Natural climate change cult VS. AGW cult

[Wyatt earp]

The natural climate change cult believes in :

1. Natural climate change - Real Science is on it's side after all the climate has been changing for billions of years

2. Real Science and data

AGW cult believes in:

1. Fudging numbers

2. Fear mongering and preying on low information voters

Ie... Saying it's the "warmest day on record" but don't mention the record is only 115 years or so old

3. Repeting myths that has been debunked

4. Relying on ancient technology to prove a point

Ie... Old guys in the 1900's wearing bifocals recording to a tenth of a degree on a thermometer.

5. Changing terminology to suite their needs
Ie... Global cooling, global warming to now climate change

6. Social economic justice

Ie... Take money from rich countries and give it to poor ones

7. Making stupid predictions in the past 40 years that never came true.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Bear, I have been posting what real scientists are saying. In fact, what they have been saying this week, and the videos present them saying it in their own words. All you post is flapyap with zero to back it up. Ever going to post anything other than that?

 

[Crick]

The natural climate change cult believes in :
1. Natural climate change - Real Science is on it's side after all the climate has been changing for billions of years

No one has ever denied this but the only bearing it has on the current situation is to inform us that current CO2 levels are the highest in well over a million years - far beyond human history and that the rates of CO2 and temperature increase have not been seen in many tens of millions of years. One of the last times CO2 rose anywhere near as quickly as it is rising today, over 200 million years ago, the largest mass extinction event in Earth's history took roughly 96% of all marine species.

2. Real Science and data

And what is that supposed to mean? Given that more than 97% of the people who DO that science and who collect and analyze those data would disagree with you completely and absolutely, it means you haven't got shite but think throwing around undefined terms will help.

AGW cult believes in:

Given that the vast bulk of mainstream science and the majority of the rest of the planet accept AGW as valid, using the term "AGW cult" marks you as dishonest and/or ignorant

1. Fudging numbers

Do you have a confession from a number fudger yet? Do you even have any statements from actual climate scientists that they believe the numbers have been fudged. Judith Curry says they haven't. Roy Spencer says they haven't. John Christy says they haven't. On what do you base this belief of yours besides the FACT that you haven't got any real arguments with which to oppose AGW theory?

2. Fear mongering and preying on low information voters

World wide, there is a strong correlation between education and acceptance of AGW. That doesn't gibe with your uninformed opinion on this matter, does it.

The natural climate change cult believes in : Ie... Saying it's the "warmest day on record" but don't mention the record is only 115 years or so old

So, when the weatherman made this announcement, you didn't know what he meant by the term "record". So sorry to hear about that. Have you ever thought of getting an actual education? And 2015 - 1880 = 135 years and 135 years ago, temperatures were 1C colder than they are today. 2015 is likely the warmest year in over a thousand years, but don't let that worry you're pretty LITTLE head. We wouldn't want you to get nervous.

The natural climate change cult believes in :
3. Repeting myths that has been debunked

It's spelled R E P E A T I N G. What do you believe are myths and what do you believe has been debunked?

4. Relying on ancient technology to prove a point

Ie... Old guys in the 1900's wearing bifocals recording to a tenth of a degree on a thermometer.

What exactly do you think has changed between now and then? Vision? Intelligence? The ability to boil water or melt ice (ie, calibrate a thermometer). If we took you for an exemplar, I think we'd have to conclude they did a better job back then.

5. Changing terminology to suite their needs
Ie... Global cooling, global warming to now climate change

Your stupidity now stands out among a mob of stupid.

6. Social economic justice

Ie... Take money from rich countries and give it to poor ones

Very little of that is an actual transfer of money. The distinction is that US, India and China are burning immense amounts of fossil fuels PER CAPITA and they will have to bear a much larger cost in bringing that down. That you should perceive that as just is a good step, but that is not the real motive. The real motive is simply the success of the effort.

7. Making stupid predictions in the past 40 years that never came true.

[/quote]

Like these:

[/QUOTE]

 

[mamooth]

No "natural cycles" theory explains the directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

Hence, all such natural cycles theories are dead wrong.

And the scientists, not being morons, know that. Hence deniers are ignored, and can only scream on message boards.

If you deniers want to be taken seriously, come up with a "natural cycles" theory that isn't contradicted by the observed evidence.

Also, you'll need to stop being so stupid, like Bear was in his OP. Bear isn't bright enough to understand he was babbling crazy things that weren't true, so I wouldn't call him a liar. He's just a run-of-the-mill brainwashed cult rube, like most of the other deniers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Bear, I have been posting what real scientists are saying. In fact, what they have been saying this week, and the videos present them saying it in their own words. All you post is flapyap with zero to back it up. Ever going to post anything other than that?

Real scientists do experiments, they don't turn on the Weather channel ans shriek, "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIERS!!!"

You've confused clowns with real scientists

^ Clowns, not scientists

 

[Crick]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases.

The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.
ABSTRACT
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
*****************************************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

PS Frank, in that photograph you've got, of the fellows standing around the wheel. Can you explain why the different values on the wheel have different sized arcs? That is, have you ever looked into what those fellows were actually doing? I explained it to you once, but like so many things, based on your behavior since, I have to assume that you didn't understand me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases.

The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.
ABSTRACT
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
*****************************************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

PS Frank, in that photograph you've got, of the fellows standing around the wheel. Can you explain why the different values on the wheel have different sized arcs? That is, have you ever looked into what those fellows were actually doing? I explained it to you once, but like so many things, based on your behavior since, I have to assume that you didn't understand me.

Again, what you posted is NOT an experiment that controls for a .01% change in atmospheric chemistry. You can post it a billion times and its still not an experiment.

Why haven't you been able to locate that experiment?

Second, the clowns around the wheel are an embarrassment to the instruction they represent. MIT would have done better sponsoring Spengler and the rest of the Ghostbusters. Instead of providing experimental evidence, they gave us their ridiculous Wheel of Climate Change. Or is it Global Warming

 

[Crick]

the values on the wheel are climate sensitivity (transient, with feedbacks, to a doubling of CO2). The width of their arcs represent their likelihood.

PS Frank, you have demonstrated that you don't understand what constitutes an experiment. Evans 2006 is a direct measurement of the backradiation being produced by the greenhouse effect. I had no expectation that you'd accept it, but you need to make up some better reason than to charge that it's not an experiment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the values on the wheel are climate sensitivity (transient, with feedbacks, to a doubling of CO2). The width of their arcs represent their likelihood.

PS Frank, you have demonstrated that you don't understand what constitutes an experiment. Evans 2006 is a direct measurement of the backradiation being produced by the greenhouse effect. I had no expectation that you'd accept it, but you need to make up some better reason than to charge that it's not an experiment.

It's OK Crick, I win every time you reply without posting the experiment that controls for a .01% change in atmospheric chemistry

 

[Crick]

You lost back when you chose to reject mainstream science on political direction.

I guess I'm going to have to unignore you. The board gets quiet on weekdays, don't it.