Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[ding]

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

You keep missing the point... the CO2 level isn't just high, it's skyrocketing faster than the planet can cope with.

Those past increases did not happen over decades, they happened over millennia. In short, there was time for life to evolve to cope with changed climate.

You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.

Is it your belief that CO2 emissions will continue to rise exponentially? Because even the IPCC base projection does not show that.

Just how high do you think atmospheric CO2 will rise to by the year 2100?

At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.

Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?

 

[ding]

Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?

The fact that a lot of farmland will turn into desert. Massive die-offs of species like bees we rely on for pollenizing. Melting glaciers will no longer feed rivers, causing areas to dry up. Stuff like that.

ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?

I would say that it is entirely because of AGW... and so do 95% of climate scientists.

But i'm sure you want to see the doctor who recommends the Ice Cream Diet.

 

[JoeB131]

ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.

Again, 95% of REAL scientists disagree with you.

But, yeah, you might have a point, the world will be a lot "Wetter"

Fuck you, Florida!!!

 

[IanC]

Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?

The fact that a lot of farmland will turn into desert. Massive die-offs of species like bees we rely on for pollenizing. Melting glaciers will no longer feed rivers, causing areas to dry up. Stuff like that.

Do you think for yourself?

The huge amount of green space in the Sahara that disappeared when the monsoons stopped five thousand years ago didn't 'kill us all'.

Do you really think the few tenths of a degree of warming is killing the bees when they appear to do just fine with year-to-year variations of whole degrees?

Glaciers have advanced and retreated for a very long time. Did you believe the IPCC prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2030? Do you still believe? How about Gore's prediction for Kilamanjaro?

Just how credulous are you?

 

[Taz]

Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

So these 2 meaningless stats are supposed to prove that humans aren't affecting climate change? Or are you purposely moving the goalposts to now discuss the level at which it might get harmful to humans?

So far the only large scale event that can be directly attributed to increased CO2, at least in part, is the greening of the planet.

Evil, right?

I never said that I was against global warming, in fact, I'm all for it, to a point. He's trying to say that humans don't affect climate change. Which is false.

 

[IanC]

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think. Got it.

Those who are familiar with the science know that the total adjustments have, by making the past look much warmer, made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable, and that means Ian's crank conspiracy theory goes into the shitcan. Not that Ian will care. He's a true believer. His cult tells him to believe, so like every other denier here he'll keep cherrypicking his heart out until reality matches his dogma. He's not as dumb as the other deniers, but he is just as fanatical and brainwashed

The denier cult is based entirely on faking data. Fraud is what deniers do. It's all deniers do. If a denier says something, experience shows one should initially assume it's a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

The thing you have to remember about mamooth is that he is a shyster. Three card monte, pea under the thimble, a huckster.

He tries to convince us that all adjustments are suitable because ONE large sea surface temperature correction went in the opposite direction. He wants us to ignore all the other adjustments since then.

In the 90s they just couldn't get the climate models to work with raw sea surface data so they made a large correction to compensate for going from canvas buckets to water intakes. A necessary but still discretionary adjustment.

Land surface station coverage is poor, especially before, say, 1950. But sea surface coverage is pathetic to non-existent for that period.

The poo flinging monkey likes to put up this graph as proof-

What does this graph imply? That post 1950 readings have hardly been adjusted, and that pre 1950 readings have been warmed. Say what????? That can't be right!

How the hell did they pull that off? Have you figured it out? Kept track of the pea under the thimble? Figured out which card is the queen of spades? Hahahaha.

Anyone got an answer for this?

Anybody want an answer for this?

 

[Taz]

We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.

Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?

View attachment 166034

Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.

There aren't any because it hasn't happened. We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?

So you're of the opinion that we won't go past the previous peak that is only 2 degrees away? And that human activity isn't doing anything in this regard?

The data shows that we are still in the normal range, Einstein.

View attachment 166418

But for how long?

 

[mamooth]

The thing you have to remember about mamooth is that he is a shyster. Three card monte, pea under the thimble, a huckster.

You're cute when you sulk over being busted for fraud.

He tries to convince us that all adjustments are suitable because ONE large sea surface temperature correction went in the opposite direction.

No, I'm ripping apart your amazing stupid conspiracy theory. Your kook theory says that scientists made a huge correction one way, because they were honest. And then, somewhere in the 1990s, they all became socialist pod people. And the socialist pod people scientists knew it would look bad to cancel that correction, so they tried to overwhelm the old correction with new corrections.

The really funny part is how you expect that people won't laugh at that.

He wants us to ignore all the other adjustments since then.

I want you to point out why the newer adjustments aren't justified. So far, you just keep screaming how it must be fraudulent because you don't like the results. That bit of non-logic plays well with your fellow cultists, but rational people require a little more than your endless rounds of BECAUSE I SAY SO.

In the 90s they just couldn't get the climate models to work with raw sea surface data so they made a large correction to compensate for going from canvas buckets to water intakes. A necessary but still discretionary adjustment.

The first mention of those corrections, in HadISST, was published here, in 2003. Prior to HadISST, they weren't worked into any temperature record.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

And then it's reinforced in 2005 with HadSST2

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3637.1

According to your kook conspiracy theory, the vast secret global socialist plot formed in the 1990s. That means they had ample time to quietly trash the data that challenged their nefarious socialist agenda ... and yet they didn't.

So, in addition to having zero evidence to back it up, your conspiracy theory isn't even internally consistent. Care to revise your timeline? Give us the exact date as to when the alien socialist pods took over the minds of all climate scientists. Given the evidence here, it has to be after 2005. But if you have to accept the science up to 2005, that totally ruins almost all of your other conspiracy kookery.

Dang, sucks to be you. Maybe DearLeaderMcIntyre can help you out, little fraud. Alas, he's been quiet lately, so you'll probably have to fake something on your own.

 

[ding]

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

So these 2 meaningless stats are supposed to prove that humans aren't affecting climate change? Or are you purposely moving the goalposts to now discuss the level at which it might get harmful to humans?

So far the only large scale event that can be directly attributed to increased CO2, at least in part, is the greening of the planet.

Evil, right?

I never said that I was against global warming, in fact, I'm all for it, to a point. He's trying to say that humans don't affect climate change. Which is false.

Let me put it this way. Humans have affected the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 does not drive climate change. Atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change.

 

[ding]

Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?

View attachment 166034

Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.

There aren't any because it hasn't happened. We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?

So you're of the opinion that we won't go past the previous peak that is only 2 degrees away? And that human activity isn't doing anything in this regard?

The data shows that we are still in the normal range, Einstein.

View attachment 166418

But for how long?

It depends on the trigger mechanism for the glacial cycle and whether or not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is high enough to avoid that trigger.

 

[ding]

Taz, you do realize that man had no influence on the glacial - interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years, right?

Our climate transitioned to an icehouse world about 5 million years ago. It has only gotten colder since. The same conditions which precipitated that did that are still in place today (ask me what they are). The native state of the planet is an icehouse with the next climate change being a glacial cycle. These facts are indisputable.

 

[IanC]

No, I'm ripping apart your amazing stupid conspiracy theory. Your kook theory says that scientists made a huge correction one way, because they were honest. And then, somewhere in the 1990s, they all became socialist pod people.

Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2. Otherwise they would have had to invoke unknown natural factors.

I guess I'll have to go back and search for the original threads. The main and largest 'correction' was made long before 2003.

 

[mamooth]

Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2.

So, good science, in other words.

Otherwise they would have had to invoke unknown natural factors.

Which would be lousy science, invoking the mysterious unknown. That is, denier shit science.

 

[IanC]

Nope. I'm saying that a large sea surface correction was made in the 90s so that they could make some semblance of a decent climate model that had a correlation with CO2.

So, good science, in other words.

Otherwise they would have had to invoke unknown natural factors.

Which would be lousy science, invoking the mysterious unknown. That is, denier shit science.

Hahahaha, only you would think making a huge adjustment to the data so that agrees with the pet theory is good science.

In this specific case I believe some adjustments were necessary. In many other cases they were not, and in a few cases adjustments were not made when they should have been.

The main sea surface adjustments were in place by Parker 1995, although a lot of the work was done before that. Since then many further adjustments have been made to tailor the data to the need to prop up the AGW theory. Such as Karl 2015, the pausebuster paper released just in time for Paris, which trimmed a little here, added a little there, in an effort to smooth out the hills and valleys to make the trend seem like it stretched over a longer period of time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.

Our descendants will probably all die out massively when the planet can't sustain humans anymore like it does now.

"Don't mind us, we are just putting off the next glacial age!"

Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!

 

[JoeB131]

The huge amount of green space in the Sahara that disappeared when the monsoons stopped five thousand years ago didn't 'kill us all'.

Do you really think the few tenths of a degree of warming is killing the bees when they appear to do just fine with year-to-year variations of whole degrees?

Glaciers have advanced and retreated for a very long time. Did you believe the IPCC prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2030? Do you still believe? How about Gore's prediction for Kilamanjaro?

Just how credulous are you?

I think Gore is a bit of an alarmist... however, the real scientists who study this stuff tell us that these things are going to be bad.

so again, let's get down to brass tacks. You don't really doubt the science, you don't like the inevitable conclusion we'll all have to change our lifestyles to fix this.

 

[JoeB131]

Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!

droughts, more extreme weather, shifting of the gulf stream... um, yeah, we would be.

 

[IanC]

so again, let's get down to brass tacks. You don't really doubt the science, you don't like the inevitable conclusion we'll all have to change our lifestyles to fix this.

I have three children that make various 'sacrifices' to signal their virtue to Gaia and the uplifting of mankind. Bless their hearts cause I was just like them at their age.

Now I am older and know better. But I still go around behind them turning down thermostats and turning off lights.

It's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk.

 

[JoeB131]

I have three children that make various 'sacrifices' to signal their virtue to Gaia and the uplifting of mankind. Bless their hearts cause I was just like them at their age.

Now I am older and know better. But I still go around behind them turning down thermostats and turning off lights.

It's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk.

I'm very glad you are cynical in your old age... but the reality is, the science isn't in dispute. Much like evolution, it's not the science you have a problem with, it's the implication.