How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

[Billy_Bob]

Mr. Westwall, you are such a liar. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the wind turbines in Eastern Oregon. .

And they fertilize the fields with the corpses of raptors, bats, and migratory birds which are killed in their millions by those blights on the landscape.

Destroying animal life is ok if your a green energy company with libtards and Obama in their pocket..

 

[SSDD]

Of course, since this is a real scientist speaking, and not some obese junkie, our deniars and liars will not bother to watch the video. And Mr. Westwall will claim that Dr. Richard Alley is one of the 99 out of 100 scientists that does 'shit' science.

800,000 year data set at Vostok show CO2 LAGGING, not controlling. Is modern CO2 somehow different?

It is imbued....imbibed?....with magic from gaia...and you must believe or be labeled as a filthy denier.

 

[SSDD]

Mr. Westwall, you are such a liar. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the wind turbines in Eastern Oregon. .

And they fertilize the fields with the corpses of raptors, bats, and migratory birds which are killed in their millions by those blights on the landscape.

Destroying animal life is ok if your a green energy company with libtards and Obama in their pocket..

Been getting letters and emails from the Audubon society asking why I no longer contribute....I wrote back and told them that I will not contribute another penny to them till they change their stance on wind and solar farms and become a hell of a lot more vocal on that stance. Their present position is at present, at the very apex of hypocrisy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you think that they will miss the 50 cents a year?

 

[SSDD]

Do you think that they will miss the 50 cents a year?

Spoken like a true asswipe. But hey, you can only behave as your nature demands. Do you really think they would bother sending multiple letters at however many cents per letter they spend these days wondering why I haven't sent in my two bits? Or are you really just that big an ass hole? I used to respect the organization and contributed accordingly.....they obviously miss it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, since this is a real scientist speaking, and not some obese junkie, our deniars and liars will not bother to watch the video. And Mr. Westwall will claim that Dr. Richard Alley is one of the 99 out of 100 scientists that does 'shit' science.

800,000 year data set at Vostok show CO2 LAGGING, not controlling. Is modern CO2 somehow different?

It is imbued....imbibed?....with magic from gaia...and you must believe or be labeled as a filthy denier.

LOL A lecture delivered at the annual fall AGU Conferance by an internationally known scientist. And I really don't know if you are a filthy denier or not. But if that is the case, it can be corrected with a bar of soap and some water. Then you will be a clean denier.

 

[SSDD]

LOL A lecture delivered at the annual fall AGU Conferance by an internationally known scientist. And I really don't know if you are a filthy denier or not. But if that is the case, it can be corrected with a bar of soap and some water. Then you will be a clean denier.

So there is no where in that entire video that you can direct me to in which he presents some actual empirical evidence to support even the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis? What does that say about the AGU and its standards? Does he present any empirical evidence of anything in the video? What time stamp might I go to to see any empirical evidence at all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, since this is a real scientist speaking, and not some obese junkie, our deniars and liars will not bother to watch the video. And Mr. Westwall will claim that Dr. Richard Alley is one of the 99 out of 100 scientists that does 'shit' science.

800,000 year data set at Vostok show CO2 LAGGING, not controlling. Is modern CO2 somehow different?

It is imbued....imbibed?....with magic from gaia...and you must believe or be labeled as a filthy denier.

LOL A lecture delivered at the annual fall AGU Conferance by an internationally known scientist. And I really don't know if you are a filthy denier or not. But if that is the case, it can be corrected with a bar of soap and some water. Then you will be a clean denier.

So is modern CO2 different?

 

[SSDD]

Of course, since this is a real scientist speaking, and not some obese junkie, our deniars and liars will not bother to watch the video. And Mr. Westwall will claim that Dr. Richard Alley is one of the 99 out of 100 scientists that does 'shit' science.

800,000 year data set at Vostok show CO2 LAGGING, not controlling. Is modern CO2 somehow different?

It is imbued....imbibed?....with magic from gaia...and you must believe or be labeled as a filthy denier.

LOL A lecture delivered at the annual fall AGU Conferance by an internationally known scientist. And I really don't know if you are a filthy denier or not. But if that is the case, it can be corrected with a bar of soap and some water. Then you will be a clean denier.

So is modern CO2 different?

Maybe he thinks it is smart....he seems to believe that photons must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics.

 

[Dot Com]

No, the Maldives just spent over 400 million dollars on airports silly boy. No one spends that kind of money if there is the slightest possibility that the investment will be under water in 30 years. No way in hell would that money have been spent.

Get a clue,, fool...

Really? That's your argument? Wow... [shakes head]

I thought that was "reaching" as well. Did it ever occur to him that it was to more efficiently facilitate evacuation? The Kochs would've gladly outlayed that paltry sum to gut environmental regs given the chance.

 

[jc456]

I do know who Judith Curry is. What would be your point?

She, and hundreds of others, disagree with the IPCC report. Posting some that do, doesn't change the many that don't.

1) The vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. The number that disagree is approximately 1%. ONE PERCENT.
2) Judith Curry accepts that warming is taking place and that at least half of it is produced by human activity. She also believes the corrections being made to temperature datasets by NOAA, NASA, Hadley, NCDC and others are completely justified.
3) She's the most qualified scientists deniers would like to call their own, but they can't and she thinks you're whack jobs.

Nothing of what you posted changed anything I said. Not one thing.

I'm not surprised you think so. The rest of us think I refuted every single point you attempted to make.

Yes, of course hundreds of government funded climatologist happily placed their names on a report which indicated they needed more government funding.

Yeah, shocking they support the IPCC.

What's more persuasive, is the fact so many don't support it.

Show us a study, a poll, a survey - anything with some credibility - that concludes "so many" (that would be some sort of quantifiable value) do not support the IPCC' conclusions. I want to hear from a good source how many is "so many". Got something like that or was that opinion anally derived?

How to Explain Climate Change to Neanderthals

Please stop insulting Judith Curry. Your points are all nonsense regarding her. She does not agree with what is in the IPCC report. She doesn't.

Have you named one scientist yet not funded by government money that agrees with you? One?

Judith Curry doesn't, she even slammed the statement written by --The American Physical Society (APS).

Her link and an excerpt:

APS -APS March Meeting 2014 - Event - Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations



Abstract referencing: APS Link

Author:
Judith Curry
(Georgia Tech)


For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a 'hiatus' in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. Potential causes for the model-observation discrepancies are discussed. A particular focus of the talk is the role of multi-decadal natural internal variability on the climate variability of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The ``stadium wave'' climate signal is described, which propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo. The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Implications of the hiatus are discussed in context of climate model sensitivity to CO2 forcing and attribution of the warming that was observed in the last quarter of the 20th century.

To cite this abstract, use the following reference: APS Link

Draft APS Statement on Climate Change
Excerpt:
JC message to APS POPA: no one cares about your political preferences in the climate change debate. You have demonstrated that you bring nothing intellectually to the table (once Koonin and Rosner left). You simply have no business issuing a policy statement on climate change. You have embarrassed the APS membership.

 

[daws101]

Really? That's your argument? Wow... [shakes head]

Yes. And it's a compelling one. Puts your claims that the Maldives are going under water soon to bed I would say.

Sea-Level Rise in the Republic of Maldives | Global Warming Effects
As the flattest country on Earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.4,9,16,18 Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives' 1,190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.2

• Sea level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge, and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes.5,11
• Given mid–level scenarios for global warming emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter)—and to lose some 77 percent of its land area—by around the year 2100.4,9 If sea level were instead to rise by 3 feet (1 meter), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.18
• The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas, but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.19,20

God are you stupid.

Ahhhh yes the ever popular claim. Here's the deal doofus, the world operates via cause and effect. Something happens which causes something else to happen. Only you religious nutters deny that. IF the waters were rising no one in their right mind would invest 400 million of their hard earned dollars into a product that would be destroyed before they were able to get their investment back, and more importantly make at least some profit from it.

Cause....and effect.

I know you believe in magic and all those different volcano Gods, but really, the planet is a cause and effect world. You should study some science so you can understand how that works...

cause ,man made climate change or to be more accurate climate change that would naturally take billions of years sped up drastically
By human activities.

Billions of years? You need to go back to school....




Explain this how did the great Sahara desert go from tropical to dry in only a few thousand years?


From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry

A finding that may help scientists better predict the pace of climate change, research published in Science shows how the Sahara Desert, a region as big as the U.S. that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea across northern Africa, went from bountiful to bone-dry over a period of several thousand years.






Sahara Went from Green to Desert in a Flash

North Africa's sudden geographical transformation 5,000 years ago was one of the planet's most dramatic climate shifts.

The transformation took place nearly simultaneously across the continent's northern half, a new study finds. The results will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

thanks again for proving my post is correct .
What you posted supports the contention that natural climate change takes a very long time.
The industrial revolution started about 200 years ago and has drastically sped up natural processes.
Besides you're a creationist none of this is your concern ,god will fix it.

 

[daws101]

Sea-Level Rise in the Republic of Maldives | Global Warming Effects
As the flattest country on Earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.4,9,16,18 Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives' 1,190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.2

• Sea level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge, and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes.5,11
• Given mid–level scenarios for global warming emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter)—and to lose some 77 percent of its land area—by around the year 2100.4,9 If sea level were instead to rise by 3 feet (1 meter), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.18
• The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas, but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.19,20

God are you stupid.

Ahhhh yes the ever popular claim. Here's the deal doofus, the world operates via cause and effect. Something happens which causes something else to happen. Only you religious nutters deny that. IF the waters were rising no one in their right mind would invest 400 million of their hard earned dollars into a product that would be destroyed before they were able to get their investment back, and more importantly make at least some profit from it.

Cause....and effect.

I know you believe in magic and all those different volcano Gods, but really, the planet is a cause and effect world. You should study some science so you can understand how that works...

cause ,man made climate change or to be more accurate climate change that would naturally take billions of years sped up drastically
By human activities.

And not one shred of actual data to support the theory. Not one. Let me know when you have something other than science fiction dear boy...

Everything is science fiction until it's not.

No. Actually it's not. Though science fiction certainly benefited from science.

In reality (a concept you don't quite understand) it's just the opposite.

 

[SSDD]

thanks again for proving my post is correct .
What you posted supports the contention that natural climate change takes a very long time.
The industrial revolution started about 200 years ago and has drastically sped up natural processes.
Besides you're a creationist none of this is your concern ,god will fix it.

The fact is that there is not a shred of actual hard empirical evidence to support the claim that today's climate is unprecedented, or changing at an unprecedented rate. All such claims are bullshit as there is no proxy data that has anything like the sort of time resolution that would be required to actually support such claims. 500 years would be about as high resolution as one could expect from proxy data and 500 years is no where near good enough to support claims that the present rate of climate change is unprecedented.

I asked a few straight forward questions regarding what climate science actually knows, and what evidence it actually has in support of the claims being made and as I could have predicted....none of the warmers stepped up with anything more than appeals to authority and name calling. That seems to be all that any warmer has....yourself included.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Firebrandleft.

Speaking of a lack of credible sources.

 

[SSDD]

In reality (a concept you don't quite understand) it's just the opposite.

I'm not much into science fiction....I have a greater appreciation for reality. Here are a few questions that will help you separate fiction from reality. I don't actually expect an answer from you on any of them....and I don't expect for you to grasp how your inability to answer them highlights your belief in fiction....I do hope that people reading and seeng your inability to answer will see that most of what you warmers believe is, in fact, fiction. So here are my straight forward questions..

1. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?

2. You claim that mankind is altering the climate which must mean that you are able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. You must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence do you have that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.

3. The climate is a chaotic system. Can you state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? You would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.

4. Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Can you state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do you base your claim if you have one?

5. This action you want for me to take based upon your claim is going to cost money...and if you want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now....pollution, habitat loss, etc.

6. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that you want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless you can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action you want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can you give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.

 

[daws101]

In reality (a concept you don't quite understand) it's just the opposite.

I'm not much into science fiction....I have a greater appreciation for reality. Here are a few questions that will help you separate fiction from reality. I don't actually expect an answer from you on any of them....and I don't expect for you to grasp how your inability to answer them highlights your belief in fiction....I do hope that people reading and seeng your inability to answer will see that most of what you warmers believe is, in fact, fiction. So here are my straight forward questions..

1. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?

2. You claim that mankind is altering the climate which must mean that you are able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. You must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence do you have that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.

3. The climate is a chaotic system. Can you state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? You would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.

4. Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Can you state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do you base your claim if you have one?

5. This action you want for me to take based upon your claim is going to cost money...and if you want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now....pollution, habitat loss, etc.

6. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that you want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless you can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action you want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can you give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.

Do you always yammer this much and say nothing?
An axiom for you , the longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit ?

 

[SSDD]

Do you always yammer this much and say nothing?
An axiom for you , the longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit ?

No answer?....not even an attempt? Not surprising. You are in good company...none of the other warmer wackos could give an answer to any of them either....and yet, you BELIEVE.....and that's fine, so long as you understand that it is a belief not founded on or supported by any actual hard empirical evidence.

 

[daws101]

Do you always yammer this much and say nothing?
An axiom for you , the longer the explanation the deeper the bullshit ?

No answer?....not even an attempt? Not surprising. You are in good company...none of the other warmer wackos could give an answer to any of them either....and yet, you BELIEVE.....and that's fine, so long as you understand that it is a belief not founded on or supported by any actual hard empirical evidence.

Too busy yammering to read ?
You have my answer !

 

[SSDD]

Too busy yammering to read ?
You have my answer !

No...all I have from you is a dodge...the very one I predicted. You guys never fail to fail.