AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[ding]

Where did you get those numbers?

From Dr. John Englander, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Makiko Sato.

420,000 years of Temp, CO2, and sea level - What a Coincidence - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert

This chart shows the relative changes in global average temperature, CO2 (carbon dioxide), and sea level over the last 420,000 years. The data is derived from different sources that corroborate and confirm the findings. Data sources include air bubbles trapped in layers of the ice sheets in...

johnenglander.net

 

[ding]

Again. I'm not the one whining about appeal to authority. Personally gathered data is the only other option.

Not true. I can use the exact same data that they use and explain how it means something else or show how things they overlooked contradicted their conclusions or show how their methods skewed the data, etc. The graph from Englander is a perfect example of that.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've been studying paleoclimates for over 20 years. You?

And I have been studying them for over 40 years. How is your claim any more credible than mine?

 

[BULLDOG]

From Dr. John Englander, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Makiko Sato.

View attachment 858626

420,000 years of Temp, CO2, and sea level - What a Coincidence - John Englander - Sea Level Rise Expert

This chart shows the relative changes in global average temperature, CO2 (carbon dioxide), and sea level over the last 420,000 years. The data is derived from different sources that corroborate and confirm the findings. Data sources include air bubbles trapped in layers of the ice sheets in...

johnenglander.net

Englander, Hansen, and Sato? How is that not an appeal to authority which the OP specifically disallowed?

 

[BULLDOG]

Not true. I can use the exact same data that they use and explain how it means something else or show how things they overlooked contradicted their conclusions or show how their methods skewed the data, etc. The graph from Englander is a perfect example of that.

So you are willing to manipulate information to suit your claims. We already knew that. You are a MAGA after all.

 

[ding]

And I have been studying them for over 40 years. How is your claim any more credible than mine?

No you haven't. You don't know the first thing about it. I've been discussing it on this site since 2016.

My claim is truthful. Yours isn't. That's how mine is more credible than yours.

 

[BULLDOG]

No you haven't. You don't know the first thing about it. I've been discussing it on this site since 2016.

My claim is truthful. Yours isn't. That's how mine is more credible than yours.

That's not proof of anything.

 

[ding]

So you are willing to manipulate information to suit your claims. We already knew that. You are a MAGA after all.

I can only assume that you accuse me of that because that is something you would do.

I'm not manipulating anything. My beliefs about the earth's climate history are mainstream beliefs. Nothing controversial about what I have been arguing at all. You live on an icehouse planet. It's geologically rare and unique. For the past 3 million years the planet has been frigid 90% of the time. You think today's climate is normal but it's not. The planet is undeniably, uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Ever since an ice cap formed in the arctic, climate fluctuations increased in magnitude and frequency. The way they show the data makes the current warming trend seem unusual but that's because they are averaging data which smooths out the fluctuations. Ice core data shows the true picture. Warming and cooling trends - like today - litter the geologic record of the past 3 million years. They have mistaken a normal climate fluctuation for AGW. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 is weak. Their models incorrectly amplify that effect by 5 times.

 

[ding]

That's not proof of anything.

My posts themselves are proof that I know this subject just like your posts are proof that you don't know this subject.

 

[ding]

Englander, Hansen, and Sato? How is that not an appeal to authority which the OP specifically disallowed?

Ummmm... because they reach opposite conclusions than I do. That's how. Look paleoclimate data is not controversial at all. Everything I post about the earth's climate history is easily verifiable. It's pretty funny that you don't know anything about this and have the nerve to question someone who does.

 

[BULLDOG]

I can only assume that you accuse me of that because that is something you would do.

I'm not manipulating anything. My beliefs about the earth's climate history are mainstream beliefs. Nothing controversial about what I have been arguing at all. You live on an icehouse planet. It's geologically rare and unique. For the past 3 million years the planet has been frigid 90% of the time. You think today's climate is normal but it's not. The planet is undeniably, uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Ever since an ice cap formed in the arctic, climate fluctuations increased in magnitude and frequency. The way they show the data makes the current warming trend seem unusual but that's because they are averaging data which smooths out the fluctuations. Ice core data shows the true picture. Warming and cooling trends - like today - litter the geologic record of the past 3 million years. They have mistaken a normal climate fluctuation for AGW. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 is weak. Their models incorrectly amplify that effect by 5 times.

Odd that you would try to counter main stream beliefs by quoting main stream beliefs. You remind me of Westwall in so many ways. He was famous for claiming he was an expert on countless subjects, and his proof of his expertice was that he had claimed to be an expert so many times in the past. Do you have anything more to prove your superior knowledge?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Odd that you would try to counter main stream beliefs by quoting main stream beliefs. You remind me of Westwall in so many ways. He was famous for claiming he was an expert on countless subjects, and his proof of his expertice was that he had claimed to be an expert so many times in the past. Do you have anything more to prove your superior knowledge?

You have yet to answer the challenge of post one you are all talk and no show.

LOL

 

[BULLDOG]

You have yet to answer the challenge of post one you are all talk and no show.

LOL

It's an absurd challenge. If the OP isn't convinced by the vast majority of climate scientists, I, as just another anonymous non-climate-scientist , recognize how absurd his silly challenge is. I am not arrogant enough too think listening to contrarian conspiracy theory nuts constitutes "my own research". I'll go with what the verifiable experts say.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's an absurd challenge. If the OP isn't convinced by the vast majority of climate scientists, I, as just another anonymous non-climate-scientist , recognize how absurd his silly challenge is. I am not arrogant enough too think listening to contrarian conspiracy theory nuts constitutes "my own research". I'll go with what the verifiable experts say.

Yet you can't stay away from the thread and the "experts" are well funded for pushing the obvious CO2 bullshit which you are not smart enough to figure it out which is why you are looking the fool for your endless dodging in the thread,

AGW is a dead conjecture because some of its key predictions have failed after 30 years!

No Tropospheric Hot Spot exist.

No Positive Feedback Loop exist.

LOLOLOLOLOL......

 

[ding]

Odd that you would try to counter main stream beliefs by quoting main stream beliefs. You remind me of Westwall in so many ways. He was famous for claiming he was an expert on countless subjects, and his proof of his expertice was that he had claimed to be an expert so many times in the past. Do you have anything more to prove your superior knowledge?

It's not odd at all. I already explained it to you in post #102.

I'm not claiming anything special about me. If I argued false things and you argued true things the shoe would be on the other foot. But you don't and I do, so it's easy for me to articulate the truth and it's hard for you to argue against it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet you can't stay away from the thread and the "experts" are well funded for pushing the obvious CO2 bullshit which you are not smart enough to figure it out which is why you are looking the fool for your endless dodging in the thread,

AGW is a dead conjecture because some of its key predictions have failed after 30 years!

No Tropospheric Hot Spot exist.

No Positive Feedback Loop exist.

LOLOLOLOLOL......

I am responding to silly posts. Can't slip anything past you, can I?

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not odd at all. I already explained it to you in post #102.

I'm not claiming anything special about me. If I argued false things and you argued true things the shoe would be on the other foot. But you don't and I do, so it's easy for me to articulate the truth and it's hard for you to argue against it.

Obviously you missed the goofy. premise of the thread. The OP requested unique models for climate change that he intended to prove wrong. Of course the added proviso forbade relying on expert opinions. The only option left is for some naieve person without the ability to even formulate a unique model to play his game. It's a bullshit thread with a bullshit challenge. You don't get that?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am responding to silly posts. Can't slip anything past you, can I?

You do that because you can't address the challenge which you obviously are unable to do because it is well above your ability to handle it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Obviously you missed the goofy. premise of the thread. The OP requested unique models for climate change that he intended to prove wrong. Of course the added proviso forbade relying on expert opinions. The only option left is for some naieve person without the ability to even formulate a unique model to play his game. It's a bullshit thread with a bullshit challenge. You don't get that?

Yet you never made a case for it, because you don't know how to do it.

Why are you trying hard to show how stupid you are?

 

[ding]

Obviously you missed the goofy. premise of the thread. The OP requested unique models for climate change that he intended to prove wrong. Of course the added proviso forbade relying on expert opinions. The only option left is for some naieve person without the ability to even formulate a unique model to play his game. It's a bullshit thread with a bullshit challenge. You don't get that?

But I do get it. You don't get that we can use the same data and reach opposite conclusions. So your premise that it is an either or situation is false. I don't have to have my own personal data. I can use public domain data. Especially the kind like paleoclimate data which isn't controversial.

I can use their model outputs to show they have factored out all natural variability when natural variability is the highest it's ever been. So are we appealing to authority? No. We're actually arguing against the authority using their own data.