The Only Thing Melting Is The Climate Cult Narrative

[ding]

Have you found any actively researching climate scientists who agree with Ding? Has he?

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

They are so stupid and you are so smart.

Or not.

The empirical evidence of the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm is the proof that water vapor is a net negative feedback.

 

[Crick]

The empirical evidence of the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm is the proof that water vapor is a net negative feedback.

No it's not. For starters, as you've been told many times (and probably once by your junior high school science teacher) there are no proofs in the natural sciences.

 

[ding]

No it's not. For starters, as you've been told many times (and probably once by your junior high school science teacher) there are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The empirical climate evidence says otherwise.

 

[Crick]

The empirical climate evidence says otherwise.

The empirical evidence says there are proofs in the natural sciences? Have you been drinking?

 

[ding]

The empirical evidence says there are proofs in the natural sciences? Have you been drinking?

Stay focused. The planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels than today tells us that water vapor is a net negative feedback, not a net positive feedback. And that tells us that their computer models are flawed. Because according to their computer modeled "climate sensitivity" to elevated CO2 levels shouldn't have allowed the planet to cool.

 

[mamooth]

Stay focused. The planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels than today tells us that water vapor is a net negative feedback, not a net positive feedback.

That makes no sense at all, but you're repeating it over and over as if it does.

Lay it out your "logic" for us, one step at a time.

 

[ding]

That makes no sense at all, but you're repeating it over and over as if it does.

Lay it out your "logic" for us, one step at a time.

What part of the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels than today tells us that water vapor is a net negative feedback, not a net positive feedback, did you not understand? Which part did you believe was inaccurate? Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years was inaccurate? Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels was inaccurate? What part of these factual statements concerning empirical climate data is inaccurate or doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Crick]

What part of the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels than today tells us that water vapor is a net negative feedback, not a net positive feedback, did you not understand? Which part did you believe was inaccurate? Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years was inaccurate? Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels was inaccurate? What part of these factual statements concerning empirical climate data is inaccurate or doesn't make sense to you?

Ask yourself this: what determines how much water vapor the Earth's atmosphere contains?

 

[mamooth]

What part of the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels than today tells us that water vapor is a net negative feedback, not a net positive feedback, did you not understand?

The part that makes no sense at all, which is the conclusion.

Which part did you believe was inaccurate?

The conclusion, which in no way follows from the premises.

Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years was inaccurate? Did you believe the planet cooling for millions of years with significantly higher CO2 levels was inaccurate?

None of that leads to your loony conclusion that water vapor is a negative feedback.

I asked you to lay out the chain of logic that led you to your bizarre conclusion. You won't. That leads everyone to conclude you can't.

I'll give you another chance. Lay out, step by step, the chain of logic that leads to your conclusion. If you can't do that because you just made it all up, admit that.

 

[ding]

Ask yourself this: what determines how much water vapor the Earth's atmosphere contains?

Not CO2.

 

[ding]

The part that makes no sense at all, which is the conclusion.


The conclusion, which in no way follows from the premises.


None of that leads to your loony conclusion that water vapor is a negative feedback.

I asked you to lay out the chain of logic that led you to your bizarre conclusion. You won't. That leads everyone to conclude you can't.

I'll give you another chance. Lay out, step by step, the chain of logic that leads to your conclusion. If you can't do that because you just made it all up, admit that.

The planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 than today. That's a fact. It's indisputable.

The climate models predict a 2 to 3 times higher temperature from feedback (i.e. water vapor) from CO2. So if CO2 were to increase by 50% their models would predict an even greater feedback (i.e. water vapor) from CO2. That's a fact. It's indisputable. The paleoclimate data does not support this as the planet cooled with CO2 levels of greater than 600 ppm.

All you can do is parse what I write in an attempt to obfuscate the truth. You can't actually explain anything. Least of all how the planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 than today.

 

[mamooth]

The planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 than today. That's a fact. It's indisputable.

Okay.

The climate models predict a 2 to 3 times higher temperature from feedback (i.e. water vapor) from CO2.

Okay.

So if CO2 were to increase by 50% their models would predict an even greater feedback (i.e. water vapor) from CO2. That's a fact. It's indisputable. The paleoclimate data does not support this as the planet cooled with CO2 levels of greater than 600 ppm.

Bzzzzzt. There's the problem.

You assume that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate.

Nobody else makes that assumption, because it's totally wrong.

And so your theory faceplants.

Why do you assume that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, being that it's such a stupid belief?

 

[ding]

Okay.


Okay.


Bzzzzzt. There's the problem.

You assume that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate.

Nobody else makes that assumption, because it's totally wrong.

And so your theory faceplants.

Why do you assume that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, being that it's such a stupid belief?

No, you believe CO2 is the only thing affecting the planet's climate. I believe the unique configuration of both polar regions being thermally isolated from warmer marine currents is what drives the climate of the planet and has led to the planet cooling and increased environmental uncertainty/fluctuations because that's what the empirical evidence shows.

 

[Smokin' OP]

No, you believe CO2 is the only thing affecting the planet's climate.

WTF?
Post 112................That's what you're repeating CO2.

I believe the unique configuration of both polar regions being thermally isolated from warmer marine currents

They are NOT "thermally" protected.

is what drives the climate of the planet and has led to the planet cooling and increased environmental uncertainty/fluctuations because that's what the empirical evidence shows.

NO, it doesn't.
Getting your "evidence" from RFK Jr.'s podcast?

 

[ding]

WTF?
Post 112................That's what you're repeating CO2.

They are NOT "thermally" protected.

NO, it doesn't.
Getting your "evidence" from RFK Jr.'s podcast?

The polar regions are thermally isolated from warmer marine currents. The south pole has a continent parked on it and the north pole has an ocean parked on it which is mostly surrounded by land which is why it has a higher threshold for glaciation than the southern pole. The effect of ice at a polar region plays a major role in planetary climate and can be easily observed in the empirical data.

 

[Crick]

The polar regions are thermally isolated from warmer marine currents.

They are physically isolated.

The south pole has a continent parked on it and the north pole has an ocean parked on it which is mostly surrounded by land which is why it has a higher threshold for glaciation than the southern pole.

"Higher threshold for glaciation"??? How about you name all the glaciers on Earth that formed on top of water? Maybe this will help

GLACIER: A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity.

What is a glacier? | U.S. Geological Survey

A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity. Typically, glaciers exist and may even form in areas where: mean annual temperatures are...

www.usgs.gov

The effect of ice at a polar region plays a major role in planetary climate and can be easily observed in the empirical data.

You have made this claim over and over and over again but I have yet to see you EVER explain it. WHY and HOW does polar ice play a major role in planetary climate? WHY and HOW does it lead to climatic fluctuations and instability as you have elsewhere claimed?

 

[mamooth]

No, you believe CO2 is the only thing affecting the planet's climate.

Understood. Your can't argue against what we actually say, so you pretend we believe the exact opposite of what we say we believe.

Yep, climate has changed while CO2 is constant, proving that CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate. However, since nobody here has ever said or implied that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, you've done a fine job of refuting a strawman that nobody believes.

We point out that many things affect climate. At the present time, the thing changing climate is the changing CO2 levels. At other times, different things have changed climate, but right now, it's the CO2.

 

[ding]

They are physically isolated.

"Higher threshold for glaciation"??? How about you name all the glaciers on Earth that formed on top of water? Maybe this will help

GLACIER: A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity.

What is a glacier? | U.S. Geological Survey

A glacier is a large, perennial accumulation of crystalline ice, snow, rock, sediment, and often liquid water that originates on land and moves down slope under the influence of its own weight and gravity. Typically, glaciers exist and may even form in areas where: mean annual temperatures are...

www.usgs.gov

You have made this claim over and over and over again but I have yet to see you EVER explain it. WHY and HOW does polar ice play a major role in planetary climate? WHY and HOW does it lead to climatic fluctuations and instability as you have elsewhere claimed?

All you have to do is study the oxygen isotope curve. It's not that difficult.

 

[ding]

Understood. Your can't argue against what we actually say, so you pretend we believe the exact opposite of what we say we believe.

Yep, climate has changed while CO2 is constant, proving that CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate. However, since nobody here has ever said or implied that CO2 is the only thing affecting climate, you've done a fine job of refuting a strawman that nobody believes.

We point out that many things affect climate. At the present time, the thing changing climate is the changing CO2 levels. At other times, different things have changed climate, but right now, it's the CO2.

I have argued against your position using paleoclimate data. It's ridiculous to believe that today's CO2 is somehow more magical than CO2 in the past.