Geologists On Global Climate Change

[SSDD]

You don't have any facts, just more opinions about your perception of out of context snippets of information.

Claiming a lack of context does not make it so...just more straw men arguments.

 

[Liminal]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

 

[jc456]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

still wrong. my god, at least get the argument right. Climates have always changed. We've all said that since the beginning of the discussion. No one has ever stated that climates do not change. get it right.

 

[Liminal]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

still wrong. my god, at least get the argument right. Climates have always changed. We've all said that since the beginning of the discussion. No one has ever stated that climates do not change. get it right.

The US Senate's leading scientific expert on global climate change believes it's all in God's hands....so we have nothing to worry about.

 

[mamooth]

Sure it is. Mainstream climate "science" is purely about political and economic control. Show us one thing that climatologists have suggested that actually reduces pollution. Go ahead I dare you.

Restricting coal use.

That was easy.

Seriously, why did you ask such a question, when the answer was so obvious?

 

[SSDD]

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

It seems to me that it is the warmers who deny climate change....they seem to believe that the climate has been static for the entire history of the earth and any change at all must be due to the internal combustion engine...

Unprecedented is a common buzzword among warmers. Can you point to anything whatsoever in the present climate that is actually unprecedented? Can you point to anything in the present climate that is even coming close to the limits of natural variability?

Does it not strike you as odd that the atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise at about 2.2 ppm per year since we started measuring while mankinds CO2 production has increased about 300% in the past few decades alone? How far do the numbers have to be off before you begin to ask yourself if you are being suckered? Is there anything at all that would convince you that the AGW hypothesis is wrong?

 

[mamooth]

The rate of temperature increase is unprecedented, obviously. Outside of coming out of an ice age, that is. But as the earth is not coming out of an ice age now, it's clearly unprecedented.

And the CO2 increase has been accelerating. See that slope? It's not a straight line. It curves up. Accelerating.

So, how many times do we have to point out you've been totally wrong before you finally admit you've wasted years acting as a brainless bleating cultist? Give us a number, so we know when to expect your admission.

Also, we've given you a list several times before of things that would falsify AGW theory. In return, we've asked deniers what would falsify denialsim, and always gotten crickets. Deniers consider denialism to be unfalsifiable, being it's a religion to them.

 

[Muhammed]

Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.

At first glance it may look like a blank chart, but it's not.

The CO2 levels are actually indicated on the chart. It's that line at the bottom.

 

[Wuwei]

The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.

It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.

At first glance it may look like a blank chart, but it's not.

The CO2 levels are actually indicated on the chart. It's that line at the bottom.

Oh my, another dumb fuck playing games. Were I to show you a graph of what one gram of potassium cyanide looked like compared to your body weight, it would look the same. And that one gram, ingested, would destroy the very complex organism that you are. A very small amount of the right material can derail a very complex system, and that is what is happening with the GHG's in the atmosphere.

But, of course, in your vast wisdom, you absolutely know that a small amount of something cannot affect a vastly larger system. So go ahead and take the pill and prove it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

still wrong. my god, at least get the argument right. Climates have always changed. We've all said that since the beginning of the discussion. No one has ever stated that climates do not change. get it right.

The US Senate's leading scientific expert on global climate change believes it's all in God's hands....so we have nothing to worry about.

I would dearly love to have the opportunity to kick Inhofe's balls right up under his armpits. The man is a liar, corrupt to the core, and a danger to our nation.

 

[Muhammed]

Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.

At first glance it may look like a blank chart, but it's not.

The CO2 levels are actually indicated on the chart. It's that line at the bottom.

Oh my, another dumb fuck playing games. Were I to show you a graph of what one gram of potassium cyanide looked like compared to your body weight, it would look the same. And that one gram, ingested, would destroy the very complex organism that you are. A very small amount of the right material can derail a very complex system, and that is what is happening with the GHG's in the atmosphere.

But, of course, in your vast wisdom, you absolutely know that a small amount of something cannot affect a vastly larger system. So go ahead and take the pill and prove it.

Your argument is ridiculous. It is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.

Why must you global warming alarmists continuously resort to logical fallacies?

 

[SSDD]

The rate of temperature increase is unprecedented, obviously. Outside of coming out of an ice age, that is. But as the earth is not coming out of an ice age now, it's clearly unprecedented.

Really? What proxy are you using to give you the half century resolution that would be required to make such a claim? My bet is none...it is just something you say with no idea that it is not true.

And the CO2 increase has been accelerating. See that slope? It's not a straight line. It curves up. Accelerating.

I see a slight uptick around 1975 and another around 1998...both were short lived and the rest of the graph shows a pretty steady increase of slightly more than 2 ppm per year....certainly not an acceleration even though our CO2 output has increased by hundreds of percent in the past half century....

So, how many times do we have to point out you've been totally wrong before you finally admit you've wasted years acting as a brainless bleating cultist? Give us a number, so we know when to expect your admission.

All you need do is provide some empirical proof that I am wrong. So far, none has been forthcoming...much like your CO2 chart...it bears out my statement that CO2 has been steadily increasing at around 2.2 ppm since we have been measuring even though our own CO2 output is increasing steadily....where do you think it is going if it has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years as you warmer wackos claim?

Also, we've given you a list several times before of things that would falsify AGW theory. In return, we've asked deniers what would falsify denialsim, and always gotten crickets. Deniers consider denialism to be unfalsifiable, being it's a religion to them.

Sorry, but you haven't....but feel free to provide one.

 

[SSDD]

The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.

It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.

Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?

 

[SSDD]

Here is a chart of the changing levels of CO2 at the Mauna Loa observatory put into much better perspective.

At first glance it may look like a blank chart, but it's not.

The CO2 levels are actually indicated on the chart. It's that line at the bottom.

Oh my, another dumb fuck playing games. Were I to show you a graph of what one gram of potassium cyanide looked like compared to your body weight, it would look the same. And that one gram, ingested, would destroy the very complex organism that you are. A very small amount of the right material can derail a very complex system, and that is what is happening with the GHG's in the atmosphere.

But, of course, in your vast wisdom, you absolutely know that a small amount of something cannot affect a vastly larger system. So go ahead and take the pill and prove it.

Your argument is ridiculous. It is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.

Why must you global warming alarmists continuously resort to logical fallacies?

It is all they have...and anger born of frustration at the failure of their hypothesis and nature's unwillingness to cooperate.

 

[Wuwei]

Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?

You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.

 

[Liminal]

The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.

It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.

Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?

It's fun to watch you guys pretend to know something about science.

 

[Dot Com]

Some interesting theories in your political diatribe, none of which does anything to substantiate the deniers claims of scientists suppressing the real truth about global climate change.

Observation is not theory.

And neither I, nor anyone I am aware of is making any real claim that scientists are suppressing the "real truth" about global climate change any more than the truth about what the welfare state was going to become was suppressed. There are plenty of papers being published that are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, just as many papers were published pointing out where the welfare state was headed. Those papers that are skeptical, by the way, are nearly always based on observation and empirical evidence as opposed to modeling which make up most of the pro AGW literature. All one need do is be willing to look at the published material and not be blinded by political ideology...then and now. The very fact that one side is dependent on empirical evidence and the scientific method, while the other is heavily dependent on modeling which is dubious at best, and data manipulation should provide a clue to anyone who possesses actual critical thinking skills.

Then, as now, funding was scarce for people not promoting the big government solution...and then as now, the mainstream press is heavily invested in seeing the growth of government and the AGW hypothesis is the clearest path to that goal at present. When the AGW hypothesis has finally been put to rest, then the press, and big government types will move on to the next clearest path.

The fat that you must fabricate straw men to divert the conversation rather than relentlessly press forward the mountains of empirical evidence that prove the AGW hypothesis should give you a clue...that being, that there are no mountains of empirical evidence in support of the failed AGW hypothesis....and therein lies another clue that I am sure you are either not intelligent enough to figure out, or to politically motivated to take seriously.

Wrong again, it's the deniers straw man, not mine. Of course we should acknowledge how far most of the deniers have come on this issue. They all used to deny that climate change was happening at all, now most of them only say that the obvious changes in global climate are not man made. It's only the hard core ideologues who deny climate change all together.

still wrong. my god, at least get the argument right. Climates have always changed. We've all said that since the beginning of the discussion. No one has ever stated that climates do not change. get it right.

The US Senate's leading scientific expert on global climate change believes it's all in God's hands....so we have nothing to worry about.

Now THAT is scary!!! yet flat earther repubs see nothing wrong w/ basing the pursuit of scientific research contingent on a book of fairy tales

 

[IanC]

The ERBE and CERES satellite data sets directly provided total radiation output from the earth since 1984. The measured solar minus measured LW output shows strong deficit that would cause warming. There is about .68 to .85 W/m^2 more energy coming into the earth than leaving. This is what leads almost all scientists on both sides of the controversy to believe that the earth is warming.

It's very simple. The earth is receiving more energy than it's losing. This is determined by direct measurements, and not by some climate model.

Outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....contrary to the prediction of the AGW hypothesis...no hot spot = failure of the AGW hypothesis. If one adheres to the the scientific method....a single failed prediction made by a hypothesis should result in the hypothesis being scrapped and a new one formulated...how many failures must warmers have before they realize that the hypothesis is flawed?

You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.

I think you are confused on the accuracy of the deficit at TOA. While the precision of the trends may be robust the actual difference between output and input is arbitrarily set.

 

[SSDD]

You misunderstood the point. The ERBE and CERES satellite data are actual measurements that have nothing to do with climate modeling. Those actual measurements show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. That extra energy can lead to atmosphere temperature increase, or ice melting, or ocean temperature increase, and higher sea levels or some combination.

And you sidestepped the point....the AGW hypothesis says that outgoing LW at the TOA should be dropping...it is increasing and has been for quite some time....that constitutes a failure of the hypothesis....the AGW hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot...it isn't there...another failure of the hypothesis. How many failures of the hypothesis are required before climate science admits that the hypothesis is flawed and goes back to the drawing board?