The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[ding]

Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

 

[ding]

A tropospheric hot spot is produced by any form or warming.

The hot spots don't exist. They changed the freaking scales, moron. If they used the same scales there wouldn't be any reddish colors. They would all be yellow. Good Lord, how stupid are you?

 

[mamooth]

Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles

"You can't prove it didn't happen, so therefore it did!"

That logical fallacy has been used before by desperate deniers. It's some seriously bad science. But then, since all the data contradicts you, that kind of awful logic is all you've got.

Some more of your blunders:

Trying to get a rate of change off a couple pixels width, a dreadful misunderstanding of the limitations of a compressed scale. In general, you fail at scale reading on every graph. You're simply graph-illiterate. I've never seen someone so incapable of reading a graph as you are.

Hilarious misuse of significant figures to claim a phony amount of certainty, something unforgivable in a supposed engineer.

Telling us what our arguments are, when you fail completely to understand them.

Being unable to present data coherently. Those who understand a topic can explain it clearly. You can't. Your rant, ramble and rave for paragraphs, and never quite get to any coherent point.

Conclusion:
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, along with narcissism, a classic case of Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome. You're too stupid to understand how stupid you are in this field. That wouldn't be such a serious problem if you were willing to learn, but you're not. Instead of thanking the smarter people for taking the time out to educate you on your failures, you simply disbelieve that you could be wrong, and you react with rage instead, and then repeat the same failures over and over.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Will you kindly keep your sane and rational thoughts to yourself. Some people are looking for a cause, and it makes them feel really good that they think they are saving the polar bears. You seem to be suggesting that science should prevail over emotions and that is unsettling to those who find math and science difficult. Please restrict future post to poetry and other non-threatening things.

 

[Crick]

Oil industry employees, termed "geo-scientists" or "geo-engineers" by pro-denier survey efforts have always had a lower acceptance of the IPCC consensus than any other group. The Institute of Petroleum Engineering was the last major organization to reject AGW. They finally accepted it 7 or 8 years ago, but they were a lone holdout for quite some time. And, of course, there's no reason petroleum engineers or scientists should have any particular expertise regarding climate science, the greenhouse effect or global warming.

Your survey isn't worth shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

ding..........loving the dominance in these threads. Making the k00ks look silly.

Years ago, I dropped out of the science debate stuff with these fools.....total waste of time. In most cases, its a total brainwash dynamic coupled with an OCD disorder. In my field of work, Ive spent 30 years dealing with OCD folks.....even medication is rarely effective. These people will go to their boxes obsessed with climate change. For the others, its just part of the agenda. Ive just taken to making fun of these people.........all I do is win in this forum and expose interested parties in the hopelessness of this climate change stuff and back it up with ease.

 

[ding]

Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles

"You can't prove it didn't happen, so therefore it did!"

That logical fallacy has been used before by desperate deniers. It's some seriously bad science. But then, since all the data contradicts you, that kind of awful logic is all you've got.

Some more of your blunders:

Trying to get a rate of change off a couple pixels width, a dreadful misunderstanding of the limitations of a compressed scale. In general, you fail at scale reading on every graph. You're simply graph-illiterate. I've never seen someone so incapable of reading a graph as you are.

Hilarious misuse of significant figures to claim a phony amount of certainty, something unforgivable in a supposed engineer.

Telling us what our arguments are, when you fail completely to understand them.

Being unable to present data coherently. Those who understand a topic can explain it clearly. You can't. Your rant, ramble and rave for paragraphs, and never quite get to any coherent point.

Conclusion:
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, along with narcissism, a classic case of Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome. You're too stupid to understand how stupid you are in this field. That wouldn't be such a serious problem if you were willing to learn, but you're not. Instead of thanking the smarter people for taking the time out to educate you on your failures, you simply disbelieve that you could be wrong, and you react with rage instead, and then repeat the same failures over and over.

You are dense. It happens all of the time, dumbass.

 

[skookerasbil]

Some dumbasses like make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles

"You can't prove it didn't happen, so therefore it did!"

That logical fallacy has been used before by desperate deniers. It's some seriously bad science. But then, since all the data contradicts you, that kind of awful logic is all you've got.

Some more of your blunders:

Trying to get a rate of change off a couple pixels width, a dreadful misunderstanding of the limitations of a compressed scale. In general, you fail at scale reading on every graph. You're simply graph-illiterate. I've never seen someone so incapable of reading a graph as you are.

Hilarious misuse of significant figures to claim a phony amount of certainty, something unforgivable in a supposed engineer.

Telling us what our arguments are, when you fail completely to understand them.

Being unable to present data coherently. Those who understand a topic can explain it clearly. You can't. Your rant, ramble and rave for paragraphs, and never quite get to any coherent point.

Conclusion:
Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, along with narcissism, a classic case of Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome. You're too stupid to understand how stupid you are in this field. That wouldn't be such a serious problem if you were willing to learn, but you're not. Instead of thanking the smarter people for taking the time out to educate you on your failures, you simply disbelieve that you could be wrong, and you react with rage instead, and then repeat the same failures over and over.

You are dense. It happens all of the time, dumbass.

He's not real bright......and if you notice over time, 98% of his stuff is his opinion!

 

[mamooth]

You are dense. It happens all of the time, dumbass.

So as usual, you ran away from your stupidity getting ripped to pieces, pretended it never happened, and then simply repeated the same hilariously stupid blunders yet another time.

You're a persistently gutless Bozo, I'll give you that. You're like one of these. Dreadfully easy to knock over, but then it just pops up again with the same stupid look on its face, so one quickly realizes the exercise is pointless.

 

[skookerasbil]

You are dense. It happens all of the time, dumbass.

So as usual, you ran away from your stupidity getting ripped to pieces, pretended it never happened, and then simply repeated the same hilariously stupid blunders yet another time.

You're a persistently gutless Bozo, I'll give you that. You're like one of these. Dreadfully easy to knock over, but then it just pops up again with the same stupid look on its face, so one quickly realizes the exercise is pointless.

s0n.....not for nothing but you're getting pwned. Every single one of your ghey posts screams "Im a snowflake and I will be heard because well...........I JUST WILL BE!!"

But please s0n..........how about some evidence your side is winning? Calling me a bozo doesn't quite cut it.............

Links please!!

 

[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.

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

Revenge of the Nerds

Those who can't make it on the outside escape into the academic echo-chamber, where the motto is "If it's weird, it's wise." This refusal to face real life can only satisfy for so long. Becoming miserable and depressed, they next escape through the fantasy of being superheroes saving the world from the productive scientists whose success so humiliated them.

 

[ding]

You are dense. It happens all of the time, dumbass.

So as usual, you ran away from your stupidity getting ripped to pieces, pretended it never happened, and then simply repeated the same hilariously stupid blunders yet another time.

You're a persistently gutless Bozo, I'll give you that. You're like one of these. Dreadfully easy to knock over, but then it just pops up again with the same stupid look on its face, so one quickly realizes the exercise is pointless.

No, I didn't. I presented the absurdity of your ridiculous position. There is nothing special about the current rate of change. Happens all the time.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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...

Global Igloo

Since the snowflakes tend to huddle together in safe spaces, that will form glacial cryopiles that will counteract the effects of any global warming. So we should keep them around, just to make sure.

 

[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.

Will you kindly keep your sane and rational thoughts to yourself. Some people are looking for a cause, and it makes them feel really good that they think they are saving the polar bears. You seem to be suggesting that science should prevail over emotions and that is unsettling to those who find math and science difficult. Please restrict future post to poetry and other non-threatening things.

Smoked by Smokey

Timothy Treadwell was into bears too. Was.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ice-melting temperatures forecast for Arctic midwinter
The Guardian-Dec 21, 2016
A large pool of meltwater over sea ice in the Beaufort Sea in July. Scientists say parts of the Arctic will climb above water's freezing temperature ...
Arctic Temperatures Are Expected to Soar 30 Degrees Above Normal
TIME-3 hours ago
North Pole 27.5°C hotter than normal tomorrow as Arctic ...
Highly Cited-Daily Mail-Dec 21, 2016
North Pole predicted to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday
In-Depth-Chicago Tribune-Dec 21, 2016
North Pole to warm to near melting point this week: 50 degrees ...
Highly Cited-Mashable-Dec 20, 2016

 

[westwall]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

What actually heats the Earth? Answer UV radiation penetrates up to 500 meters into the oceans and over billions of years that has warmed the Earth. All the Atmosphere does is retain that warmth (it doesn't, and can not add to that warmth). Otherwise, when the Sun is absent, like at night, the surface temp would be over 200 below zero. The theory of AGW is that after the UV radiation strikes the Earth it then radiates upward (as LONG WAVE INFRA RED) and then, upon striking atoms in the air, 50% of that Long Wave IR gets radiated back to the ground which then gets reheated.

The problem with that is yes, the IR can warm rocks and dirt, but then very rapidly that warmth radiates away. Think about nightime in the desert as an analogy. What IR CAN'T do, is penetrate beyond a few microns into the oceans which is why the theory of AGW fails its first test. The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet, it is physically impossible of accomplishing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet [sun, greenhouse], it is physically impossible of accomplishing.

I have no idea whatsoever what this means. Care to explain?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

which is why the theory of AGW fails its first test. .

what does it fail??????????

 

[westwall]

The very mechanism that we KNOW warms the planet [sun, greenhouse], it is physically impossible of accomplishing.

I have no idea whatsoever what this means. Care to explain?

It's pretty clear. Water is warmed by UV radiation penetrating to a depth of 500 meters. Long wave IR (the very actor in the AGW "theory") can't penetrate even one millimeter into the water. Thus it is not capable of warming the water. Thus, the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the very action that we know actually does warm the planet Earth, it cannot do. Ever.

sorry still lost. We know the sun warms the planet so how can it not do that??