arguing against it? I gather one must simply suppose those are *Scientific* "Peer-Reviewed Papers"? Sure, sure, pull the other one! Shirley you'll fool someone other than your shrinking parade of determined fools..

The 97% figure was from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS worldwide, bonehead. Physicists? Who gives a shit? They're all nuttier than I am!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > By *YOUR* consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.
> ...



It is clear you have no argument left to push, I have posted numerous definitions of the WORD Consensus (which you didn't contest), you apparently will ignore them all. You once again ignore evidence of failed consensus positions, and also that by *YOUR* consensus definition, you failed that too when I posted links to THOUSANDS of published science papers that doesn't support your consensus delusion.

You lost on all THREE points I brought up, _you never have made an actual counter to what I wrote at all_, now you are moving the goalpost over whether those thousands of peer reviewed published papers are "scientific", of which YOU must have read in the last 30 minutes, really you can read over 1,500 papers within 30 minutes?

Really.....?

You are obviously an irrational person.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2019)

Aww, still can't bring yourself to say "Scientific Consensus"? Poor baby


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> "Scientific Consensus"


Confirmation Bias....

Your films make it clear that it is CONFIRMATION BIAS as they do not even mention the opposing points of view by real CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Those scientists who are questioning the hypothesis are ignored by the IPCC group circle jerk.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Consensus doesn't exist anyway as shown here:
> 
> 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
> 
> ...


This idiot is content to be a dupe.

1. He has presented no science to refute the empirical evidence and points made.
2. He uses circular logic. (Like the tropospheric hot spot that doesn't exist)
3. He uses appeals to authority and logical fallacy.
4. He then resorts to name calling and denigration.

In no instance does he approach the real science of the hypothesis or allow questioning of it. He is a dupe and a political whore.  A troll who has no evidence nor does he understand the hypothesis..


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 16, 2019)

Sure sounds like whining to me!...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aww, still can't bring yourself to say "Scientific Consensus"? Poor baby



*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*

There is no such DEFINITION of the phrase Scientific Consensus, you got this made up crap from Wikipedia, which doesn't show it to be a real definition either (No link to a dictionary source)



> *Scientific consensus* is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the  community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]



From YOUR Wikipedia link is the very first sentence that shows a link in support, which turns out to be a Green Fact blog where they stated this about Scientific Consensus:



> *Definition:*
> The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon *at a given time* by *most* scientists specialized in a given field.
> 
> Source: GreenFacts



I see that only Wikipedia, Green Facts, and warmist propagandists use this phrase, no one else does.

I posted a few DICTIONARY sources that defined the word Consensus, which you have ignored every time, because you are too deep into the warmist narrative using bogus phrases to promote your lies and propaganda.

You have NO legitimate argument on this, you are an idiot to pursue a proven dead end.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sure sounds like whining to me!...


"We define a logical fallacy as *a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation*. Logical fallacies can comprise _fallacious arguments_ that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation."

Its called exposing deception...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > By *YOUR* consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.
> ...


No it wasn’t completely fake


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Sure sounds like whining to me!...
> ...


Notice they never say what the consensus question was?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.



I see that Grumblemumble didn't read the link, which doesn't support his attempted lie.

He claims that CO2 changes *leads* temperature variation, a lie since that was NEVER concluded in the paper, the ABSTRACT made this clear:



> *Abstract*
> Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. *We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.*



_bolding mine_

You are caught with another lying claim.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.



It was effectively addressed by the following:

The WEGMAN REPORT

The NORTH REPORT

McIntyre and McKitrick [2003]  Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005  The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications 

The Hockey Stick paper contradicted DECADES of research in History, Climate History, that showed the MWP and the LIA was real and significant. It was a paper with limited scope and sparse data, since it was NORTHERN Hemisphere only and that the Bristlecone Tree Ring data are based on a tree with a tiny geographical designation and in a rare ecological state.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process.  Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


A body can turn to sludge and dry out on its own with no help from the surroundings...not so with rotting wood...bacteria and fungi are necessary to break down the cells in woody plants.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight.
> ...



Energy from the surroundings is required...there is no "free" energy.  If you don't have an input from the outside, you don't have the emission.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> "Disposable" battery makers often manufacture their own brand of flashlights because they can't help but love how the obsolescence is designed in so easily. They make sure the batteries fail after a certain period of time, whether chemically spent or not, by:
> 
> 1) making them non rechargeable.
> 2) making sure most of those "lasting longer" than designed leak their acidic, electrically conductive crap all over the place.
> ...



What is ridiculous is that anyone would think anything is "spontaneous" about a flashlight...Imagine that...capitalism can violate the laws of thermodynamics by building planned obsolescence into a flashlight.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you look at the history of science you will find that the "consensus", especially in budding branches of science like climate have been wrong far more often than they have been right.  Even if you know nothing about science whatsoever, you can put the odds heavily in your favor for being right simply by rejecting whatever the consensus believes...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
> ...



Great...so lets see some of those reproducible results...and do make sure that they favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Surely they are out there since you believe in them so fervently.  Lets see some.  One or two will be fine.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist. Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings". Its a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.
> ...



So we are back to what the consensus is based on.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

There has not been a single paper peer reviewed and published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

Any of those would seem to be very basic, and absolutely necessary information upon which to base a consensus that mankind is driving the climate with his CO2.  Since you can produce nothing which challenges any of the above statements, do say, what exactly is this "consensus" based upon?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



As a group, they do love to edit, and interpret the edited versions don't they...the edit the dictionary, they edit the temperature record, they edit what you say and on and on.  Wouldn't it be great if they could just make a case based on actual definitions, actual temporaries and what you actually say?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > By *YOUR* consensus definition, consensus doesn't exist, you have been snookered by the pernicious propaganda, which is Politically based.
> ...


Still waiting to see some of this observed, measured evidence upon which the "scientific consensus" is based...pardon me if I don't hold my breath till it shows up...so far all you have produced is opinion pieces...surely opinion isn't what the "scientific consensus" is based on according to you.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > "Scientific Consensus"
> ...



They are real short on empirical evidence as well.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sure sounds like whining to me!...




Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far.  I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it.  You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.



We already know you don't believe basic science. But in doing so you are in a blatant self contradiction.



SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
> ...



From Second Law of Thermodynamics:
_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object 
to a higher temperature object._

Since you think the sun is not a spontaneous source of energy and involves work then you have no argument against back-radiation which is allowed because the greenhouse gases involve energy of work from the sun.

Furthermore you have not been able to name any process that you think is spontaneous. So the expression that, _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, _really has no practical significance in your world. Yet you continually apply this to everything as an argument against radiation flow from a colder to a warmer object.

*In short you are in a serious self-contradiction to your own believes in your own fake physics*.


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.
> ...



You just have to foist your tedium on everyone don't you?  Revisit any previous incarnation of this topic if you must relive your defeat over and over...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...if an energy input is required, then it isn't a spontaneous process. Been through it all before..if you must relive your loss, visit any previous incarnation of this same discussion...and don't subject everyone to the tedium again.
> ...



There are no spontaneous emissions in the solar system, just ask him.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground. 

Over and over you have been promoting the fake science of (1) debasing the scientific definition of spontaneous processes and (2) the fake science of one way emission of your “smart photons”. And all that time you didn't realize you were contradicting yourself. 

There is no need to prove your fake science is wrong. You did it yourself through self-contradiction.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground.
> 
> .



Truth in 3 words...sorry...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced.  Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the known temperature rise, were less than 0.0013 deg C ie: mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


AS sea water warms it out gasses.. Guess what happened over the last 100 years.  Idiot.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...






Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



Moron


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought | New Scientist

"
“We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.

The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.

As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found."



You are totally ignorant of the science.. I hope your laughing at yourself as the 200 year lag in CO2 is a well seated premise of  atmospheric physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Tedium? My defeat? That is a pretty weak response. It sounds like you have been beaten to the ground.
> ...


Yes your physics simply doesn't work. This is another example, it's not self contradiction but it is an absurd result of your fake physics.

_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That of course is ridiculous. In fact it is *argumentum ad ridiculum*. So obviously there is a misinterpretation of the word “energy” in that some forms of energy do not apply. How do you think the wording should be changed to dismiss that ridiculous example?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...


What is it you think man is doing exactly to CO2, and what is your proposal?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Ok, laugher curve. What’s causing the oceans to warm and release CO2?


Other oceans two hundred years ago....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 22, 2019)

In such tight circles each denialist warms and out gasses instead of thinking or responding responsibly. As the masturbation continues the others warm further, exacerbating the already increased warming which, in turn, has been witnessed to increase their out gassing. This cyclic jerking invariably ends in an embarrassing spontaneous explosion of fluid all over one another requiring immediate bathing and increased alcohol consumption to help them forget what always happens yet again..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



I provided you with 7 peer reviewed, published papers which found that our contribution to CO2 is not measurable and has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2.  I asked you to provide some actual science which said otherwise, and all you seem to be able to do is give example after example of your lack of critical thinking skills.  Here is yet another published paper finding that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is simply not significant...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mospheric_CO2_to_Fossil_Fuel_Emissions_Part_2

As the author points out in the abstract, this paper is a validation of a previous paper.  Maybe you don't know what that means, but it is the result of his attempt to prove his first paper wrong...he went looking for human fingerprints in the total atmospheric CO2 and simply couldn't find them.

"This short note is a validation of a previous work which found no correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale. In this work, this result is tested for robustness with respect to sample period selection within a range of data availability. A resampling procedure similar to bootstrap is used. Resampling ensures that the failure to find a correlation is not an artifact of the sample period chosen. The results validate the robustness of the previous finding and imply that here is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale net of long term trends. This result is robust. It holds for all possible combination of years in the study period 1958-2015 1 ."

So now you have 8 published papers which say that your opinion on our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is incorrect...Is your opinion based on any actual science?  Can you provide any peer reviewed, published science which challenges these findings?  If so, by all means lets see them.  If not, then you are just another handwaving hysteric babbling on about what you believe with no actual evidence whatsoever to support your hysterics.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2.  You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Alas, you are the moron...here is a simple experiment that even a goob like you could perform to see the effect...open two room temperature carbonated drinks....  now set one in the refrigerator, and one out on the counter..  Revisit both cans in 24 hours.  You will find that the drink in the refrigerator still has some carbonation left.  It won't be as fizzy as when it was first opened, but it will still be carbonated.  The drink on the counter, however, will be as flat as it can be.  That is because as the liquid warmed, it outgassed the CO2 that it was holding.  Simple empirical evidence of the different ability of liquid to hold CO2 and what happens as liquids warm.  Now whether or not you will be able to apply that evidence and knowledge to the real world remains to be seen.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> In such tight circles each denialist warms and out gasses instead of thinking or responding responsibly. As the masturbation continues the others warm further, exacerbating the already increased warming which, in turn, has been witnessed to increase their out gassing. This cyclic jerking invariably ends in an embarrassing spontaneous explosion of fluid all over one another requiring immediate bathing and increased alcohol consumption to help them forget what always happens yet again..



So you have nothing but more logical fallacy.  It seems to be a pattern with you.  I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2...you complained about the author of one and apparently ignored the rest..and when questioned about any specific problem with the paper beyond the fact that "YOU" didn't think the author was qualified even though the reviewers and publishers did, you voiced no complaint over his findings.  Did you ever come up with a specific problem with his findings that might be reported to the reviewers or publisher, or was that weak assed ad hominem the best you could manage?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




It was rising before then dumb ass. 


.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around.  that's their kryptonite


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




And plants and animals were HUGE.



.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I'd be happy to entertain a discussion once they can explain the past.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




That's the problem they are counting on uneducated voters who fell asleep during the second grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff.


.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


when the ice age started its warm up, all the ice that melted contributed CO2 to the atmosphere, no human alive.  And, I want them to tell me why the ice age had started to end?  Man wasn't here, and the planet got warmer.  Simply put to them, why?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2


Funny coincidence. In a scholarly manner, I blow my noise into multiple "papers" and then submit them to various trash cans each and every day.


> *FAQ :: SSRN*
> 
> FAQ :: SSRN
> 
> ...


It snot real! You provide only garbage. NASA, you know, the ones providing you clowns with all that data you then deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent to others? Yeah them. Reality:


> Multiple studies *published in peer-reviewed scientific journals* 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.


Poor babies. Don't eat your heart out in one sitting.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Gee, come to think of it, why didn't it get even colder??? The list of stupid questions and comments you shameless idiots cook up is truly mind numbing!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
Careful. Tough questions, fellas!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2
> ...



So you have nothing...that's what I thought.



Grumblenuts said:


> Every submitted paper is reviewed by SSRN staff to ensure that the paper is a part of the scholarly discourse in its subject area. *SSRN does not provide peer review* for papers in the eLibrary. An author may submit a paper that is not scholarly – for example, an editorial or opinion paper.



I asked you if you had any specific complaint about the papers...errors in either the data or the methodology...apparenly you have none...you are simply a science denier who refuses to accept anything that doesn't mesh with your beliefs...



Grumblenuts said:


> It snot real! You provide only garbage. NASA, you know, the ones providing you clowns with all that data you then deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent to others?



Again...I asked you for specific errors in either the data or the methodology of the papers I provided..you call them garbage...based on what?  What errors are in the papers...or do you just believe them to be garbage because they question what you believe?  



Grumblenuts said:


> Multiple studies *published in peer-reviewed scientific journals* 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.



And I keep asking for some actual science to support that claim and you provide nothing...the fact is that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...that being the case, exactly what is this consensus based upon?




Grumblenuts said:


> Poor babies. Don't eat your heart out in one sitting.



Sorry guy...at this point I am just laughing at you...actually offering up your opinion...as a defense of peer reviewed, published science...could you possibly put up a weaker defense.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
> Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
> Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
> Careful. Tough questions, fellas!



Is this discussion about the tobacco industry?  does it prove or disprove anything that has been provided by you?  Of course not...it is just another logical fallacy on your part..  

Is logical fallacy really all you have?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof *you* have nothing!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof *you* have nothing!




Answer what?  You're fallacy.  This discussion is about the climate.  You seem to be arguing that climate science is much like the tobacco industry pushing pseudoscience.  I keep asking for actual evidence to support your claims and you keep not providing any...that would be because all that climate science has provided you with is pseudoscience and there isn't much point in posting that crap up...so you have few options other than to try and deflect from that fact...logical fallacy just won't get you far against someone who is posting actual science up asking for actual science in rebuttal...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> See, couldn't answer. Too tough. Proof *you* have nothing!



I asked you what specific problems you found with either the data or the methodology in any of the multiple peer reviewed, published papers you were provided with.  Rather than answer the question, you try to deflect to the tobacco industry?  Alas, that is proof that you are the one who has nothing...must suck to be so weak in a discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


why didn't it get even colder?  you have no fking idea how cold it got.  what you can't answer is why did it suddenly start to thaw?  come on genius, give us that answer?  why don't you give an answer?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
> Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
> Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
> Careful. Tough questions, fellas!


I thought this was about climate?  how did tobacco enter in?  deflection from an answer?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I provided you with multiple papers which found that our CO2 has no significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2
> ...



What Grumble boy leaves out:

*". What is the SSRN?* *↑* back to top

*SSRN is an open-access online preprint community providing valuable services to leading academic schools and government institutions.* Specializing primarily in social sciences, including economics, law, corporate governance, and humanities, SSRN is branching out in to other science disciplines providing opportunities for scholars to post their early research, collaborate on theories and discoveries, and get credit for their ideas before peer reviewed publication.

SSRN is instrumental as a starting point for PhD students, professors, and institutional faculty to post early-stage research, prior to publication in academic journals.

SSRN provides the online database of early scholarly research – a permanent and searchable online library – always available, worldwide. We make it simple for authors to post their working papers and abstracts. Academics and researchers can browse the SSRN data library and upload their own papers free of charge. Majority of papers can be downloaded from SSRN free of charge. Metrics on author rankings at a glance."

_bolding mine_

You have been exposed as being misleading, you didn't refute anything either.

Your ignorance on how science advances, since not ALL valid research gets published  in journals by the original researcher, it can be picked up in SEMINARS, Phone conversations, mail and e-mails and so on.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


well duh Einstein, we breath.  guess what we exhale?  and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.



Do you go out of your way to post stupid shit like that or are you just that stupid...


----------



## Frannie (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Hey dumbass co2 has nothing to do with the temp increases that are not happening

Try screwing in your bulb


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.
> ...


well you were the subject


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


it takes too many pollocks.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Answer what? You're fallacy.


Speaking of fallacy have you tried figuring out how to get around you fallacy of the second law?
_
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

According to that wording you often use in the second law, you can stand under a cold waterfall and you will not get wet because energy will not flow spontaneously from the lower temperature waterfall to the higher temperature of your head.

That's absurd. So it is obvious that not just any energy is allowed in that statement. You have to reinterpret it.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Ok so what's the problem? Surley you don't want us to run around half naked, live in Mudd huts and hunt buffalo...



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well duh Einstein, we breath. guess what we exhale? and you want to limit that!!! you are truly one dumb ass.
> ...




So think potsie think


..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Answer what? You're fallacy.
> ...




I didn't write the second law...I just accept it without feeling the need to modify it in any way..and 

And the second law predicts that you would get damned cold if you stood under a water fall...your body would readily lose heat to the colder water leaving you shivering...the water would not make you warmer in any way which is precisely what you believe would happen...you clearly don't have the first clue with regard to energy flow...go learn something and come back when you do.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




He will say you're not a scientist and he only believes scientist or clowns..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



He doesn't seem to be able to provide any science to support his position...that being the case, he doesn't seem to believe scientists either...it would appear that he only believes the clowns in the media, the clowns in environmental organizations, and the clowns in government pushing pseudoscience...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you are now saying,
_Energy *can* flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

I agree as long as it is something like a waterfall or in radiation exchange. But if the energy is heat then definitely, 
_Energy *will not* flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


WTF are you talking about.

Spontaneous? Molecules do not stop and start. They are always moving and warmer ones move faster.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 24, 2019)

Lesh said:


> WTF are you talking about.
> 
> Spontaneous? Molecules do not stop and start. They are always moving and warmer ones move faster.


We are talking about a misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics that SSDD has made for many years. He doesn't understand what the physics definition of spontaneous means. He made up his own definition. It's a long story. 

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Did the tobacco industry lie to the public for decades and provide junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could? Yes or No?
> Is the fossil fuel industry obviously continuing to do the same right now? Yes or No?
> Does The Pope wear a funny hat? Yes or No?
> Careful. Tough questions, fellas!




Wait you are comparing the tobacco industry with fossil fuel?

So a few questions for you

1. Where was the government scientists and what were they doing?

2. Have fossil fuel spent billions on R and D in green energy since the 1970s?

Yes or No?

3. Have the bogey men Koch brothers and fossil fuel admits man contributes?

Yes or No?

4. Does the AGW cult funding drawf fossil fuel special interest world wide?

Yes or no?

5. Would 200 million Americans would of drove these in the 1970s, if they knew









Yes or no?



6. Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect.. Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect..  Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> 1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
> 2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
> 3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect..  Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
> You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
> Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!




Deflect much?


I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .



It wouldn't of mattered one bit if we knew man was contributing, no one would of drove those Electric cars.



.

.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .


You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .
> ...




Still avoiding facts?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...




FACTBOX: Oil major's investments in renewable energy - Reuters


Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.


Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All





> According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]
> 
> Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]


So which is it, Bear? Is what Royal Dutch Shell's doing really "terrifying" as Epstein says -or- is it a good thing and Epstein just a shameless opportunist getting rich by pretending to give a shit?

Context:


bear513 said:


> Royal Dutch Shell Plc
> 
> A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All
> ...




Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate



Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Historical Timeline - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org


*Solar-cell technology proved too expensive for terrestrial use until the early 1970s when Dr. Elliot Berman, with financial help from Exxon *Corporation, designed a significantly less costly solar cell by using a poorer grade of silicon and packaging the cells with cheaper materials. Bringing the price down from $100 a watt to $20 per watt, solar cells could now compete in situations where people needed electricity distant from power lines. Off-shore oil rigs, for example, required warning lights and horns to prevent ships from running into them but had no power other than toxic, cumbersome, short-lived batteries. Compared to their installation, maintenance and replacement, solar modules proved a bargain.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...





When Renewables Meet the Oil and Gas Industry, Opposites Attract


* 2: A Volatile Courtship*

Oil and gas companies have been dabbling in the renewables business for a long time. In the wake of the oil shock of the 1970s, OECD governments established a range of incentives and subsidies for energy independence. This sparked a first wave of standalone renewable business ventures by the oil patch, focusing on solar, wind and geothermal energy. Today, Chevron is the world’s largest private producer of geothermal power, for example.

But government matchmaking proved a fickle friend. When public incentives for renewable technologies were withdrawn in the 1980s, most companies abandoned their alternative technology investment and refocused on their core petroleum business.

A second wave of oil and gas companies got into renewables in the late 1990s and early 2000s as momentum built around reaching a global climate agreement. When the global economic downturn hit and industrialized countries failed to match rhetoric with action, ventures in solar and wind by BP and Shell, among others, were sold off or quietly shuttered


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> So you are now saying,
> _Energy *can* flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._


_

You really can't read can you?  Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body?  If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts._


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > WTF are you talking about.
> ...




And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?

Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..

I did not make up this definition, and I don't feel the need to modify it in any way since it jibes perfectly with my understanding of energy movement...you on the other hand are unable to accept the statement as is and must modify the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake in order to make it jibe with what you believe.

It truly must suck to be such a liar...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > 1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
> ...



deflection and logical fallacy are the only tools he has to work with..he certainly can't post up any actual empirical science to support his claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



All liberal plans invariably hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 See, even these companies recognize the need to use less fossil fuels.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



More short sighted bullshit.

So, you are saying that if we do nothing on AGW, it will not hit the poorest the hardest?

Food & water will increase.  Who will that hurt, jackass.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  I get it.  You have no logic.  You really have no knowledge about much of anything.

We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.

Are you just stupid?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  .........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Sure sounds like whining to me!...
> ...



CO2 concentration is up.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

Scientists can estimate these things.  The can, really.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Huh? So now you change your tune on your boogey man?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...




No they can't, way to many variables and things they don't know. 


And deforestation of the southern hemisphere...is something you don't want to acknowledge.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



No correlation between C02 and warming has been found *so far,* again you don't want to acknowledge for example Mars atmosphere is made up of like 95% C02


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...




No you are the stupid one he said *our contribution,* he didn't say wasn't measurable and all 7 have been peer reviewed .


----------



## Lesh (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Mars is a completely different animal. You might note that there is no life there.

You're just flailing


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

Lesh said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Life? Who needs life on Mars? The real question is what are their current oil reserves and can we beat them damned Rooskies to it?!

Wait, what? Whoever wrote "No correlation between C02 and warming has been found *so far*" simply must be from Mars!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> all 7 have been peer reviewed


On Mars no less!


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 Nope, Fossil fuels still promote untruths & pay Congressmen not to act.

I am saying they realize their reign is coming to an end & is preparing.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around?  explain that one?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




They have an estimate.  There are people that study this shit.

Quit being such an ass.

Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet

OMG OPG OMG estimates on deforestation!!!!!! OMG OMG OMG


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  Man is but one of the possible emitters.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


that wasn't my question.  why didn't you answer it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Good to see I finally educated you and you quit bitching about fossil fuel as the main man made culprit.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural? 

Good neither does the scientist.


.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.  

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know?  Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


how did they do that?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You are fun to play with.... God don't you Know how to research something instead of just spout opinions?

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.





SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > So you are now saying,
> ...



Strawman. Look, we both know that a low temperature waterfall can flow toward a higher temperature body. You are being a troll when you are saying I think otherwise. Can't you understand the issue???

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling my why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does. 

You can't and you are making up lies.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.
> ...


I already told you, gravity!!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?
> 
> Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..
> 
> ...


Now the very caustic troll comes out. You are the liar. Let's try it again, and can you think more deeply this time without bursting into a feigned tirade.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling me why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does when it hits your head. 

Let me tell you. The answer it is at the hyperphysics site under "Refrigerator". You have seen this before.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to *net* transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the *net *transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​
Now try to keep calm and think about it.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?
> ...


can't make it up!!!


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Your go to expert is guy who calls himself Chiefio.

I'll stick with NASA.


I'm waiting for your list of events/sources for this excess co2 that has been put into the atmosphere.  Real scientists attribute nearly all of it yo man made emissions.

But you stick with Chiefio.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Ok let's use NASA's C02 satellite.

See all the C02 in the southern hemisphere from deforestation?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




That's what you got out of it, excess?


It's just showing a snap shot cartoon of where it's coming from at that time and place.


.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So, you just decided it was from deforestation???

Wouldn't the concentration of CO2 be lower over the rain forest than over, say, industrialized areas?

Or did you just make that up like most of your bullshit.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So you don't know what, beside man made emissions, caused the CO2 levels to go up.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



I am still waiting for some actual evidence that we are having an effect on the global climate...you people talk about it as if it were proven.  The fact is that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...

That would be the absolute minimum evidence required if we were talking about actual science...but since we are talking about pseudoscience, apparently your side thinks talk of consensus equals actual evidence of something...

And as long as we are talking about the changing climate, can you tell me what the optimum temperature is for life on this planet?  Is it warmer than the present?  Colder than the present?  What evidence do you have that would support whatever temperature you name?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> 1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
> 2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
> 3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect..  Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
> You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
> Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!



* "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" *

People were calling cigarettes "coffin nails" in the 1890s.
The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health led Congress to require a warning on packs in the 1960s.
No one believed cigarettes were harmless.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Why would food and water increase? More land to grow stuff on.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> I get it.  You have no logic.  You really have no knowledge about much of anything.



I have actual science...you on the other hand apparently have tea leaves, phrenology, and sheep knuckles...

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published scientific papers which state clearly that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and barely measurable...you on the other hand have thus far, only provided your opinion.



RealDave said:


> We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.



Of course we know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..but we also know that the amount in the atmosphere varies quite a lot from year to year..in fact, it varies by an amount greater than all the CO2 we produce.  Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities...any real science which has looked seriously at all the natural sources and causes for natural variation from year to year?  My bet is the answer to that is no...you have opinions and little else.

Typical warmer...you love to talk about what we "know" but can't seem to produce any actual science that supports what you think we "know"  



RealDave said:


> Are you just stupid?



Clearly not...I am the one producing actual science to support my position..you are the one who has apparently swallowed pseudoscience, media bias, and opinion as if it were actually science...that is stupid...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > 1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
> ...




Exactly, according to one person on USMB today they needed scientist to tell them drinking to much saltwater is dangerous.


.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You don't seem to realize that we are a minor producer of CO2 on this earth...termites alone produce more CO2 than we do by a long shot...the fact that CO2 changes from year to hear is only evidence that it changes...it is not evidence of the cause of the change..do you have any actual science that seriously looks at all the natural sources of CO2, and the natural sinks and concludes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to our activities...I would be interested in seeing it if you do.

My bet is that you don't, and that you have never really looked at any science regarding natural sources of CO2, or the amount they vary from year to year...my bet is that you just believe we are responsible for the increase in CO2...and have seen nothing like actual evidence to support the belief...I also bet that you think the emperor's new clothes are simply fabulous..since you appear to be prone to believe in things whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



So what?  Prior to the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting from, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 1000ppm...more than double the present amount...cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans so during the ice age, a great deal of CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...as they warm, they outgas a great deal of CO2...  You seem to think that just because the CO2 concentration is up, that we are the ones who are causing it...lets see some actual science which says so...lets see some actual scientific research which carefully examines all the natural sources of CO2 and the natural variation from year to year and concludes that we are responsible for the increase...I have provided 7 papers which say that we are not responsible and have never seen the first actual published scientific paper that says that we are responsible.



RealDave said:


> List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.



I have already provided you with several...the fact is that we don't know enough about the natural sources at this time to make any real claims about the true human percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere...for example, until recently, science said that volcanoes were a small source of CO2...that is because they were measuring the CO2 output form 6 or 8 active volcanoes on land that were known to be active in any given year...recently, however, science has acknowledged that they may have "grossly" underestimated the amount of CO2 emitting from volcanoes because they had not been considering the literally hundreds of thousands of under sea volcanoes and vents producing untold volumes of CO2.



RealDave said:


> Scientists can estimate these things.  The can, really.



Yeah...I know...I provided you with 7 papers which carefully examined the amount of CO2 humans produce relative to the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and the changes form year to year and they found that the amount of CO2 that we produce is the next thing to undetectable in the greater atmosphere...do you have any actual scientific papers which examine all the known factors and find differently?  My bet is that you don't..you are working from a position of faith and assumption rather than from any actual scientific research.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



The only real correlation that has been found...and this according even to the paper you provided was a that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases...

Increased CO2 is a result of increased temperarue...not the cause of increased temperature.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.



"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO<sub>2</sub> increases are due to human activities?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> How do we know?  Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.



Really?  We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production?  We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year?  We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year?  We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it?  A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted?  And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?

Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.
> ...




So now you are going to try to say that because you can throw cold water on hot coals that that proves that energy moves from cold to warm?  You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer...this has all been explained to you in a previous incarnation of your tedious logical failure...refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?
> ...



Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> So, you just decided it was from deforestation???
> 
> Wouldn't the concentration of CO2 be lower over the rain forest than over, say, industrialized areas?



Why would you think that... decay of organic material is a far greater source of CO2 in the atmosphere than all of human industry....and there is a great deal of organic decay going on in the equatorial regions...it stands to reason that there would be more CO2 over the part of the world with the greatest amount of organic decay happening.



RealDave said:


> Or did you just make that up like most of your bullshit.



It is clear that you are the one just making it up as you go.  You obviously haven't taken the time required to even familiarize yourself with how much CO2 is natural vs how much CO2 is man made.  Here, is a little video that might help you put it into something like real context...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.
> ...



Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up.  The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2



Termites, and humans, are part of the natural carbon cycle.  The natural variation in the concentration of CO2 is like a sine wave graph that correlates to the seasons.  Since we started releasing carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years in the last 150 years or so, the graph has been increasing.

Does the mean we're going to cancel the next Ice age?

I seriously doubt it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Those natural sources didn't start producing extra CO2 beginning 150 years ago.  I mean those volcanoes have been under the oceans a long time.


----------



## captkaos (Jun 25, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:
> ...



" IF" I were a scientist who's income was dependent on donations from people who wanted me to profess "A Global Emergency" or be replaced by someone who would, I think the answers and research could be bent to keep my finances in order! sure. ( "They" said " Michael Corleone did this and Michael Corleone said that" so I said yeah"  "But it was all lies" ! Get it. No proof it's just not a cycle the Earth has gone through for "BILLIONS OF YEARS" Idiots. Mankind is an eye blink in the earths history. Dinosaurs were around for 300 million years, we won't be that fortunate. So we' are obviously dumber than dinosaurs just sayin"


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...


Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


nothing.  ever hear of an ice age?  we're supposed to be coming out of one.  as we do, the oceans release CO2.  that is why CO2 follows temps.  as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one.


LOL!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...
> ...


And you think "work" being done is spontaneous energy movement... moron...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And you think this back and forth flinging of straw is logical, productive dialogue... genius...


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago???  That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect  =>  higher temnps

proven science.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...
> ...



My HVAC takes 48 degree groundwater & uses it to heat my home.   I guess that is impossible & my system must work on magic.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

captkaos said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


  So, if I were a scientist hired by the fossil fuel industry............

Your post is such BULLSHIT.  Every scientist gets paid asshole.  Don't pretend only those promoting AGW could possible be paid off. You are the God damn dumbest poster on this thread.  Who is paying for these denier "scientists" whose crap you buy?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it????????  It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...
> ...



Your ignorance is obvious here since you ignored the WORK principle, Refrigerators use COMPRESSION to HEAT the gas, that is work from outside the unit.

By the way you didn't include the full quote:

"Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time.."

His PREVIOUS comment, I quote in part:



> Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..



You failed.... again!

Stop the dishonest postings!


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  BLah  Blah Blah Blah

Here is an maybe you can understand.

What Is the Greenhouse Effect? | NASA Climate Kids


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No Dave, what YOU described is WORK that was* added* into the equipment to make that possible. If no work was added, nothing of this HVAC set would work.

Basic Thermodynamics for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning - Part 2

Figure 1. Basic system. (Click on the image for an enlarged view.)

The simple system in Figure 1 shows the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The compressor (A) adds energy to the refrigerant, and it becomes hot, just the way a hand operated tire pump does. Since the compressed refrigerant is hotter than the air blowing across the condenser (B), the heat will flow to the cooler air. This is a transfer of heat energy out of the refrigerant.

The refrigerant vapor is cooled to the point of condensation to a liquid because its pressure remains high (C) but its temperature is reduced. The liquid refrigerant is expanded into the evaporator (D) at a low pressure which allows it to boil at a low temperature. The temperature of the evaporator is designed to be lower than the air it is cooling, so heat from the air will flow into the cold refrigerant. The cold vapor returns to the compressor to start the cycle over. Note that in all cases, the heat flow is from the hotter to the cooler, just as the Second Law requires.

and,



> *Second Law* - The Second Law is the most understandable and useful in real world applications, and makes heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration possible. Energy must flow from a higher state to a lower state. That is, heat must always flow from the warmer object to a cooler object and not from the cooler object to the warmer object.



LINK


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > How do we know?  Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.
> ...



I suspect that if we had this monstrous termite explosion, we would be aware of it.    Insurance companies would be raising the rates &  Terminex stock would be going through the roof.

Actually, those things are studied & yes we would know,

Are you claiming the number of underseas eruptions have increased

We pretty much know.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.



Oooh is this a test.  Here you can help prove i.  Get yourself a plastic bag and a big rubber band.........


RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



The change in the isotope ratio over the last 150 years can't be attributed to the natural sources as those sources have been active much longer, the ratio stayed the same till about 150 years ago.

Still doesn't prove the massive catastrophe theories the alarmist propagate.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I bet that you have never considered that it really does not make any difference the percent of all CO2 released in to the atmosphere which is man's.

The Earth releases & absorbs carbon all the time.  When it is in balance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is variable  within a band width.   With the Industrial Revolution, man has been increasing the amount of CO2 emissions & it got to the point where, with man's contributions, more was being emitted than absorbed.

What was the cause?  The extra man made emissions.

You this argument you make is plain stupid.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I get it.  You have no logic.  You really have no knowledge about much of anything.
> ...



Yes, we indeed to know that man is the cause.  

NASA said so.  They have real science. You have bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer.


Nope it's the second law that doesn't distinguish the difference.
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
You have to understand it from context that it doesn't refer to kinetic energy of a waterfall. That means the sentence is ambiguous the way it is. Fortunately the Hyperphysics site cleared that up. 



SSDD said:


> .refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot.


You are a shameless liar. I never said that. I said the molecules with random kinetic energy in a cold gas must strike an adjacent hotter surface. I did not say nor imply anything about radiation. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


well sure, there's still ice in the arctics correct?

you know when ice melts there, CO2 is added to the atmosphere?  right?  does the ice melt yearly in summer?  and then add up 11,700 years of melt and refreeze. dude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



He's an idiot. Don't worry about it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Lol did you really post tyat.?


Damn you stupid.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 25, 2019)

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.




It amuses me how fucking stupid you are at this subject, as dumb as real Dave.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




You don't even understand what isotopes are to the conversation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time...



There you go again. A caustic response when you don't understand what you are talking about. 

Try to think this through. Hail falling on a warm sidewalk is *kinetic energy* spontaneously moving to a warmer surface, but the second law is not violated because *heat* is flowing from the warmer sidewalk to the ice. 

This wording, _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object_ does not differentiate between macroscopic objects and the microscopic nature of random molecules in a hot substance. Therefore *that statement must be interpreted*. The hyperphysics site did, but you are not. Furthermore the hyperphysics site clarifies that radiation can be exchanged by two objects. 

I can't make it any clearer than that, but I feel it's going way over your head.

.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
> ...


 So a person as "dumb" as I am keeps kicking your stupid ass here on this thread.

I've argued this with hundreds of you fucking moronic deniers.  It is always the same bullshit.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Melting ace does not release CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


you have no idea the balance.  As I already stated in here, the CO2 concentration pre man was much much higher than today.  why?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


ohkay Francis what happens to it then?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 It has been higher & it has been lower.

Man is not the only driver.  Get a fucking education.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It is not the melting ice like on Antarctica.  It was the ice melting released a bunch of trapped CO2.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


dude, seriously?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



got any actual evidence of that or are you just expressing an unsupportable opinion?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...
> ...




Let me guess...reading for comprehension isn't your best thing...here, let me type it real slow for you...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Do you grasp the concepts of work and spontaneity and how they apply to the statement above?  If not, let me know and I will help you out.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



You seem to be the only one throwing straw....pointing out your error is not straw...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No spontaneous photons in the solar system, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



That was merely the end of a glacial period...we are in an interglacial at present but in the larger scheme of things, the ice age that began millions of years ago is still going on...so long as there is ice at one or both of the poles, the earth remains in an ice age.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Oh look...yet another one who can't read  a simple statement and grasp what it says.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

If you don't grasp the concepts of work, and spontaneity as they relate to either the second law of thermodynamics, or your AC, just let me know and I will help you out.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science?  Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Which part of that steaming pile of excrement do you believe to be actual observed, measured evidence that supports the claim...I have read that pile of bilge over and over and there isn't a single piece of observed measured evidence in it that favors the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You suspect?  You think?  Do you think all termites, even a substantial percentage of termites live in houses?  Are you really that ignorant?  

And if those things have been studied, by all means, lets see the science...you keep making claim after claim after claim but don't seem to be able to post up even the first bit of actual science to support any of them.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.
> ...



Of course it can..i am surprised that anyone is still even making that argument since it is pretty common knowledge that the whole isotope claim fell flat some time ago...there never was any way to separate man made CO2 from natural sources...that argument was based on one big assed assumption after another and it all blew up...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Again...you have been provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which contradict your beliefs...thus far you have produced nothing that even begins to contradict any part of those papers...what you believe is irrelevant...the science says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the next thing to undetectable...and what "extra" CO2 are you talking about?  The natural level of CO2, when the earth is not an ice box is over 1000ppm...because a great deal of CO2 outgasses from warmer oceans...it takes a very long time, but more CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming....not the cause of warming...


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Why do you think it needs to be separated?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



So lets see it...you keep making the claim but don't seem to be able to produce any of the actual science...step on up to the plate and support your claims...


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Gee, so
ince you claimed this termite explosion was so great to cause the current rise in CO2 levels, I figured it would be where people live & not in some isolated location.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So you are calling NASA liars????


----------



## RealDave (Jun 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Per man has nothing to do with it.

Do you think if the piopulatiopn were to double overnight that the greenhouse effect would be different?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer.
> ...



Sorry doofus...the second law doesn't distinguish between kinds of energy...and of course you claimed that cold air striking a warm wall was evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...you spout so much bullshit that you just can't keep up with it all.  

Here is the post where you first made that stupid claim...

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

"
Nope. Your tedium permeates this forum. Many here have shown you many references, excerpts from texts, original papers, and references. We have shown you mechanisms and counter examples to your bizarre physics such as,

_Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
*Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface.*_

the rest of your idiot examples were shown to be idiot examples as well...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.




And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Of course it does if there is CO2 trapped in it...do you ever put any thought at all into what you say before you say it?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.
> ...



Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



And then there's Al Gore who said the ice caps would be all gone and NYC underwater.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Al Gore will be right given time and the continued policies of conservative deniers.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You have provided bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Are you under the impression that was science?  If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe.  I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do?  What a doofus...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Lesh said:
> ...



Really?  What specific issues did you find with any of the peer reviewed, published papers I provided?  What errors in data or methodology did you find that we can report to the reviewers or the publishers...or are you just offended by actual science that doesn't agree with your beliefs?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Algore is growing rich off the stupidity of people like you...he will never be right but he is laughing his ass off all the way to the bank...for him it never was about being right..it was a about getting rich off the ignorance of people like you...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




That's laughable.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Yes, it is laughable, and quite sad that you actually believe you have posted any science whatsoever to support your position...don't worry about it though..no one ever expected you to because there is none.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years.  CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate.  Sorry guy.  Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic.  Have you looked at it?  Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Go ahead and try....


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  I understand that you deniers are a few briocks short of a load.

You can't differentiate the ideas that ice melting does not release CO2.  Take an ice cube & set it on the table and as it melts, it does not release CO2.

Now if there is an ice cap over say land, the ice cap melting can release CO2 that was trapped under the ice.

It is truly sad that you people are too stupid to get it.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect.  They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher.  It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis.  You know it.  Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not.  What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit.  But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




lol.....please post of some evidence anybody is caring a wit about this s0n? This PPM argument has been a talking point for climate crusaders for many, many years........absolutely nobody is impressed.

Don't forget......we need links displaying where the science is mattering in the real world??!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




Well heres the thing.........the public certainly thinks that AGW is fake news. 100% certainty. Why do you think all these climate treaty's are total frauds? Why is renewable energy still a massive joke?

Its because the public considers AGW to be this massive crock. Duh..........when is the last time Congress has ever brought a climate change bill to the floor? Nobody remembers!!. They don't want their constituents thinking they are graduates of the University of Mars.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Again s0n...........the anger and frustration, clearly conveyed by you here screams, "This guy is making me look st00pid and I'm loSiNg!!"



We dominate in this forum because we convey a perception of winning.........we are routinely laughing our balls off!!

Go check out one of the most ePiC threads on this whole board, *MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING....... *will have 1/2 a million "views" soon. Then go look at how many "views" the threads started by the climate crusaders get?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Mars has a much thionner atmosphere than Earth or Venus & is much further from the Sun.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



From your own link, what happened to your claim people will be starving?


Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


  Greenhouse effect is proven science.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




You do know I just set you up right?



So now you claiming the Sun has an effect? How astute of you ....

Lol...you stupid.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

_adjective_

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms: observed, seen, factual


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I found your problem.  You van't read.

"shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow..."

i.e. what if Iowa ^ Nebraska, etc  is no longer suited to grow corn & wheat & soybeans?  You canm pretend that these can just be rown further m=notrthn but the soils would be different.

Climate change  will not be uniform.  Some areas will get much warmer than others.

You will risk all of ths because of your ignorance.  How stupid is that.

1)  Climate chnge is happening & happening fast
2)  Man is the primary cause.
3)  We need to reduce our emissions now to stop a higher temperature rise.

Stick your head in the sand & condemn your children to a more difficult future.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


  The sun supplies the heat you stupid shit.  So, if you are now going to claim solar cyclers, show me where  the sun's radiance has increased.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I produced NASA.  Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  So you now think reposting  helps?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


so you think if the Arctic melted it would increase sea levels? holy fk.  I guess you never used ice in drinks before.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 You need no help looking stupid.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 26, 2019)

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man?  why?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


the only thing they can actually show is the answer to the question, does man contribute to CO2.  Well duh, sure we do, we breathe.  Any fking stupid fk would have to say yes.  Now, what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from man, well there they fall into a rat hole.  and they can't recover.  they have been digging that hole deeper and deeper.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


_shifting climate patterns *may *change _


May,  do you know that that means other than one month in a calendar year?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The evidence of the relatively stable isotope ratio is found in the ice core samples.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Dave, THAT NASA link has obvious propaganda elements in it, plus the obvious falseness and errors of statements such as this one:

"warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space."   Atmosphere doesn't absorb "heat", it absorbs IR Energy

and,

"On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere."  Meaningless since its absorption bands are negligible and at much lower energy levels

and,

"A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans...."   No, the SUN is the only significant source of energy, the Greenhouse effect doesn't get stronger.

and,

"Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly."   Highly misleading, since TSI is not the only important measure of Solar outflow

These are a few of the most obvious errors in the link, don't be so easily snowed by their propaganda.

Here is an honest report on Glacier Bay and the retreat of Glaciers that most warmists never read:

Repeat Photography: Capturing Change

Notice the lack of propaganda or misleading statements?

Just honest straightforward observations is what we read.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


_Average Global Temperatures have been measured_

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured.  just can't.  dude, feel free to post that link.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Since you are wrong here, lying through your teeth, and in a serious denial of science, I will post my response in the thread especially made for you by flacaltenn.

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Not much water vapor in Mar's atmosphere.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!!  Lying to us for years.  And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 

So if the temperature is "x" without the greenhouse effect  But "X+y" with a greenhouse effect but the sun output is constant, isn't the higher temp caused by the greenhouse effect?

I wish you morons would quit being such jackasses.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Dude,. it was answered several times.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Well duh, sure we do, we breathe.



Breathing doesn't increase the CO2 concentration.  Life is part of the carbon cycle.  Burning long sequestered carbon as fuel is not part of that cycle.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Dave,
> 
> you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?
> 
> How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?


  I don't care.   It ks not relevant to the discussion at hand.    CO2 levels are up, man is a reason, & this is making temperatures rie.

THIS is important.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


what post number?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Dave,
> ...



Really you are going continue to ignore evidence that CO2 has a very small presence in the energy budget?

My question is actually highly relevant to the debate:



> How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?



Why aren't going you answer it?

You sound more and more like a propagandist every day....


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Dave,
> ...



But the small amount of warming that can be attributed to man is still within the margin of natural variability.  There is little conclusive evidence that this small amount of warming so far has changed any major weather patterns or caused a massive increases in storm strength or frequency.  Not saying there isn't any influence, they just can't be measured yet.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Clearly you don't know jack about termites....most termites live where people don't...they are one of the driving forces behind organic decay...Have you ever actually researched anything or do you live by unsupportable opinion alone?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Again...which part of that steaming pile you linked to do you believe is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  

What's the matter? is it that you don't want to admit that there is no such evidence there or is it that you wouldn't know what observed measured evidence looked like if it bit you in the ass?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



So you keep saying...lets see the science that proves it...  

I wager that no such science will be forthcoming because no such science exists..the greenhouse effect is still a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that.  You really don't have even the first clue about this topic do you?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The sun was at the peak of a solar cycle at the end of the 20th century when there was actual measurable warming...warming that didn't require heavy adjusment of the data merely to claim that this year or that year was the warmest eval by 100th of a degree...

then the sun began to grow quiet..and the pause began...and the sun continues to remain quite and the fact is that cooling has begun..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You produced an opinion piece produced by nasa...which part of that do you believe was actual research, providing actual data and any real examination of the data?  Is that sort of crap what passes for science in your mind?  A piece produced, reviewed by, and published by the same people?  Really?  That is science in your mind?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Some poor souls require that a thing be told to them multiple times in order to grasp what is being said.  Since there has never been any such paper published, exactly how is it that you came to think that AGW was proven science.  Don't you think that if it were proven science, there would be at least one published paper in which the warming was measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses?...at least one paper?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I thought CO2 caused water vapor? no?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Except that even now science is finding that gasses trapped in ice don't provide any meaningful information...science moves on and what was once thought to be true, turns out to have been not true at all...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




been through it all before...don't intend to endure the tedium of it again...you lied..you are a liar, and I am not interested in rehashing your defeats over and over to satisfy some masochistic personality quirk you have acquired.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature?  Really?  Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Just 30 years or less of global temperatures Is good enough for you on a planet 4.5 billion years old?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Which greenhouse effect is that?  Can you show me any empirical measurement of it?  My bet is that you can't...because it has never been measured...what you believe to be truth is really nothing but the output of an unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical model...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Well duh, sure we do, we breathe.
> ...



And yet, our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so small so as to be the next thing to undetectable...I have provided the peer reviewed, published science which says so...thus far, I have seen nothing from you guys which says otherwise other than some outdated hypothetical musings which have since been found to be inaccurate...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Dave,
> ...



Still waiting for some actual science which says that we are the reason CO2 levels are up..you keep saying it but you aren't providing any evidence to support the claim..I certainly had no problem providing peer reviewed published science to support my claim that we are not the reason CO2 levels are up...you are all talk and no evidence


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

BlindBoo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


how far back?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


hey a one degree change is Armageddon.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I'm actually wondering why you would not think the scientists at NASA were ya know, scientists.

But then, I remember the conservative idea of treating this a a simple political belief that denies the science.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




So you deny the left didn't let the political cat out of the bag years ago?

And this is not about environmental economic social justice as the likes of Naomi Klein claims?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Your the one who needs to shut the fuck up.  YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Otto is a bot.  It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

S


Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
How many charts have you seen logging the changes in our temperatures, the changes in CO2 concentrations, the changing amounts of man made emisions,.

THOSE, assfuck, are EMPIRICAL


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid.  Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> S
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> ...


when only a gif will do...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


you haven't explained measured temperature yet.  why not?  it was your claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


or not


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Why?  You are obviously too stupid to even read it or you wouldn't still be crying about it.

You think man is the only reason CO2 levels can rise.  That is a sign of ignorance.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Proof positive that it has no concept of the hypothesis and that it has no empirical evidence to support its position. In each case, it is incapable of articulating the problem or debating the empirical evidence that shows it a deception. All it has are one liners, appeals to authority, and degradation of the people kicking their asses with OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

GO figure..


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Again tell us why this is all wrong.... Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



From WIKI:  *Temperature* is a physical quantity expressing hot and cold. It is *measured* with a thermometer calibrated in one or more *temperature* scales. The most commonly used scales are the Celsius scale (formerly called centigrade) (denoted °C), Fahrenheit scale (denoted °F), and Kelvin scale (denoted K).

Or this frpm NOAA


*Air Temperature*
USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which *measure* air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station's datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station's official hourly temperature value.


OMG OMG OMG they are measuring temperature  OMG OMG OMG


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Just try to convince anyone that all in that link is wrong.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Instead of twiddling your thumbs, pick up a book & become better educated.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


it isn't empirical evidence, it is models.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


now post the one that has the global thermometer.  where is it and what does it look like?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> You missing the Forrest from the trees?


The expression goes "can't see the *forest for the trees*."
That's no simple spelling error (like "Forrest" instead of forest, Gump). You clearly don't even understand the expression, yet flailingly attempt using it anyway. Try learning the language... Then attempt to speak it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


you inferred that I thought man was the only reason for CO2.  why?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You keep citing this pile of discredited crap..  so I will keep ignoring your bull shit appeal to authorities as you have no concept of the hypothesis and why the crap is discredited....


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You missing the Forrest from the trees?
> ...


when grammar checking is all you got.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Look   We have measurements.  Those are empirical.

Models are used to extrapolate into the future.

Are you having a fucking meltdown because we can't take future measurements?> Is this why you are running in circles & screaming OMG OMG OMG?

L


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You missing the Forrest from the trees?
> ...






I've gotten my ass kicked with facts and now i must cry and deflect....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

Yes, ASSA

NASA, NASA, NASA!


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It consists of many stations.    Average global temperatures are found by taking an AVERAGE of these stations.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




WTF? Do you not know anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> I've gotten my ass kicked with facts and now i must cry and deflect....


Fine admission!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


that material doesn't explain shit.  I'm asking you for measurements, ones around the globe, that big old fat fking thermometer that has average temperature of the world on it?

Oh,  and have you heard that the earth has been in a few ice ages?  how do you explain that?  CO2 in the atmosphere twice to three times the concentration without man.  still waiting.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Because you can't figure out how the CO2 levels were higher in the past before man.  You said it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


well obviously more than you!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


over 10,000 square miles apart?  you're kidding right?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



av·er·age
/ˈav(ə)rij/
 
 Learn to pronounce 

_noun_
noun: *average*; plural noun: *averages*

1.
a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data, in particular the mode, median, or (most commonly) the mean, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the values in the set by their number.
"the housing prices there are twice the national average"
synonyms: mean, median, mode, midpoint, center; More
norm, standard, rule, par;
the general run
"the price was low compared with the average of the past 25 years"
an amount, standard, level, or rate regarded as usual or ordinary.
"they take about thirty minutes *on average*"
synonyms: normally, usually, ordinarily, generally, generally speaking, in general, for the most part, in most cases, as a rule, typically; More
overall, by and large, on the whole, on balance
"on average, I suppose we watch a couple of hours of television a night"

2.
the apportionment of financial liability resulting from loss of or damage to a ship or its cargo.
reduction in the amount payable under an insurance policy, e.g. in respect of partial loss.

_adjective_
adjective: *average*

1.
constituting the result obtained by adding together several quantities and then dividing this total by the number of quantities.
"the average temperature in May was 64°F"
synonyms: mean, median, medial, middle
"the average temperature in May was 4°C below normal"
of the usual or ordinary standard, level, or quantity.
"a woman of average height"
synonyms: ordinary, standard, usual, normal, typical, regular, unexceptional
"a woman of average height"
having qualities that are seen as typical of a particular person or thing.
"the average teenager prefers comfort to high fashion"
mediocre; not very good.
"a very average director who made very average movies"
synonyms: mediocre, second-rate, uninspired, undistinguished, ordinary, commonplace, middle-of-the-road, mainstream, unexceptional, unexciting, unremarkable, unmemorable, indifferent, humdrum, nothing special, everyday, bland, run-of-the-mill, not very good, pedestrian, prosaic, lackluster, forgettable, amateur, amateurish; More
acceptable, passable, all right, adequate, fair, middling, moderate, tolerable;
garden-variety;
_informal_OK, so-so, bog-standard, fair-to-middling, (plain) vanilla, nothing to write home about, nothing to get excited about, a dime a dozen, no great shakes, not so hot, not up to much;
_informal_common or garden, not much cop, ten a penny;
_informal_bush-league;
_informal_jake;
_informal_half-pie
"a very average director making very average movies"
antonyms: outstanding, exceptional

_verb_
verb: *average*; 3rd person present: *averages*; past tense: *averaged*; past participle: *averaged*; gerund or present participle: *averaging*

1.
achieve or amount to as an average rate or amount over a period of time.
"annual inflation averaged 2.4 percent"
calculate or estimate the average of (figures or measurements).
"their earnings, *averaged out* over the month, were only $62 a week"
result in an even distribution; even out.
"it is reasonable to hope that the results will average out"
result in an average figure of.
"the cost should average out to about $6 per page"

Origin




late 15th century: from French _avarie_ ‘damage to ship or cargo’, earlier ‘customs duty’, from Italian _avaria_, from Arabic _‘awār_ ‘damage to goods’; the suffix _-age_ is on the pattern of _damage_ . Originally denoting a duty payable by the owner of goods to be shipped, the term later denoted the financial liability from goods lost or damaged at sea, and specifically the equitable apportionment of this between the owners of the vessel and of the cargo (late 16th century); this gave rise to the general sense of calculating the mean (mid 18th century).


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Who has discredited the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). 

You?


Laughable.


The problem that you have, is that it contradicts your political belief and doubt spreading manure.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


show me the map of your thermometers that you believe are used in averaging .


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 196.9 million square miles on the Earth's surface.  Not too shabby.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


spaced out every 10,000 square miles is useless.

do you iv your koolaid?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Why bother?  If you were really interested, you would hsve found it on the internet.  But you're not.  You have no desire to learn the truth.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 One in every  0.005% of the Earth's surface.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Wow, you can find things on the internet..  Now read your fucking article & found out how those levels were that high without man.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




And what does your posted article tell YOU?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


exactly, you won't bother because they don't exist.  too fking funny.  do you do stand up too?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


what I said.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


you tell me, you say 400 PPM is dangerous.  not so right?

And, it got that high how without man?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You don't consider this dangerous...

*Excerpt from posted article*
"At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire."

Not to mention mass animal extinctions.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Very good. So acoordingly to YOUR OWN LINK,


> To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.


Now check this out:






See the problem? {Hint: no people beyond 5.5 million years ago}. Want no people? Sure looks that way!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


well two things, one: CO2 does not increase temperature, temperature drives the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Two: as soon as you tell me why warmer temperatures are dangerous.  I'd be glad to lose -20 degree days from life.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world.  and 400 PPM is far far away from those numbers.  so again, you explain the evil of CO2.  Oh and the earth went into an ice age, and hasn't recovered.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I've gotten my ass kicked with facts and now i must cry and deflect....
> ...


Just pointing out your failure.... And the excuses you use to justify it..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


You really are a moron... The samples are 500 to 1000 years. This means a short rise and fall above 500ppm is possible and would not be seen.  So your whole premise is bull shit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It is relevant because the earth regulated its temperature despite the level. The earth remained within its 12 deg C range over the millennia and NEVER RAN AWAY...


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




One, wrong.

Two, we already did.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




I already showed you the history of the stations around the globe, we only have 50 years or so data of southern hemisphere and no real data of ocean temperature till the US Argo booeys  in 1994.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Are you stupid?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


one was accurate.  your koolaid was spiked.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I don't know everything to know in the world so yes, I'm stupid to many things, but you all take the reigns and own stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



*That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming *

The Earth is 200 billion years old?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


how is it different?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Well now you're also being lame.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


no, I got a new hip, I'm no longer hobbling around.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Any backup for a 200 billion year old (or older) Earth?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


his koolaid told him


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> I'm actually wondering why you would not think the scientists at NASA were ya know, scientists.



Exactly who wrote that piece?  Everyone at NASA isn't a scientist...and science is written in a certain format...that was no more than a public relations piece...who reviewed it?  What journal was it published in?  Answer...no one reviewed it and it was not published in any journal...it is self published and offered no evidence whatsoever to support the claims being made...maybe you really don't have any idea what actual science looks like and that is why you would accept something like that just because it said NASA at the top.



otto105 said:


> But then, I remember the conservative idea of treating this a a simple political belief that denies the science.



Again...it is you who is denying science...I am providing actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature and you are denying it in favor of a public relations opinion piece which was reviewed by no one and published by the same organization that wrote it..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Same for realdave...not the first piece of actual science to support his claims and he readily denies any actual science provided that doesn't jibe with what he believes..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




We don't? So in your narcissist view when man came along the climate stopped changing?



.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Spiked koolaid


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> S
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yeah...that is what I have provided you with and they show exactly the opposite of what you are claiming...

Here, lets take a look.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE






If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Next:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

This paper was published in the publication Global and planetary Change.  






Next:

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

This paper was published in Environmental Research Letters






Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.  Notice the name?  Hansen...the godfather of global warming...one of the biggest AGW nutters out there and even he produced a graph which shows very clearly that the amount of CO2 we produce doesn't track with the total CO2 in the atmosphere...

I am not going to go through all the papers with you, but the fact is that we are not driving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...even AGW heroes like hansen freely admit this fact.  

These are the empirical measurements you are speaking of and they simply don't show what you claim.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce any of it...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Do you see anything in that site that amounts to observed evidence to support the claims?  There is simply nothing there...it isn't science...it is a public relations opinion piece and there is nothing there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....if there is, by all means bring whatever you believe does that here and we will have a look at it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There is nothing there...there isn't any science...there isn't any data to support the claims..it hasn't been peer reviewed and it is was published on the internet by the same people who wrote it...do you really believe that is science?

Please point out anything on that entire site which amounts to observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...anything at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > S
> ...


*there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.*










Nope. CO2 concentration increased every year on that  graph.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> *Air Temperature*
> USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which *measure* air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station's datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station's official hourly temperature value.
> 
> OMG OMG OMG they are measuring temperature  OMG OMG OMG



Interesting that you bring up USCRN...USCRN stands for the United States Climate Reference Network...it is a triple redundant data gathering network placed so pristinely that no "adjustments" are needed on the data...and do you know what?  It has shown that the US has been cooling ever since it went on line...It is in direct opposition to the mainline temperature data bases...The only network in the world that doesn't require adjustment by climate science shows a cooling trend...all the networks that require adjustment by climate science show warming...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world


No, you missed it. *If anything*, man not being around yet is indicative of conditions that do not support human life.. 







Not to mention amphibians, insects, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, and birds..





multicellular life..

Why do you hate life?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world
> ...


And yet the earth regulated its temperature within a 12 deg C range... *Without missing a beat*.... Your CO2 monster is dead. Quit flogging it..


----------



## sparky (Jun 26, 2019)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I have the proof



nope

~S~


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world
> ...


Then there weren’t any plants, trees nothing living? I guess no fossil fuels then


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 26, 2019)

Why do you corporate fascists hate life so much? Never mind "We don't want people to vote." You guys don't want people period.


Billy_Bob said:


> And yet the earth regulated its temperature within a 12 deg C range... *Without missing a beat*....


Yep, "without missing a beat" you just exposed yourself as never really giving a shit about any of this. Whether one presumes your "12 deg C range" accurate or not, what's crystal clear is your belief that humans can easily adapt to any conditions that may  manifest within that range. IN OTHER WORDS, you don't really give a flying fuck about CO2 concentrations at all! NEVER HAVE. NEVER WILL Yet you persist in pretending to.. . practically every goddamn day here..  Fine admission! You may stop the charade any time now..


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> been through it all before...don't intend to endure the tedium of it again...you lied..you are a liar, and I am not interested in rehashing your defeats over and over to satisfy some masochistic personality quirk you have acquired


I have always stood by science. Science remains undefeated. Your fake science has been defeated time and again whether you know it or not. This topic is continued in the "Official Thread for Deniers etc" thread devoted to fake science.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world
> ...



No...man not being around is evidence of the slow process of evolution...As your own source says, a warmer planet is better for life on earth.  What do you believe the ideal temperature to be for life on earth.  Surely not the relative cold of an ice age as we are in right now.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do you corporate fascists hate life so much? Never mind "We don't want people to vote." You guys don't want people period.



Where do you get these ridiculous ideas?  It is you and yours who want to remain in an ice age and gnash your teeth over even returning to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age.  Tell me, what do you believe the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > been through it all before...don't intend to endure the tedium of it again...you lied..you are a liar, and I am not interested in rehashing your defeats over and over to satisfy some masochistic personality quirk you have acquired
> ...



You stand by your heavily manipulated, translated, altered version of science..anyone who must interpret the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in order to have "science" jibe with what he believes is OD...."out dere"


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do you corporate fascists hate life so much? Never mind "We don't want people to vote." You guys don't want people period.
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Humans as we exist today arose and began the change from hunter gatherers to civilization builders during the holocene maximum...it was far warmer at that time, than it is at present...CO2 concentrations are irrelevant.  But if you believe they are very important, how about you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

Just kidding...I don't really expect you to provide any such evidence.....because no such evidence exists...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You stand by your heavily manipulated, translated, altered version of science..anyone who must interpret the f'ing second law of thermodynamics in order to have "science" jibe with what he believes is OD...."out dere"



You know you are lying. My reply is in the 
"Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics."
thread which is devoted to fake science.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Dr. Raeder says you're wrong.

Who says you're right?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr. Raeder says you're wrong.
> 
> Who says you're right?


That's easy, billybob, JC, sunsettommy, crusaderfrank, westwall, and many other sock puppets.

.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





What proof to convince anyone do you have to substantiate that we are in an "ice age"?


This should be entertaining.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



We ARE in an Ice Age epoch right now!

There are two different stages of an ice age:

1) Glaciation, which ended roughly 13,000 year ago.
2) Interglacial, which is the CURRENT stage.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


is there still ice on the planet?  please tell me you haven't lost your own intelligence.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Ya, were in-between Ice Ages, hence inter part.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Raeder says you're wrong.
> ...


and still  no observed empirical evidence.  why not?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


why is there ice?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



You really don't have a clue do you?

Earth Has Been Through Not One But Many Ice Ages

Clip:  *Humans are said to have come into being during the present ice age*. Their survival in the extreme conditions was majorly due to their prowess to develop tools and clothes. While animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats went extinct during this period, the humans survived by the development of agricultural and domestication techniques during the start of the warmer “Holocene epoch”.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the *present Ice Age* (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun.

Ice age - Wikipedia

clip:  An *ice age* is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. *Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.

*
What Triggers Ice Ages?

Clip:  During the past billion years, the Earth's climate has fluctuated between warm periods—sometimes even completely ice-free—and cold periods, when glaciers scour the continents. In this article, climate scientist Kirk Maasch offers perspective on these historic changes, including the likely causes of the last great ice age—*which contrary to common knowledge, we are still in the midst of.*

Ice Age - Snowball Earth - Crystalinks

Clip:  The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica, but intensified during the Pleistocene (starting around 3 million years ago) with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000 and 100,000 year time scales. The last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. 

How many more references would you like to the present ice age.  Really guy...it isn't as if this is secret stuff..

The very fact that you people are hysterically crying about impending global disaster because we are warming out of an ice age is the very height of idiocy....has no one ever bothered to tell you that the earth is still in an ice age?  Did no one ever tell you that humans arose from being hunter gatherers to being civilization builders during the Holocene maximum?  A period that was far warmer than the present?  Have you ever bothered to look something up for yourself or do you simply take as fact all the bullshit that climate science, the government, and environmental organizations feed you?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The sheer volume of simple well known, non esoteric knowledge that these people are lacking is incredible....if they knew how completely idiotic they look hysterically waving their hands about global warming and impending disaster because we are warming our way out of a f'ing ice age would be rolling on the ground hilarious if it weren't costing so much money and taking the attention  away from serious environmental problems that actually have solutions.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You never even bothered to look did you?  What's the matter?  Afraid that you might read something that calls your faith into question..  Simply google "present ice age" and do a bit of reading...it isn't as if this stuff is secret...Us skeptics know about it because we don't simply accept whatever we are told like good little sheeple.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...




Dude, faith is something one needs to believe in virgin birth...

Say when did the last Ice Age end?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Believing in virgin birth doesn't cost anyone a cent...it is a personal matter of faith....believing in pseudoscience and thinking it is actual science is already costing you money...everything you buy costs more now due to action already taken on the basis of pseudoscience claiming imminent climate disaster when it is nothing more than a bald faced lie.

It hasn't ended...which is why even university geology programs say "present ice age".  The ice age will be over when the continents of Antarctica and Greenland are no longer covered by ice, and when there are no more alpine glaciers.  It could be a few million years before it ends...it will be punctuated, as it always has been by cold glacial periods and warmer interglacial periods.....eventually the ice age will end and there will be no ice at one or both of the poles and there may or may not be remnants of alpine glaciers at high altitudes.

By the way..interglacial means a relatively warm period during an ice age in which ice sheets melt back somewhat and alpine glaciers go into retreat...glacial periods and interglacial periods are relatively short periods of time within an ice age.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Wow, "not a cent"? Climate Change has already cost the people of the world trillions of dollars.

Your stupid denial of that is noted.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do you corporate fascists hate life so much? Never mind "We don't want people to vote." You guys don't want people period.
> 
> 
> Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Your an idiot who claims things the empirical evidence shows flat wrong..

CO2 is INCAPABLE of the warming and the dire, bull shit, predictions you and your alarmist pals have made. You loons deny actual science that disproves your political agenda.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...






 



^^^^^^
Your 2nd grade teacher



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



We are still in it goof ball


Btw...




 





^^^^^
Your 3rd Grade teacher



.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


People with functioning brain cells...  And know how to think cognitively...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Can you not read?  Were exactly did I say that action taken based on climate change has not cost anyone a cent?  In fact, I said explicitly that action taken based on the climate scam has already made everything more expensive.  Your inability to read words and know what they mean is noted.

So again...how stupid do you feel believing in imminent climate disaster when in reality, the earth is simply in the process of warming out of an ice age?  And you still haven't answered the question regarding the ideal temperature for life on earth?  Do you really believe that temperature resides within an ice age?  Do you think the ideal temperature is cooler than the present?  Warmer?  How much cooler or warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you corporate fascists hate life so much? Never mind "We don't want people to vote." You guys don't want people period.
> ...



They have become so blinded by their beliefs, that they simply are unable to think critically on this topic.   They talk about CO concentrations and their effect on temperature as if it really were empirical science and don't seem to have the first clue that it is all models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You're on the one-way only flow of photons train?


----------

