The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[Stryder50]

Lol @ "extra cold".

No one with any actual understanding of climate would say anything like that.

Nor would they say anything like "extra heat".

Like another troll here you are in this category;

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where's the extra heat? Provide factual evidence it exists.

You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.

 

[Crepitus]

Nor would they say anything like "extra heat".

Like another troll here you are in this category;

Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.

Extra cold isn't. It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated. And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.

 

[westwall]

Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.

Extra cold isn't. It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated. And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.

Then provide evidence it exists.

Not opinion, but evidence.

 

[ReinyDays]

Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.

Extra cold isn't. It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated. And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.

The Law of Conservation of Pixie Dust ... all the extra heat must be balanced against extra cold ... I'm sorry but that's how magic works ... sacrifice a token, gain +1/+1 until end-of-turn ...

 

[ding]

You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.

Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

View attachment 571849

Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.

 

[ding]

Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.

Just curious why the planet isn't warmer than previous interglacial cycles when our CO2 is so much higher than previous interglacial cycles.

You aren't curious about that?

 

[ding]

Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.

You are the guy that was arguing if there is more of a greenhouse gas it will be warmer, right?

 

[Stryder50]

Just curious why the planet isn't warmer than previous interglacial cycles when our CO2 is so much higher than previous interglacial cycles.

You aren't curious about that?

He doesn't understand it enough to be curious.

 

[Stryder50]

Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics
knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.

Extra cold isn't. It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated. And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.

And "Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics" would know that one part retaining a couple degrees of heat can't transfer that equally to 2,499 other parts.

I'm not denying "climate change" ~ Natural; only the unproven hypothesis of human activity (anthropogenic) being a major driver of such in form of "global warming", based on slight increase of CO2.

FWIW, most of the Cosmos is very cold, heat is rather rare.

 

[Stryder50]

Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.

You're the one with the goofy true believer fetish.
FYI, not all "climate scientists" endorse ACC/AGW, especially if they paychecks don't require them to.

 

[Colin norris]

And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.

...

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.

...​

The Profound Junk Science of Climate

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond...

www.americanthinker.com

One day it will eventually dawn on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.

 

[Crepitus]

one part retaining a couple degrees of heat can't transfer that equally to 2,499 other parts.

When has anyone claimed that?

 

[ding]

One day it will eventually dawn on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.

When you can tell me why we shouldn't expect increasing temperatures when our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles, let me know.

When you can show me an experiment that quantified the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, let me know.

When you can ex[plain to me why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2 than today, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, let me know.

When you can tell me why the southern hemisphere has a higher temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does, let me know.

When you can tell me why the warmest global temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine, let me know.

When you can tell me why the coldest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty after it transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world, let me know.

Because until YOU can answer these questions you don't know jack shit about the earth's climate. And you will never understand why I question the psuedo-science that is masquerading as science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

FYI, not all "climate scientists" endorse ACC/AGW

All working climate scientists? Yes they do. They spend their days trying to devise ways to prove it wrong. That's what every test is. Every model. They are in agreement because of where the evidence goes. They are not burdened by your baseless fetishes.

And your "curioisty" is not a substitute for actual education and experience. No, you uneducated slobs have not outsmarted the global scientific community with your Google searches. Sorry. If it were any other scientific topic you did not have a political and ideological hard on for, you would easily see how embarrassing your behavior is. But your fetishes have handicapped your brains.

 

[ding]

I canprovide some email contacts for you.

Her email: [email protected]

Should I tell her that you sent me?

 

[Stryder50]

When has anyone claimed that?

That is the basis of Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change = ACC and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming = AGW. Basically that the shift in atmospheric average CO2 levels from about 280ppm (parts per million) around 1880 up to about 420ppm current timeline is the primary cause of global warming form of climate change and this increase is due entirely to human activity - industry, transport, etc. using hydro-carbon("fossil") fuel/resources consumption.

Rounding off the numbers for easy computation, go with 400ppm of CO2 and that can be expressed in basic (K-12) math as 400/1,000,000 which if you recall lessons in fractions from about 5-8th grade can be reduced down to 1/2,500. Or, CO2 is one part of the atmosphere for every 2,499 other parts which are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. BTW, this is dry atmosphere, discounting the water (H2O) vapor content.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So . . . the false hypothesis of ACC/AGW is that the 50% increase in CO2 from the 1880 level of about 280ppm up to about 420ppm over the past century and a half of human industrialization and "fossil" fuel use is the primary(major~only) case for the apparent increase in average annual global temperatures.

Therefore there is an emergency or critical condition that requires rapid reduction in human caused CO2 emissions, combined with urgent efforts to reduce the level of CO2 so that the Earth looses it's "fever"(~Al Gore) and doesn't "burn up", etc. ad nausium nonsense.

If your grasp on basic science and math doesn't understand this, most local schools, community colleges also, offer remedial courses for those whom didn't learn this back in their K-12 days.

 

[Stryder50]

Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

View attachment 571849

This one also helps give perspective;

 

[Stryder50]

You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.

Don't need your propagandist contacts.

This one is more valid and accurate;
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology,
Western Washington University

Home | Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWU

myweb.wwu.edu