The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[skookerasbil]

Hey Crick s0n...........in the holiday spirit, just trying to be charitable here.........best start to mentally prepare yourself.

The entire dynamic of climate change as we have known it is about to change >>

Obsolete Climate Science On CO2


Id find some new hobbies s0n......and Im not even kidding. The religion is about to get whacked over the head with a baseball bat like never before!!!

 

[polarbear]

Hey Crick s0n...........in the holiday spirit, just trying to be charitable here.........best start to mentally prepare yourself.

The entire dynamic of climate change as we have known it is about to change >>

Obsolete Climate Science On CO2


Id find some new hobbies s0n......and Im not even kidding. The religion is about to get whacked over the head with a baseball bat like never before!!!

Every time I look into the environment section the entire right hand column is filled with:
Crick Today at 5:53 AM
Crick Today at 6:12 AM
from top to bottom...talk about being obsessive
synonyms:all-consuming, consuming, compulsive, controlling, obsessional, fanatic, fanatical, neurotic, excessive, overkeen, besetting, tormenting, inescapable, pathological
Who the hell else would start long before the sun comes up ranting about AGW and keep it up every day all day long.

 

[SSDD]

Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected

And, for the hundredth time, a tropospheric hot spot is produced by ANY form of warming.

Your article states clearly that the hot spot was fabricated....a million radiosondes, and state of the art satellites couldn't find it, but a couple of programmers and a computer model create it in short order...like all the other claims of AGW....

 

[Crick]

Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.

The third paragraph in the linked article:

The discovery was made by extending an existing data record and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging.

 

[SSDD]

Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.

The third paragraph in the linked article:

The discovery was made by extending an existing data record and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging.

So your claim is that they found an upper tropospheric hot spot that couldn't be detected by a million radiosondes and satellites that are looking at the upper troposphere with ground instruments?

It gets better all the time.....hold on while I make some popcorn...I always like pop corn at story time....tell me about how these ground based instruments found the upper tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis when a million radiosondes and satellites couldn't find it.

I like some graphics with my story so I will provide some...The bottom of the predicted tropospheric hot spot is 8 kilometers straight up....I am especially interested in learning how ground based thermometers detected it...and what station moves of a few miles at most had to do with helping them find it...

You will believe absolutely anything so long as it supports your fantasy won't you...you should sue whoever failed so abjectly in teaching you any critical thinking skills.

 

[mamooth]

When my grand kids ask me "grandpa, did you believe that New York City was going to be underwater, did you know anyone who did, were you scared?"

If you're honest, you'll tell them nobody made such a prediction, and that the paid professional liars of the denier cult just openly lied about it, like they lie about every single thing. However, I think you strike everyone as the kind of person who would lie to his grandkids' faces.

Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway

Hansen's prediction was for 40 years after a doubling of CO2. Given that CO2 hasn't doubled yet, that 40 year countdown hasn't even started yet, so it's staggeringly dishonest for your masters to have spoonfed you the lie about how a prediction was made that NYC would be flooded now. Nobody made such a prediction, your masters know it, and yet they choose to deliberately lie about it. And you proudly choose to smooch the keisters of such openly dishonest people.

I can be honest and say of course not, but I did know a lot of people who believed it, and I just laughed at them. Are you going to lie when you get asked that question, or are you going to chuckle and admit you were duped like a stupid micro-brained sissy bitch? I'm guessing you'll lie, because I sense you have very little character.

You could have used your rank ignorance as an excuse for spreading lies before. You can't now. You know your cult lied, and now you have a choice. You can show courage, and admit your were misled by professional liars. Or, you have another one of those limp-wristed hissyfits that deniers are so famous for.

I highly suspect you'll go the latter route. Admitting you screwed up would require integrity, and all people who possess integrity look upon the denier cult with disgust. Criticizing your cult masters in any way is absolutely forbidden in your cult. It would take courage to stand up to your cult, and that's a quality deniers don't possess.

So, proceed with your feeble squirming. Invoke the conspiracy theory about how all facts that contradicts your liars' cult are part of a liberal plot. You know you want to, and it's not like you have any other options.

 

[Crick]

Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.

The third paragraph in the linked article:

The discovery was made by extending an existing data record and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging.

So your claim is that they found an upper tropospheric hot spot that couldn't be detected by a million radiosondes and satellites that are looking at the upper troposphere with ground instruments?

It gets better all the time.....hold on while I make some popcorn...I always like pop corn at story time....tell me about how these ground based instruments found the upper tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis when a million radiosondes and satellites couldn't find it.

I like some graphics with my story so I will provide some...The bottom of the predicted tropospheric hot spot is 8 kilometers straight up....I am especially interested in learning how ground based thermometers detected it...and what station moves of a few miles at most had to do with helping them find it...

You will believe absolutely anything so long as it supports your fantasy won't you...you should sue whoever failed so abjectly in teaching you any critical thinking skills.

Despite being caught red-handed, you fail to admit that you lied (or that you erred). When I meet someone who lies as often as do you, their failure to exhibit "critical thinking skills" becomes almost irrelevant.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The people in your survey work for the oil industry.

B Students Jealous of A Students

And the Eco-Eunuchs are bitter and vindictive because their grades weren't high enough to get hired by any industry. They're followers, not leaders, and shouldn't call themselves scientists any more than sportswriters call themselves athletes. All they ever did in school was accurately parrot what their infallible-father-figure professors told them; they were never capable of thinking for themselves. Only a childish mind believes in the primitive superstitions that nature is supernatural and that industrial development is a sacrilege.

 

[skookerasbil]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Only problem with your fantasy scenario is unless you are willing to do research, you don't hear about the 1000's of scientist who don't buy the phony AGW scenario. Do some research and you'll be a skeptic....assuming you're not a complete idiot.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The people in your survey work for the oil industry.

B Students Jealous of A Students

And the Eco-Eunuchs are bitter and vindictive because their grades weren't high enough to get hired by any industry. They're followers, not leaders, and shouldn't call themselves scientists any more than sportswriters call themselves athletes. All they ever did in school was accurately parrot what their infallible-father-figure professors told them; they were never capable of thinking for themselves. Only a childish mind believes in the primitive superstitions that nature is supernatural and that industrial development is a sacrilege.

Interesting...........I have always speculated that this is the case. You see this in many industries.........

These "climate scientists" truly are like the Triple A league of the scientific community and you've seen over the past two decades, real scientists are pissed because they have spent their lives 100% embracing the scientific method that these climate scientists scoff at.

ghey

 

[SSDD]

Your record of lying at every opportunity stands untarnished.

The third paragraph in the linked article:

The discovery was made by extending an existing data record and removing artifacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected. No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Iterative Universal Kriging.

So your claim is that they found an upper tropospheric hot spot that couldn't be detected by a million radiosondes and satellites that are looking at the upper troposphere with ground instruments?

It gets better all the time.....hold on while I make some popcorn...I always like pop corn at story time....tell me about how these ground based instruments found the upper tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis when a million radiosondes and satellites couldn't find it.

I like some graphics with my story so I will provide some...The bottom of the predicted tropospheric hot spot is 8 kilometers straight up....I am especially interested in learning how ground based thermometers detected it...and what station moves of a few miles at most had to do with helping them find it...

You will believe absolutely anything so long as it supports your fantasy won't you...you should sue whoever failed so abjectly in teaching you any critical thinking skills.

Despite being caught red-handed, you fail to admit that you lied (or that you erred). When I meet someone who lies as often as do you, their failure to exhibit "critical thinking skills" becomes almost irrelevant.

Still waiting for you to explain how ground based thermometers were used to detect an upper tropospheric hot spot that is 8 KM up....this has to be at least as good as the claim that it was detected via the wind when thermometers that were actually 8KM up missed it...so lets hear it.....how did they do it.

 

[mamooth]

I was just in the store, and saw an infrared thermometer for sale.

I tried it out. It worked very well. I pointed it at the cold window, it read a colder temp. According to SSDD's hilariously stupid ravings, that shouldn't have been possible, because it couldn't have read the IR from a colder object.

So, cheap consumer electronics again show how SSDD is a gibbering cult retard.

 

[SSDD]

I was just in the store, and saw an infrared thermometer for sale.

I tried it out. It worked very well. I pointed it at the cold window, it read a colder temp. According to SSDD's hilariously stupid ravings, that shouldn't have been possible, because it couldn't have read the IR from a colder object.

So, cheap consumer electronics again show how SSDD is a gibbering cult retard.

Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer...

Do you never tire of being wrong?

 

[mamooth]

And the Eco-Eunuchs are bitter and vindictive because their grades weren't high enough to get hired by any industry.

Sage, let me give you a helpful hint. In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, because you're a paste-eating cult parrot.

Now, I'll discuss some science with you, because that's the sure way to make you turn tail and run.

Climate science has so much credibility, top-of-the-world credibility, because it's been so successful with all of its predictions for over 30 years now.

Your denier cult, OTOH, has failed completely with every prediction over that time. That's why you have zero credibility.

You can't gain credibility in science by whining and tossing insults, which seems to be your strategy. You have to come up with a theory, make predictions based on that theory, and see them come true.

So, what is your theory of denialism, and what predictions about the future does it make? Show some sac, take a stand, and do some actual science.

 

[mamooth]

Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer..

As is usual with you, that makes zero sense.

How is the thermopile supposed to change temperature if it doesn't absorb the IR from the cold surface?

You're just one seriously stupid human being.

 

[SSDD]

Idiot...I never said that they didn't work...hell I have one myself that is damned accurate...but it isn't measuring IR...it is measuring the amount and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile behind that lens just above the laser pointer..

As is usual with you, that makes zero sense.

How is the thermopile supposed to change temperature if it doesn't absorb the IR from the cold surface?

You're just one seriously stupid human being.

You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived...

 

[mamooth]

You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived...

No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional.

Also, by your kook theory, the thermopile should be incapable of measuring hotter temps. It couldn't radiate away, regardless of whether it was 1C or 100C warmer, so it would see any warmer temp as "hot", and be unable to narrow it down any more than that.

 

[SSDD]

No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional.

How long do you think it takes to for a thermopile to decrease by 5 or 6 hundredths of a degree?...

Also, by your kook theory, the thermopile should be incapable of measuring hotter temps. It couldn't radiate away,

The stupidity just never stops with you does it...if it is pointing at a warmer object, a thinking person would figure out that the temperature of the thermopile would be increasing....the rate of change from a particular temperature is what the internal computer uses to calculate temperature...not absolute temperature...

 

[mamooth]

You poor thing. You just get more and more confused.

So, now tell us how the more complicated systems display images of a cold sky.

Don't just wave your hands around about a "model" or "algorithm". Tell us, in detail, how the "model" manages to display pixel-accurate pictures of cold sky and cold clouds, all based on your "a thermocouple cools down by radiation" kookery.

This is funny, watching you tie yourself up in knots.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tropospheric Hot Spot Predicted In Global Warming Models Detected

And, for the hundredth time, a tropospheric hot spot is produced by ANY form of warming.

Sherwood used ground based temperature measurements to find heat at 8,000 feet...

Funny as hell....

 

[ding]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective. Of course, if we assume that you are right - that temperatures were going to fall - then we must also assume that we would have descended into another ice age, lol.

As stated before, every time I see you use this graph in order to lie, I will post the original article. Where NASA scientists come to a far different conclusion than you do.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Note that I also post a link so anyone can verifiy that is a credible site. You do not because you know that if you do they will realize that you are pushing bullshit.

Good Lord, you are a dumbass.