Greta Von Death Metal, killer climate song.

[SSDD]

No, guy, I look at what 97% of the people in the field who have degrees in it say.

Like I said...that is a lie. You don't look at any science at all. You take the word of people who share your politics who tell you what the science says. You have never actually looked at any of the science.

Want to talk about climate modeling? Climate modeling is the life blood of climate science. It is where most of the "science" actually comes from...model results..and then people tell you about this science but don't bother to tell you that it comes from models..and not actual observations.

For example:

Published in Climate Dynamics. Are you claiming that the Koch brothers own that journal and determine what goes in it?

May common model biases reduce CMIP5’s ability to simulate the recent Pacific La Niña-like cooling?

Clip: "
Over the recent three decades sea surface temperature (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation…. Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific [1981-2010] cooling and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade).”


Here is one published in the Cryosphere. Want to claim that the koch brothers own the journal of the European Geosciences Union?

TC - Peer review - Brief communication: Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models

Clip: “Recent studies note a significant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We find that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modelled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deficiency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models.”

This one is published in the International Journal of Climate Chante Stragegies and Management. Are you claiming that the koch brothers own this one too?

Challenging the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement | Emerald Insight

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”

“The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”

“The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years.”

“The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.”

This one was published in the International Journal of Remote Sensing. DO the Koch brothers own this one also?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Clip: “All datasets produce high correlations of anomalies versus independent observations from radiosondes (balloons), but differ somewhat in the metric of most interest, the linear trend beginning in 1979. The trend is an indicator of the response of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings, and so is critical to understanding the climate. The satellite results indicate a range of near-global (+0.07 to +0.13°C decade−1) […] trends (1979–2016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 1990–2001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets.”

“Comparisons with radiosonde datasets independently adjusted for inhomogeneities and Reanalyses suggest the actual tropical (20°S-20°N) trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. This tropical result is over a factor of two less than the trend projected from the average of the IPCC climate model simulations for this same period (+0.27°C decade−1). … Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”

This one was published in Nature Climate Change. A very well respected journal among climate scientists...Do you believe it is a koch brothers holding as well?


Challenges and opportunities for improved understanding of regional climate dynamics | Nature Climate Change

Clip: “Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.”

Here is one published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America...go ahead...tell me that you believe the National Academy is a koch brothers holding....prove that you are a complete idiot...

Global models underestimate large decadal declining and rising water storage trends relative to GRACE satellite data

“The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends(1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of ∼8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends).”

“Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei. … Subtracting the modeled human intervention contribution from the total land water storage contribution from GRACE results in an estimated climate-driven contribution of −0.44 to −0.38 mm/y. Therefore, the magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign. While many previous studies emphasize the large contribution of human intervention to GMSL [global mean sea level], it has been more than counteracted by climate-driven storage increase on land over the past decade.”

“GRACE-positive TWSA trends (71 km3/y) contribute negatively (−0.2 mm/y) to GMSL, slowing the rate of rise of GMSL, whereas models contribute positively to GMSL, increasing the rate of rise of GMSL“

I could go on and on with published papers in respected journals finding that climate models are abject failures...and climate models are, again, as I pointed out, the life blood of climate sceince.

I ignore shills who aren't scientists who are more upset about what the policy results would need to be to look at the actual science.

No...You ignore science that doesn't support what the people you trust have told you what the science says...you ignore peer reviewed, scientific literature published in respected journals if it disagrees with what you have been told about what the climate science says.

You prove that you have never looked at the science every time you fail to support your claims with anything even resembling published science while everything I have claimed has been supported by peer reviewed, published sceince..which you deny out of hand because it is different from what you believe. You seem to be the true denier here. I provide you with actual science to support my position and you clap your hands over your ears and impotently yell LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs...

People are watching you fail miserably to support your position..keep up the good work...People like you are the best tools us skeptics have to get the message out regarding the abject weakness of the science claiming that AGW is a real and present danger.

 

[SSDD]

97% of scientists say the world is warming, and humans are responsible. This is settled science.

That is an abject lie...

View attachment 283112

Legates Et Al buried your lie...

He has never actually looked at the science... He goes to people who share his politics and they tell him what they want him to believe about the science... Hell, look at him...denying science published in publications like Nature Climate Science...he thinks the koch brothers with their few million dollars in funding has somehow overturned the trillion dollars that governments and green organizations have provided over the past 3 decades...

 

[SSDD]

From the replies on this thread, it's alarmingly evident that loony liberals really have NO sense of humor! Whatsoever. None, nada, zilch, zip, zero. Very sad.

True that....they are, in general, a bitter, angry humorless lot. They are spoiled children...

 

[JoeB131]

You talk a lot of shit, but don't seem to be able to back any of it up. Lets see some actual evidence that the Koch brothers paid for any of the papers I linked to..

here you go, buddy.

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial

How David Koch Changed the World

And yet, you can't produce the first bit of this settled science to support your beliefs. Are you really such a dupe that the fact that you can't produce any actual science to support your claims doesn't sink in? You keep making claims, but can't support any of them...how weak is that?

Again, just because I don't stomp every Climate Denier Cockroach that scurries across the floor doesn't mean this isn't settled science.

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said...that is a lie. You don't look at any science at all. You take the word of people who share your politics who tell you what the science says. You have never actually looked at any of the science.

I've looked at the science

I've also looked at how climate has changed over my six decades of life, how winters aren't as cold and summers are much hotter than when I was a kid.

If you got out of the basement once in a while, you'd realize this too.

 

[SSDD]

You talk a lot of shit, but don't seem to be able to back any of it up. Lets see some actual evidence that the Koch brothers paid for any of the papers I linked to..

here you go, buddy.

So according to you, the koch brothers have ponied up less than 10% of the 1.6 trillion dollars that governments and green organizations have spent promoting AGW over the past 3 decades..

And you still haven't provided any evidence at all that the peer reviewed, science published in respected journals is the result of the koch brothers...you claimed that they paid for the science I provided...lets see the evidence...there are thousands of peer reviewed, published papers that are skeptical of what is called the consensus opinion...are you claiming that the koch brothers paid for them all?

Got any evidence?

Again, just because I don't stomp every Climate Denier Cockroach that scurries across the floor doesn't mean this isn't settled science.

You can't "stomp" anyone because you can't produce any actual science to support your claims...not the first piece. If, as you claim, it were settled, then you would have no problem supporting your position with any amount of actual science...instead, you can't produce any and are reduced to impotent excuses for not providing any...keep it up...you guys convince more fence sitters that the AGW claim is bullshit than I ever could simply by not being able to support your position with anything more than bullshit...

 

[SSDD]

I've looked at the science

No you haven't...but feel free to prove me wrong by providing some actual peer reviewed, published science to support your claims. Or don't...which is what we both know you are going to do...because you would't know actual published science if it bit you on the ass...

I've also looked at how climate has changed over my six decades of life, how winters aren't as cold and summers are much hotter than when I was a kid.

More bullshit...you have looked at what people have told you about how the climate has changed...you have never even looked up the climate history ov wherever you live...you simply take the word of people you look to for information..the fact is that the long term climate in the US is cooling..so if you had ever actually looked at the climate where you live, you would know that the present isn't warmer than the past.

It's all bullshit all the time with you...that's good..I love pointing out the bullshit people like you spew...

If you got out of the basement once in a while, you'd realize this too.

Just because you live in a basement doesn't mean that everyone else does too....

Keep not supporting your claims...you prove my point with every post...

 

[JoeB131]

So according to you, the koch brothers have ponied up less than 10% of the 1.6 trillion dollars that governments and green organizations have spent promoting AGW over the past 3 decades..

Nowhere near that. It's easier to spread bullshit than it is to solve a problem.

And you still haven't provided any evidence at all that the peer reviewed,

Again, don't waste my time on KOCH-Suckers.

You can't "stomp" anyone because you can't produce any actual science to support your claims...

The Science is settled. 97% of Climate Scientists agree AGW is a thing. The only ones who don't are on the Koch-Sucker Payroll.

Honest, I'm flabergasted dealing with this level of evil. Who thinks the future extinction of the human race- in fact of all life- is acceptable so you can enjoy driving a big old SUV now?

 

[JoeB131]

More bullshit...you have looked at what people have told you about how the climate has changed...you have never even looked up the climate history ov wherever you live...y

Yeah, guy, I have... I remember the Chicago Winters of the 1970's... which were simply awful, and we've had nothing like them since.

 

[SSDD]

Here is the actual temperature history of Illinois... A fraction of a degree and that due to the billions of tons of concrete...sorry guy...but you are a liar if you claim that you can discern that sort of change...

 

[JoeB131]

Here is the actual temperature history of Illinois... A fraction of a degree and that due to the billions of tons of concrete...sorry guy...but you are a liar if you claim that you can discern that sort of change...

Yeah, whatever, Koch-sucker.

But you are claiming that tons of concrete can have an effect? Wow... how is that possible, since you claim that humans can't possibly effect the climate.

 

[JoeB131]

Meanwhile, here outside of Koch-World.

How Climate Change Affects Chicago | City of Chicago Climate Action Plan

Since 1980, Chicago’s average temperature has increased approximately 2.6 degrees. Our current trajectory poses risks to our economy and health. They demonstrate that we need to act now to reduce our emissions, while preparing for climate changes that cannot be avoided. We face a big challenge--but we have also been granted a big opportunity. Every Chicago resident and business has a role to play in implementing the Chicago Climate Action Plan, which will not only ensure a more livable climate for the world but also for the city. The economy and quality of life could improve. Jobs could be created. New technologies will emerge.

 

[SSDD]

Again, don't waste my time on KOCH-Suckers.

Weak...positively mewling. We both know that you would like nothing more than to slap me down and shut me the f*ck up with some real science...but you won't...because you can't...because there isn't any...all you have is what you have been told by people who have an agenda and who share your politics....there agenda is for you to spread the bullshit they tell you and hope that you never get smart enough to actually start looking at the science...

The Science is settled. 97% of Climate Scientists agree AGW is a thing. The only ones who don't are on the Koch-Sucker Payroll.

Spoken like a true science illiterate...science is never settled...hell, what causes gravity isn't even settled...much less what drives the climate...You can't even support your 97% claim....it is just something else that someone told you.. You can't produce even the first piece of real science to support your claims because you have never looked...

Honest, I'm flabergasted dealing with this level of evil. Who thinks the future extinction of the human race- in fact of all life- is acceptable so you can enjoy driving a big old SUV now?

I should be flabbergasted with the level of ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility that you are putting on display...but I have been talking to people like you for decades now...people who are to stupid or lazy to look at the science themselves...people who are duped by political operatives who tell them about the science...people who view you as nothing more than a useful idiot.

You can't even produce a single piece of actual science to support your claims...we could go on for page after page...with me providing all manner of peer reviewed, published science from respected literature while you continue to hand out impotent insults, making claim after claim...none of which you could support with anything like science...you are a joke joe...but by all means, keep on proving to everyone that you are the useful idiot I said that you are...

 

[SSDD]

Here is the actual temperature history of Illinois... A fraction of a degree and that due to the billions of tons of concrete...sorry guy...but you are a liar if you claim that you can discern that sort of change...

Yeah, whatever, Koch-sucker.

But you are claiming that tons of concrete can have an effect? Wow... how is that possible, since you claim that humans can't possibly effect the climate.

Here is the actual temperature history of Illinois... A fraction of a degree and that due to the billions of tons of concrete...sorry guy...but you are a liar if you claim that you can discern that sort of change...

Yeah, whatever, Koch-sucker.

But you are claiming that tons of concrete can have an effect? Wow... how is that possible, since you claim that humans can't possibly effect the climate.

You don't even know what my position is....one more bit of bullshit you have made up...I have said that humans can't effect the global climate...of course we can have an effect on the local climate...and that effect can be greatly magnified when we put our data gathering instruments at airports where jet blast can increase the readings...or near air conditioner exhaust vents, or over blacktop...which is what is happening....

Your NOAA graph is bullshit...HCN is far more accurate and not subject to nearly as much manipulation as the NOAA and GISS data...The USCRN is the most accurate data gathering system on earth...triple redundant stations so pristinely placed that no adjustment is necessary...and that network shows no warming in the US for the past 12 years...

You have been lied to, you believed the lies, and by spreading them, have become a liar...

 

[JoeB131]

Spoken like a true science illiterate...science is never settled...hell, what causes gravity isn't even settled...much less what drives the climate...You can't even support your 97% claim....it is just something else that someone told you.. You can't produce even the first piece of real science to support your claims because you have never looked...

Yawn... don't need to look.. it's kind of obvious.. melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, etc.

Just because the Koch Brothers found a few whores in labcoats to lie with graphs doesn't impress me.

You don't even know what my position is....one more bit of bullshit you have made up...I have said that humans can't effect the global climate...

That's kind of silly. You just admitted that yup, climate is warmer in Chicago, but then you try to claim it's because of concrete, not the billions of tons of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere every year.

 

[JoeB131]

Weak...positively mewling. We both know that you would like nothing more than to slap me down and shut me the f*ck up with some real science..

No, guy... what I'd like to do is stop wasting time on Koch-Suckers...

Because at the end of the day, it's about your own selfishness, not about the science.

 

[SSDD]

Spoken like a true science illiterate...science is never settled...hell, what causes gravity isn't even settled...much less what drives the climate...You can't even support your 97% claim....it is just something else that someone told you.. You can't produce even the first piece of real science to support your claims because you have never looked...

Yawn... don't need to look.. it's kind of obvious.. melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, etc.

Just because the Koch Brothers found a few whores in labcoats to lie with graphs doesn't impress me.

You don't even know what my position is....one more bit of bullshit you have made up...I have said that humans can't effect the global climate...

That's kind of silly. You just admitted that yup, climate is warmer in Chicago, but then you try to claim it's because of concrete, not the billions of tons of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere every year.

Typical warmer response...

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH....97% of something

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH....consensus

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH...glaciers

When the fact is that there are more, bigger glaciers than there have been for most of the past 10,000 years

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH...coral reefs

When the fact is that coral reefs have survived...and thrived with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH.....koch brothers

when the fact is that government and green groups outspend them by better than 90%

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH.....CO2

When the fact is that you can't show any other correlation between CO2 and warming beyond the fact that rising CO2 is the result of warming temperatures...not the cause....

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH.....koch brothers again

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH.....koch brothers again

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH.....extinction

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH....evil

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH......koch brothers again

WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAHHHH....the sky is falling

How about you stop your boo hooing, your mewling, and your hysterical handwringing, and actually pony up at least one piece of real science that supports your pissing and moaning bullshit....

 

[skookerasbil]

If your claim is in fact true, then it should be effortless for you to provide some actual science to support your claims...or to demonstrate that the peer reviewed research I have already provided that, by the way was published in respectable journals is mistaken.

Guy, reports the Koch brothers paid for isn't "Science".

All your links are denier shit, and are ignored.

97% of scientists say the world is warming, and humans are responsible. This is settled science.

View attachment 282977

How many people will buy that book? About 1,000? Maybe?

So....the progressives have run out this narrative about "science deniers" as a strategy for over 10 years now! To what end?

Has had ZERO effect on the public perception of climate change.

The analogy is.....internet hero's boasting about balling 10,000 women!

 

[SSDD]

Here you go joe...a fine example of the sort of bullshit you get when you look to NOAA for temperature information...

The longest heat wave in Texas was in 1921 with 157 consecutive days over 90F from May 8 to October 11, 1921.

The NOAA USHCN thermometer data for Texas shows 1921 as the hottest year, with Texas cooling since 1895.

The NOAA NCEI graph for Texas shows Texas warming, and 1921 as not being a particularly hot year.

their 2012 version of the same graph, showed 1921 as the hottest year, and no warming.

The bottom line is that NOAA has been caught red handed over and over altering temperatures in order to support an alarmist narrative...and anyone who believes NOAA with regard to temperatures is a dupe...

 

[skookerasbil]

No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study