My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[Vegasgiants]

I'm just trying to help !!! You've been consuming gas station sushi on GW instead of actually LEARNING anything about it.

Read the G.B. Shaw quote in my sigline. The only thing that I lose patience with is folks who will NOT honestly discuss and accuse people of lying.

I provided tons of peer reviewed evidence to support my claim. You have not


You just get hysterical

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Climate.gov will NEVER TELL YOU THIS. The science will. Those same ice cores are the ONLY thermometers or gas meters we HAVE for ancient measurements.

That's extremely incorrect. We have a large number of well-known and proven proxies for paleotemperatures. Ice cores are just one. There's sediment cores, tree rings, isotopes etc.

You can see 1 or even close to 2degC RAPID variance in GREENLAND Ice cores tho. They are a BETTER HIGHER TEMPORAL resolution proxy -- but dont go back as far as Vostok does.

Doesn't really matter much either way. My point was in response to ding 's comment about the role of CO2 in earth's history.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

As Ding just inferred above -- those "fingerprints" on CO2 carbon are NOT unique to burning of fossil fuels.

But that's the great thing about the current run up in CO2 and temperature. The current CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily enriching in 12-C isotope since about the middle 19th century and that IS a very good fingerprint for human-produced CO2. (Plants, like those that make up coal and oil) preferentially fix lighter 12-C isotopes vs 13-C isotopes so burning them will cause an increase in 12-C.). That's about as good a HUMAN FINGERPRINT as you can ask for.

Same for all those NATURAL methane leaks in the Gulf of Mexico and other WARM bodies of oceans that cant HOLD a lot of CO2 at shallower depths.

This is an oversimplification of the CO2-Ocean link. CO2 is not just dissolved in the water but once in there is often fixed by organisms. The relationship between CO2 that is in the atmosphere and that which makes it into the ocean water is a bit more complex. (cf The Revelle Factor for example).

You're right. Going INTO an Ice Age -- CO2 LEADS but is being SEQUESTERED rapidly. Coming OUT of an Ice Age -- CO2 LAGS warming because it's ALL covered in miles of glacial ice.

But when CO2 lags coming out that excess CO2 can now cause additional warming. This is a common concept in paleoclimate. That CO2 exsolves from the ocean water and then leads to more warming. Kind of a feedback mechanism of sorts.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm laughing....

How many crack monkeys visit those oddball green sites? 217....maybe.

95% of voters have never heard of those ghey sites...which means their impact is ghey.

Sometimes when I come on this forum it's like I'm reading the collected works of Shakespeare.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I provided tons of peer reviewed evidence to support my claim. You have not


You just get hysterical

1. Peer reviewed papers are just as full of errors and bias as non-peer reviewed studies.
You are mesmerized by scientific SOUNDING pronouncements.
2. You are an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, viz. you think you know a great deal more than is actually the case, and you will not listen to anything contrary to your opinions.
3. TONS of evidence is provided in the websites I cited in my original post. TONS.
You ignore every bit of it.
4. People vote with their money. Lying, incompetent Obama first claimed the horrors of climate change and oceans rising. Then he and his husband bought a mansion on the oceanfront.
Like Al Gore did. Like Bill Gates has. Is this getting through to you? Not a chance.
5. Only ONE nation on earth is classified as "sustainable." That nation is Cuba. Live like that if you wish in squalor and poverty. I pass.
6. He did NOT "get hysterical." He made valid points, yet again, and you continue to ignore all of them as Leftists do relentlessly.
When are you changing your sex? Scientifically, I mean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then he and his husband bought a mansion on the oceanfront.

Two oceanfront properties.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's extremely incorrect. We have a large number of well-known and proven proxies for paleotemperatures. Ice cores are just one. There's sediment cores, tree rings, isotopes etc.

Did you CAREFULLY read what I said? No... Go read the assertion AGAIN. trees dont LIVE for 800,000 years. Sediment cores arent great for CO2 concentrations. Isotopes have to appear in some type of proxy entity -- which ones?

That 800,000 yr CONTIGUOUS (from one source) CO2 estimate is the ONLY one.. And it SUCKS as both a ancient thermometer and CO2 meter to find "Blips" like in our modern record. In fact, you do it again in 20,000 years or so -- THEY WONT EVEN SEE the 100 yr rise in CO2 that we're measuring now. It's only use is see LONG TERM averages of the stuff it purports to measure and citing MAX/MIN values from it -- is scientific perjury. (Even if you just infer min/max values),

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Did you CAREFULLY read what I said? No... Go read the assertion AGAIN. trees dont LIVE for 800,000 years.

Speleothems last a pretty long time. They've been used to recreate the "hockey stick" (HEre).

Carbonate and organic matter oxygen isotopes (18-O/16-O ratios) also are used as paleoclimate/temperature proxies.

Organic geochemical proxies also exist.

(SOURCE)

Also: a paleothermometer proxy doesn't HAVE to be one single source. It's possible to use overlapping ones.

 

[Old Rocks]

No media needs to touch science to make it fraudulent. It has been corrupted from the inside for decades.... decades.

1. Leftists dominate academia. They shout down all dissent. Silence it. Their way or shut the hell up, including science.

Take evolution please.

Take climate change please.

2. I shall repeat fraudulent science I have posted elsewhere, beginning with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This LIE was disproven in court 150 years ago and yet biology books have continued to parrot this lie through to the 21st Century.

3. The PRETENSE that science depends on "consensus" is lunacy. Facts are independent of "consensus." As a famous climatologist said in his book discounting global warming, "Galileo was once the only person on earth who believed the earth revolved around the sun but he was right!"

4. Today, every science lab in the world calls their charts "The periodic table of the elements."
There is NOTHING "periodic" about the table. It is the elements which are periodic. It should be called "the table of periodic elements," but it is not. We do not say "the black man's eye," we say "the man's black eye."

5. Then there is the contemporary nonsense of wearing masks with holes ten times the size of the Covid 19 virus and the compound nonsense of jabbing people with RNA modifiers that have killed and maimed. This craziness is being mandated! By the Left, of course. The tyrannical, pompous, condescending know-it-all Left that doesn't know a man from a woman. How do they go to the bathroom, M or W?

Lordy, lordy, another dumb fuck repeating the lies of the deniers. As well as lies concerning many other facts. What is your chem engineering degree in, washing outhouses with disenfectant?

 

[flacaltenn]

But that's the great thing about the current run up in CO2 and temperature. The current CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily enriching in 12-C isotope since about the middle 19th century and that IS a very good fingerprint for human-produced CO2. (Plants, like those that make up coal and oil) preferentially fix lighter 12-C isotopes vs 13-C isotopes so burning them will cause an increase in 12-C.). That's about as good a HUMAN FINGERPRINT as you can ask for.

I just explained WHY that is not true. See post #119. Ancient carbon is ancient carbon. Man does not uniquely FREE that stuff from the depths of the oceans or in the 100s of Methane/CO2 calthrate SEEPS in the Gulf in Mexico. Those NATURAL "ancient carbon" seeps are part of the yearly NATURAL cycle in which NATURE puts up and then SINKS FIVE TIMES MORE CO2 than man does in ANY YEARLY CYCLE.

Pretty sure you didn't know that man's contribution to the YEARLY release of CO2 was just a fifth of Natures'. Go check me on that. And of the 5% that man is accountable -- this yearly MASSIVE NATURAL exchange between sources and sinks -- also buries or sinks about 1/2 of the human contribution. With the remaining 2.5% being what man contributes to the atmos in a year.

This is an oversimplification of the CO2-Ocean link. CO2 is not just dissolved in the water but once in there is often fixed by organisms. The relationship between CO2 that is in the atmosphere and that which makes it into the ocean water is a bit more complex. (cf The Revelle Factor for example).

There are CO2 sources and sinks WITHIN the oceans as well. CO2 is held VERY WELL in it's natural gas state in COLD DEEP WATER. That is the majority of STABLE gaseous CO2 in the oceans. And when currents head to shorelines -- this CO2 (ancient isotopes) UPWELL towards the surface -- TONS of it get released. Some of it from as far away as the Southern Ocean or Arctic which when NOT covered by ice are the worlds BIGGEST carbon sinks because of the cold waters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Speleothems last a pretty long time. They've been used to recreate the "hockey stick" (HEre).

Carbonate and organic matter oxygen isotopes (18-O/16-O ratios) also are used as paleoclimate/temperature proxies.

Organic geochemical proxies also exist.

(SOURCE)

Also: a paleothermometer proxy doesn't HAVE to be one single source. It's possible to use overlapping ones.

OVERLAPPING similar proxies from different regions or using a set of proxies for ATTEMPTED use as thermometers/CO2 meters of ancient climates just FURTHER ERODES the "variability" one can find in proxy data. That's why Marcott admits the temperature "hockey sticks" have NO variability left for periods less than 300 years and LIMITED ability to determine Min/Max accurately at periods less than 600 or 800 yrs.

There are only very limited proxy sets that can both sample the surface AREA and the TIME period of the ENTIRE FUCKING EARTH. The gaps you end up with in time and surface area just further erode the USEFULNESS of ancient proxy study usefulness.

Let's recap -- both YOU and "Vegas Dude" pull out a public propaganda site Climate.gov to start your orthodox preaching about Global Warming. FEATURED ON THE HOME PAGE was a "disturbing graph" of CO2 over the past 800,000 years in atmos concentrations. NEITHER of you accepted or BELIEVED that they CRAYONED IN the modern instrumentation record alongside the "proxy data" from the Vostok Ice core data. It's CLEAR that is what that forgery of science really is.

And if you're TOO STUPID to realize a forgery being a centerpiece is a warning sign that you've been hoodwinked and the propaganda WORKS. There is massive SCIENCE behind just that one sliver of GW science and you didn't catch it. Just ate the spoiled sushi. READ THE FUCKING PAPERS and science. It's NOT complex math nor science. But GW is more complex that any raving GW fanatic will ever know.



You're welcome.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

OVERLAPPING similar proxies from different regions or using a set of proxies for ATTEMPTED use as thermometers/CO2 meters of ancient climates just FURTHER ERODES the "variability" one can find in proxy data. That's why Marcott admits the temperature "hockey sticks" have NO variability left for periods less than 300 years and LIMITED ability to determine Min/Max accurately at periods less than 600 or 800 yrs.

In a former life I did what is called "correlation studies" in which I took lithologic sequences described in well logs and correlated them across space to create a view of what the underground looked like. As you travel sideways from any given drill hole the rocks you encounter change. Either because the FACIES (depositional environment) changed or the rocks are offset (faulted, folded etc.).

The reason I mention this is because we have to have overlapping means of explainging broad ranges of things. There is no single temp proxy that will show you the entirety of earth's climate history. You WILL HAVE TO COMPARE and OVERLAP proxies.

The good thing about Mann's hockey stick is it shows up in numerous proxies and it is well labeled to show you where the proxies work at.

There are only very limited proxy sets that can both sample the surface AREA and the TIME period of the ENTIRE FUCKING EARTH. The gaps you end up with in time and surface area just further erode the USEFULNESS of ancient proxy study usefulness.

The ONLY reason you know anything about the ancient earth's climate is because of these proxies.

If you don't like proxies or their limitations then you have to give up all knowledge of the earth's past climate. As such you cannot say ANYTHING about climate.

So which is it: do we know how earth's climate has changed in the past or not?

Let's recap -- both YOU and "Vegas Dude" pull out a public propaganda site Climate.gov

I do not rely solely on climate.gov. I go with the actual science. Unlike some on here I didn't start learning about climate change from blogs. I started in the classroom before the internet existed. I put in my time in the trenches in geochem labs across the US.

It's CLEAR that is what that forgery of science really is.

I greatly dislike hearing people claim climate science is "forgery" or some sort of fraud. But when people say that I have started to figure it out: they say that because they, themselves, work in a field that is made up of people who will lie for money.

If one honestly thinks that thousands upon thousands of independent researchers across the globe are all either idiots or fraudsters then that says more about the environment they are in than the researchers.

And if you're TOO STUPID to realize a forgery

I've got so much more experience in earth science than you do. Just stop it.

You need to deal with the field you are in since it is clearly loaded with fraudsters. Stop looking for motes in the eyes of earth scientists and take care of the beams in your own fields' eyes.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I just explained WHY that is not true. See post #119. Ancient carbon is ancient carbon.

What, exactly, do you think that means.

The ancient carbon you are talking about (coal and oil) comes mostly from algal and plant and bacterial stuff. It selectively fixes lighter Carbon isotopes. Yeah, it's a fingerprint when we burn it that the CO2 in the atmosphere becomes dominated by lighter C isotopes.

Man does not uniquely FREE that stuff from the depths of the oceans or in the 100s of Methane/CO2 calthrate SEEPS in the Gulf in Mexico.

Not at the RATE we put it in the atmosphere.

Pretty sure you didn't know that man's contribution to the YEARLY release of CO2 was just a fifth of Natures'.

But the point is that natural carbon emissions are part of the carbon cycle. Human produced carbon is in excess in that cycle. The carbon cycle takes a LONG TIME to cycle back down from elevated CO2 levels.

If you put a lot more water vapor in the air it will quickly re-equilibrate to a lower level by precipitation. Added carbon doesn't come out so easily.

THAT'S THE POINT. Not that humans produce more than nature (we outproduce volcanoes by a large margin) but we are an ADDED EXCESS TO THE NATURAL CYCLE.

THAT'S the key point about AGW.

That is the majority of STABLE gaseous CO2 in the oceans. And when currents head to shorelines -- this CO2 (ancient isotopes) UPWELL towards the surface

That isn't how the oceans work. That's a gross oversimplification. And the isotopic composition of ocean-source CO2 is MEASURABLY DIFFERENT from fossil fuel-produced CO2

CO2 Pool	Δ14C Value (‰)	δ13C Value (‰)
Fossil Fuels	-1,000	-28
Terrestrial Biosphere	+45	-26
Ocean	+45	-10
Atmosphere	+45	-8

(SOURCE)

See that little squiggly "d" there by 13C? Yeah that tells you the relative abundance of C13 to C12 (as compared to a standard as I recall...forgive me, it's been years since I took a stable isotope geochem course). But you can see that the 13-C data for OCEAN C is QUITE DIFFERENT from that of FOSSIL FUEL C. (-10 vs -28).

So you are, again, incorrect. Fossil fuel CO2 will be detectable vs that which comes from the ocean water.

 

[ding]

Doesn't really matter much either way. My point was in response to ding 's comment about the role of CO2 in earth's history.

Which is as a proxy for temperature as temperature determined CO2 levels through sequestration and release by the ocean which is where ~94% of earth's CO2 is stored.

 

[Orangecat]

We can all do our part by ditching our air conditioners ..

No thanks.

 

[flacaltenn]

The reason I mention this is because we have to have overlapping means of explainging broad ranges of things. There is no single temp proxy that will show you the entirety of earth's climate history. You WILL HAVE TO COMPARE and OVERLAP proxies.

And there's your problem in understanding the LIMITATIONS of proxies to explain ANYTHING. You cited a few of RARE chances to have a proxy study. In those INDIVIDUAL proxies of varying temps -- SOME are technically inherently MORE accurate than others. So you can FIND an individual proxy at SPECIFIC geolocation that WILL SHOW the variance in temperature and CO2 to a much greater degree for events LESS than 500 yrs in time scale.

But when you PURPORT to be doing a GLOBAL "mean temperature" proxy study and you combine (and sometimes CHERRY PICK) a basket full of different proxies from LESS THAN 100 locations on the planet -- You are NOT measuring GMASTemperature to any degree that even APPROACHES our modern instrumentation.

And if you FRAUDULENTLY combine that flawed result with MODERN instrumentation records -- you are DECEPTIVELY pushing a narrative -- NOT doing science.

That's what the 800,000 yr CO2 graph at Climate.gov is. Straight up FRAUDULENT misrepresentation of the data and the science to preach the FAITH of GW to the masses. The Vostok Ice Core studies are very LOCAL and low information proxy information that doesn't have a CHANCE of finding Max Min temps except as 1000 yr averages.

The ONLY reason you know anything about the ancient earth's climate is because of these proxies.

If you don't like proxies or their limitations then you have to give up all knowledge of the earth's past climate. As such you cannot say ANYTHING about climate.

I've TOLD you what they mean. They have a minor value that is misrepresented to the media/public. It would be like an alien spacecraft arrived BEFORE the ice ages and left an advanced reporting station at Vostok (e.g.) And almost a million years later -- some team finds that data and runs a 1000 yr LOW PASS FILTER over the results.

It's VALUE is as a LONG TERM MEAN of the parameters that you want to measure. And dont accuse me of NOT SAYING THIS 100 times in the forum or at LEAST 3 times in this one thread.

I also pointed out that SOME proxies (preserved leaf/pollen samples sometimes found in amber e.g.) have amazing time resolution. The Greenland ice cores (see GISP 2 and 3 studies) show more than 1 DegC temp rise in a matter of a couple years !!!!

But when you LIE about doing this on GLOBAL SCALE for periods of time exceeding a few thousand years -- with about only 70 spatial samples NOT covering the globe - and MISREPRESENT the inherent limitations of the DATA to the media/public -- you've LOST your credentials to "science".

What, exactly, do you think that means.

The ancient carbon you are talking about (coal and oil) comes mostly from algal and plant and bacterial stuff. It selectively fixes lighter Carbon isotopes. Yeah, it's a fingerprint when we burn it that the CO2 in the atmosphere becomes dominated by lighter C isotopes.


Not at the RATE we put it in the atmosphere.

NOPE. Not even listening to what I asserted. ANCIENT carbon is ancient carbon. And since man only puts up year 5% of what comes from nature every year, the ancient carbon coming OUT of the NATURAL 95% is significant. And it comes primarily from sequestration in the oceans.

THE RATE that we put it up is also 5% of the RATE that that Nature sources/sinks every fucking year. And even today -- 40 years into this circus of the absurd -- Nature SINKS slightly less than HALF of the ANCIENT carbon back into the land/sea. It's all fungible once it's UNsequestered.

If ancient METHANE bubble up from HUNDREDS of seeps in the Gulf of Mexico -- IT HAS THE SAME DAMN FINGERPRINTS !!!!!

That "fingerprint method" would be toss out of any court of law.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dont take my word for this about proxy limitations. Go grab some GISP (Greenland ice core) studies that OVERLAY the more recent periods of the VOSTOK record.

I'm not doing this for ya because you're misrepresenting most everything I say and being belligerent. But I COULD do that. You'll find amazing differences in Min/Max values that MAKE sense.

 

[flacaltenn]

I greatly dislike hearing people claim climate science is "forgery" or some sort of fraud. But when people say that I have started to figure it out: they say that because they, themselves, work in a field that is made up of people who will lie for money.

FUSING modern instrumention time records unto LIMITED resolution proxy studies is FRAUD. That's why the hockey sticks are discussed so much. Very little of the criticism is about EITHER recording of data. They are -- what they are. Except when you attempt to PASS THEM OFF AS BEING EQUALLY VALID. They ARE NOT.

And since you're implying I lie about ANYTHING -- I think we're done here. Go read the Shaw quote I keep in my sigline. I have more PATIENCE that most people on social media/message boards, but I have NO tolerance or patience for those that accuse me of lying.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

FUSING modern instrumention time records unto LIMITED resolution proxy studies is FRAUD.

Not when it is clearly labeled as such.

And since you're implying I lie about ANYTHING -- I think we're done here.

You continue to call my field one full of liars.

I have more PATIENCE that most people on social media/message boards, but I have NO tolerance or patience for those that accuse me of lying.

I didn't accuse you of lying unless you are accusing my field of being full of liars.

It's really up to YOU who is the liar here.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not when it is clearly labeled as such.

No "hockey stick" of ANYTHING -- CO2 or Temperature was ever "labeled" as such once it got sent to the media/public. SOME papers might acknowledge what Mann called "the trick" -- but most never did.

And in FACT - the more activist authors would make DIRECT COMPARISONS and inferences as THO those 2 data sources had equal validity and accuracy when talking to media/public.