The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man? That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

The fact that you rely on skeptical science for your info sums up what sort of person you are. They talk up our contribution of atmospheric CO2 in pretty scary terms that are designed to scare the uneducated. Clearly you are scared. Science, real science that is isn't meant to be used to scare school children and uneducated luddites. Real science is meant to bring people closer to understanding the world around them.

Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor. So now show me the hard proof that our 14 parts per million contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is responsible for any climate change at all...and then tell me how much change, you believe is due to that 14 parts per million.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

It's interesting to see that you say "Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor" then show a video that only demonstrates to little kids that "ppm" is a small number/ratio.

That Asian pilot was only low and slow by small numbers too.

 

[PMZ]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

How much could it possibly cost to move our agriculture to where the water has moved or our water to where agriculture is? Maybe we can use the keystone pipe line?

 

[PMZ]

Just so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.

They all seem to agree with Slacksack, that plants get carbon from diamonds, coal, and pencil lead in the ground. So it's kinda hard to take them seriously. Obviously, actual science is secondary.

"Slacksack". Good name.

Let's see. Diamonds are very rare. Pencil lead is manufactured. We're very busy turning coal into atmospheric CO2 which is rearranging our weather.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's all be scared of the weather..

Heard on the news this morning, this is the 4th coldest EVER start to July in Middle Tennessee..

Almost 8 degrees below average... TIme to panic folks..

((Wait for my retraction when it starts hitting high 90s again -- it'll never happen. Just like we never hear the retractions for all those droughts and those hurricane seasons that never materialize))

Its all voodoo.. Medicine man stuff.. Booga Booga...

 

[PMZ]

Let's all be scared of the weather..

Heard on the news this morning, this is the 4th coldest EVER start to July in Middle Tennessee..

Almost 8 degrees below average... TIme to panic folks..

((Wait for my retraction when it starts hitting high 90s again -- it'll never happen. Just like we never hear the retractions for all those droughts and those hurricane seasons that never materialize))

Its all voodoo.. Medicine man stuff.. Booga Booga...

If you are going to cite every contrary weather report as evidence denying AGW, you're going to be a busy boy.

It's away more productive to invoke climatology to support meteorology than vice versa.

 

[SSDD]

"Miniscule" means way too small to effect. That is apparently not true of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

That isn't at all what minuscule means. I find myself having to provide definitions for you quite often for very common words. Do you always just make up definitions to suit your needs?

Can you say how much warming might be expected from an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm...and can you say how much of that increase is directly due to man...and how much temperature increase is directly due to man's contribution?

If you expect to be believed, these are very basic questions and should have ready answers...and if the answers prove wrong, then the hypothesis, of course is wrong.

You've been given all of that data and information many times. You know that. You hope that if you keep asking, someone will be fooled into thinking otherwise. I think that it's more likely that they will think that you're functionally illiterate.

Why tell such obvious lies? I guess it is true that one can only concoct a lie that one believes is good enough to fool himself. The quality of your lies is very telling.

 

[westwall]

The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.

Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.

"who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence."

A clear indication that numb nuts here is unable to distinguish between the role of scientists in science vs laypeople and political entertainers.

Ahhhh, but we're not the ones claiming that climatology is so "complex" that only a climatologist can understand it. You see sonny that's where the religious aspect of your little fraud enters in. Back in the bad old days it was the High Priest who knew the word of God.

Now it is your climatologists..supposedly.... of course a statistician demolished one of your peer reviewed papers in less than a day...but who pays attention to that.

 

[PMZ]

That isn't at all what minuscule means. I find myself having to provide definitions for you quite often for very common words. Do you always just make up definitions to suit your needs?

Can you say how much warming might be expected from an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm...and can you say how much of that increase is directly due to man...and how much temperature increase is directly due to man's contribution?

If you expect to be believed, these are very basic questions and should have ready answers...and if the answers prove wrong, then the hypothesis, of course is wrong.

You've been given all of that data and information many times. You know that. You hope that if you keep asking, someone will be fooled into thinking otherwise. I think that it's more likely that they will think that you're functionally illiterate.

Why tell such obvious lies? I guess it is true that one can only concoct a lie that one believes is good enough to fool himself. The quality of your lies is very telling.

Everybody but you, here, remembers the times that you've been given what you've asked for, except, apparently, you.

Functional illiteracy or dementia?

Doesn't matter. The real world has moved on.

Don't worry, we'll carry you across the finish line as, I assume, has always been done for you.

 

[PMZ]

The flat-Earfers are the warmerist fundamentalists. who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence.

Good example of projection and transference, though, Dudley.

"who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence."

A clear indication that numb nuts here is unable to distinguish between the role of scientists in science vs laypeople and political entertainers.

Ahhhh, but we're not the ones claiming that climatology is so "complex" that only a climatologist can understand it. You see sonny that's where the religious aspect of your little fraud enters in. Back in the bad old days it was the High Priest who knew the word of God.

Now it is your climatologists..supposedly.... of course a statistician demolished one of your peer reviewed papers in less than a day...but who pays attention to that.

If you don't know the difference between the Word of God, and the findings of science, you are in a class by yourself.

Who told you that climatology was so simple that you are capable of understanding it? Did they charge you for that advice? Did you pay them either in money or rapt attention that they can sell to advertisers?

 

[westwall]

"who claim that all the sages and elites within the church have all the knowledge, while the peasants are mere knaves, unable to comprehend the greatness and profundity of their eminence."

A clear indication that numb nuts here is unable to distinguish between the role of scientists in science vs laypeople and political entertainers.

Ahhhh, but we're not the ones claiming that climatology is so "complex" that only a climatologist can understand it. You see sonny that's where the religious aspect of your little fraud enters in. Back in the bad old days it was the High Priest who knew the word of God.

Now it is your climatologists..supposedly.... of course a statistician demolished one of your peer reviewed papers in less than a day...but who pays attention to that.

If you don't know the difference between the Word of God, and the findings of science, you are in a class by yourself.

Who told you that climatology was so simple that you are capable of understanding it? Did they charge you for that advice? Did you pay them either in money or rapt attention that they can sell to advertisers?

Ohhhh, but I DO know the difference. It is you clowns who don't. You have turned a science that was once called climatology into a cult based belief system. In other words it has been morphed into a religion.

Need help with that?

It requires you to believe that only the climatologists can understand the "science"- High Priests.

It requires you to suspend all thought and to blindly accept what those same climatologists tell you to believe-Scripture.

It demands that unbelievers be persecuted and or killed for their heresy- Inquisition.

It makes the claim that man is being punished for his perfidy-The WORD OF GOD.

Yep, climatology is a full blown religion now. I don't see any science in there at all.

 

[itfitzme]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

You need to figure out photosythesis before you move on to more complicated subjects. There is a reason you have to go to grammar school before highschool, and highschool before college. You shouldn't have dropped out of school.

 

[PMZ]

Ahhhh, but we're not the ones claiming that climatology is so "complex" that only a climatologist can understand it. You see sonny that's where the religious aspect of your little fraud enters in. Back in the bad old days it was the High Priest who knew the word of God.

Now it is your climatologists..supposedly.... of course a statistician demolished one of your peer reviewed papers in less than a day...but who pays attention to that.

If you don't know the difference between the Word of God, and the findings of science, you are in a class by yourself.

Who told you that climatology was so simple that you are capable of understanding it? Did they charge you for that advice? Did you pay them either in money or rapt attention that they can sell to advertisers?

Ohhhh, but I DO know the difference. It is you clowns who don't. You have turned a science that was once called climatology into a cult based belief system. In other words it has been morphed into a religion.

Need help with that?

It requires you to believe that only the climatologists can understand the "science"- High Priests.

It requires you to suspend all thought and to blindly accept what those same climatologists tell you to believe-Scripture.

It demands that unbelievers be persecuted and or killed for their heresy- Inquisition.

It makes the claim that man is being punished for his perfidy-The WORD OF GOD.

Yep, climatology is a full blown religion now. I don't see any science in there at all.

It is science. You don't see it because doing so would expose your ignorance of it. Perhaps if you ignore it with more rigor, you'll learn about it. That seems to be the strategy that your homies here are using.

Don't worry. We'll carry you.

 

[PMZ]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

You need to figure out photosythesis before you move on to more complicated subjects. There is a reason you have to go to grammar school before highschoo, and highschool before college. You shouldn't have dropped out of school.

I think that when you say "dropped" out you are being charitable. That implies voluntary.

 

[itfitzme]

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.

Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data

Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or;*anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well.*Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate.

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

All these people spent 12 years, in school, before college. *They spent 4-5 years on a bachelor's degree, two more for a master's, focused on their specialty, and onother two on their doctorate. *Then they worked, in their field, with and under other professionals. *All this was to learn the scientific that starts with Pythagorous, scientific knowledge going back more than 2000 years.

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right. CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

This is what you get. This is science. Like a heart surgeon can successfully stop a heart, open a chest, install a new valve, and have the patient walk away healthy, it is able to predict the future to a reasonable level of certainty. And that reasonable certainty guarantees that the climate will change.

Anyone can whine and complain about what doesn't make sense to them. *You didn't spend two decades learning two centuries of detailed, and precisely described, specialized, science. *You are not going to recreate 2000 years of science, reading Wikipedia. *You can't predict the changes. Some of you don't even know what photosynthesis is.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

At this point, some of you will be full of whiny complaints about each and every point. In your mind, it is all wrong. *It isn't. *You just don't get it. *You will never get it because you simply refuse to learn what has been figured out already. You will spend your life trying to reinnvent 2000 years of science, science that takes two decades to just grasp a specific specialty. *

We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

Others, smart enough to not try to reinvent science, will get it. You now have a complete understanding of AWG. *You are smart enough to just remember it, knowing that it is succinct enough. You can see the forest for the trees. *You can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive.

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme

 

[itfitzme]

Just so nobody expects the science deniers to go away soon.

The first proposals that the earth was spheroidal were made in the fourth century BC, about 2400 years ago. There are still people disagreeing with that.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that, mankind should have no problem completely mitigating the problem that we've caused well befor the last science denier dies off.

They all seem to agree with Slacksack, that plants get carbon from diamonds, coal, and pencil lead in the ground. So it's kinda hard to take them seriously. Obviously, actual science is secondary.

The fact you lie about what I said continually, despite the fact I have repeated it several times to both of your personas and on multiple threads, shows what a pathetic liar and troll you are..

You said it doesn't come from CO2. You said it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the carbon cycle. You said it comes from the ground, soil carbon. So, that would be, by your description diamonds, coal, pencil lead, carbon fibers, and fullerene.

I realize that you don't remember what you write. I do. I actually remember the bullshit that you post, even though you can't... That is if I bother to waste time reading it. Sometimes, it is worth a laugh.

And either your denialist buddies agree with you, or are happy to jus let you be an idiot. Either way, they demonstrate that actual science is secondary. They would rather let you be an idiot than correct the science.

Which is why I can use denialism as a negatively correlated predictor of anything scienfe related. Because deniers would just as well deny photosythesis as anything else.

 

[itfitzme]

Climate change's heat intensifies drought in the USA

"While drought has several causes, climate scientists say global warming is a long-term contributor that could be exacerbating current conditions, especially in the already-arid Southwest. They say it will likely do more damage in the future. Why? Higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate, and unless there's enough rain to offset it, the ground dries up.

More heat is on the way, too. U.S. temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 10 degrees by 2100, partly because of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of fossil fuels, according to a draft copy of the third National Climate Assessment, a federal report compiled by hundreds of government and academic scientists. As a result, the report expects summer droughts to intensify in most U.S. regions as well as enduring water shortages in the Southwest, Southeast and Hawaii."

USA TODAY

Saw an update on the "permanant drought" in the southwest this morning.

Up to 600% of the normal precipitation is predicted this week. Let me guess....in climate science bizarro world, permanant drought causes more rain.

No one ever claimed it never rains in the desert. It does. The bitch of it is that plants, except for cactus, can't survive intermittent rain.

 

[itfitzme]

It's rained everyday this month and the last week of june here in my neck of the woods. It's pretty much state wide, and I remember a lot of rain up in canada recently as well.. Yet at the same time there was a drought in the southwest .. And that's proof of AGW??? LOL, like a friend of mine says,if it's hot it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, rain, warming, drought, warming...LOL

Yeah, cuz when the weather service wants to know if it will rain in different parts of the US, they just call Slacksack. That's science.

 

[itfitzme]

Can you offer any proof that the climate change you reference is due to the activites of man? That's the $64 dollar question and the answer is that you can not.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

The fact that you rely on skeptical science for your info sums up what sort of person you are. They talk up our contribution of atmospheric CO2 in pretty scary terms that are designed to scare the uneducated. Clearly you are scared. Science, real science that is isn't meant to be used to scare school children and uneducated luddites. Real science is meant to bring people closer to understanding the world around them.

Here is how a real scientist (as opposed to a fear monger) presents that same information without the completely fabricated fear factor. So now show me the hard proof that our 14 parts per million contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is responsible for any climate change at all...and then tell me how much change, you believe is due to that 14 parts per million.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

So, basically, you have no clue how to explain your position, can't read, and need to post someone elses video.

 

[SSDD]

Everybody but you, here, remembers the times that you've been given what you've asked for, except, apparently, you.

Actually, it must only be you who remembers in that plate full of spaghetti you call a brain. Of course, if you have posted such material, you can repost it here and kill two birds with one stone. You can prove me wrong and prove that you are not a liar.

Since you won't be reposting any such material since you never posted it in the first place, everyone gets to see you, once again, get caught in a lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey either one of the mental midget trolls..

We got 50 pages here.. You've been faithfully regurgitating how SOLID AND DEFINED AGW theory is..............

Will one of you tell me what the Mean Global Surface temperature is gonna be in 2100????

What will the anomaly be in 2020?

Please show your work.....

Assume no govt interventions, allowing the market to determine energy choices. Remembering that OUR CO2 emissions are less TODAY then they were in 1998 WITHOUT any superhero PMZ types saving us from ourselves and WITHOUT $Trills in tax dollars we don't have.

PMZ gonna have to PM the answer to me.. I aint EVER taking that insane clown off ignore..