The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[mamooth]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?

 

[mamooth]

Then please educate me on how glacial cycles work.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
predictable of crazy Cali...

California regulates cow farts

The longest journey begins with the first step! It seems fools take take their first step in reverse, and desire acid rains and a river on fire instead of a wide effort of innovation

 

[Wuwei]

So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?

Observation is only the first step in science. The next step correlates observations into a model that can always predict what is happening, or what will happen at the realm where the model is valid.

You seem to be ignoring the second step.

 

[SSDD]

So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?

Observation is only the first step in science. The next step correlates observations into a model that can always predict what is happening, or what will happen at the realm where the model is valid.

You seem to be ignoring the second step.

What happens if you decide to take a walk and start out on the second step?....answer...you plant your face in the dirt....you are ignoring the first and by far the most important step....we can NOT...in fact see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions...we DO, in fact, make up plausible (?) stories about what is actually happening that jibe with what we can see out here at the macroscopic level...nothing more...nothing less. If you believe you know what is happening at the level of single atom interaction...or smaller, then you believe in fairy tales.

 

[SSDD]

what a load of shit. Your post reeks of "i haven't a clue so I'll just fake news best I can." Sorry, I know several scientists. A few who work in climate change.

So do I...what's your point?....You think climate scientists wear capes and tights? they don't...

They laugh at this shit you deniers spout on about (they sometimes cry too, out of shear frustration). If you think scientists "put on their pants one leg at a time, and worry about what others think of their findings" you're a fucking moron. I won't even go into the amount of conspiracy theories that would need to be true and of how they would all have to meet every single day and discuss how they are ALL on the same page every day of the week just to 'put one over' on your fucking morons.

Tell you what Dr. Grump...since you "know" some climate scientists, perhaps you might ask of them the same thing I have been asking for decades now and have yet to get a rational answer....Ask your climate scientist friends to please give you a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate that you can take back to this discussion board to make a skeptic your bitch...Here is what is going to happen when you ask, if you have the balls, and if you actually know some climate scientists....you are going to first get a stupid look while they riffle their brains to see if they can think of any such evidence in existence...then you will get some complicated "explanations"...and double talk...and lectures....what you won't get is a single shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical data that supports the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...and then you will either be an adult and come back here and admit that they had nothing...or you will disappear...or you will come back doing the same shuck and jive making claims of consensus as the rest of the warmer wackaloons on this thread.

Good luck...although I already know the outcome...

Here you go.

Now shut the fuck up...

And you think that proves exactly what?....that climate science is right even though they don't have the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate?....If you do, then you are even more clueless than I first suspected...

Let me ask, do you think there is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that video supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis?...Give me a time stamp...I will be happy to look and point out to you that it isn't...because no such evidence exists...I do enjoy seeing what passes for actual evidence to you people though...endlessly entertaining and it explains much about why you have been so easily duped.

 

[Wuwei]

So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?

Observation is only the first step in science. The next step correlates observations into a model that can always predict what is happening, or what will happen at the realm where the model is valid.

You seem to be ignoring the second step.

What happens if you decide to take a walk and start out on the second step?....answer...you plant your face in the dirt....you are ignoring the first and by far the most important step....we can NOT...in fact see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions...we DO, in fact, make up plausible (?) stories about what is actually happening that jibe with what we can see out here at the macroscopic level...nothing more...nothing less. If you believe you know what is happening at the level of single atom interaction...or smaller, then you believe in fairy tales.

Yes, I agree that the first step is of fundamental importance. But if science was limited only to the first step, we would still be wondering why atoms radiate only certain spectra, where the sun gets it's energy etc. It is the "plausible stories", (which are called mathematical models) which allow us to understand how to build microchips, lasers, etc. This ability to have atomic models that correctly work gives confidence in the models whether we can directly see the atoms or not.

 

[SSDD]

None of the those - not one - is a mainstream theory. Try again. harder next time. There is over a 95 per cent agreement by CLIMATE scientists (that's right, climate, not biologists, or chemists or any other type) that climate change is happening due to human influence. Period.

Actually, all of those in the first list were all mainstream theories...believed earnestly by science and in some cases, believed for hundreds of years...

The second list of more modern examples are certainly mainstream, government sponsored science that in many cases have been actively preached to us for decades...Hell, they were telling me salt was bad in the 60's...and it has only been within the past year or so that my personal doctor got off the cholesterol train and stopped trying to put me on statin drugs and admitted that he has been wrong for a very long time...

And climate "science" is a very soft science and consensus among practitioners of a very soft science is not very impressive....much like consensus among psychologists...

Still waiting for that one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the A in AGW...and I will continue to wait because it does not exist. Waiting for that evidence is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin.

 

[SSDD]

You have yet to provide any evidence that your OPINION is science. Not one shred of evidence. As I said many climate scientists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is happening.

I am not making any claims that require evidence...you are if you are claiming that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...and I can't help but notice that you still haven't....nor will you ever.....provide the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim.

Just so you know, the term pseudoscience is relegated to those on the fringe of scientific theory. When 95% of one aspect of science believe in something and the other 5% don't, it is that 5% who are the pseudo scientists. And just so you know (because you are obviously not that bright to know this) you are that 5%.

Like eugenics?....that was certainly mainstream science...hell there was even a government sponsored "American Eugenics Society" and eugenics was mainstream till just after WWII. We know perfectly well it was pseudoscience now...but didn't when we were caught up in it...just like climate pseudoscience today.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I agree that the first step is of fundamental importance. But if science was limited only to the first step, we would still be wondering why atoms radiate only certain spectra,

For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.

 

[ding]

Then please educate me on how glacial cycles work.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

Lol. Yes I already knew this. Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?

 

[ding]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?

Of course the current profile matches the temperature profile of the interglacial cycles. Are you smoking crack? The data comes from NASA. The graphs represent global temperature vs time.

I'll annotate the graphs to illustrate the stupidity of your argument.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[Wuwei]

For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.

If the hard sciences have a "Why" question scientists will be satisfied by an impeccable mathematical model. The current story of electromagnetic and atomic theory is accurate to at least one part per billion, the limit of observation. If a new theory supplants the current theory, it will still be in the form of a mathematical model, and your "Why" question would be no different than it is today.

 

[Wuwei]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

You have juxtaposed these two graphs more than once. I'm not clear on why you think that it shows that the current fast decadal rise in temperature is related to the slower rises in the past. The resolution of historic temperature proxies do not have the temporal resolution that come anywhere near the current temporal resolution of today's measurements.

Yes, putting one graph above the other at first glance looks impressive, but the time scale differences belie that.

 

[ding]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

You have juxtaposed these two graphs more than once. I'm not clear on why you think that it shows that the current fast decadal rise in temperature is related to the slower rises in the past. The resolution of historic temperature proxies do not have the temporal resolution that come anywhere near the current temporal resolution of today's measurements.

Yes, putting one graph above the other at first glance looks impressive, but the time scale differences belie that.

Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.

 

[ding]

And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?

I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?

The last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.

 

[Wuwei]

Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.

Well, yes and no. The upper graph of 100 years per x-axis tic-mark is compared to the lower graph with 100,000 years per tic. If you adjust for the approx factor of 2 in tic mark spacing, you will find that the upper graph would be much less than a pixel size if it were scaled the same as the lower graph. That, of course is why there is such a slow undulating area before the last 100 years - the glacial cycle effect is very slow in a 1000 year time frame. In light of that, the last 100 years is a dramatic rise that should not be conflated with the much slower glacial rise. The glacial cycle in the upper graph is just a slowly moving baseline to the current rise.

In short, I would disagree that a graph compressed to one pixel would be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And I would further add that the graphs do not illustrate that the comparatively rapid rise in the last 100 years has anything to do with the glacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.

Well, yes and no. The upper graph of 100 years per x-axis small tic-mark is compared to the lower graph with 100,000 years per tic. If you adjust for the approx factor of 2 in tic mark spacing, you will find that the upper graph would be much less than a pixel size if it were scaled the same as the lower graph. That, of course is why there is such a slow undulating area before the last 100 years - the glacial cycle effect is very slow in a 1000 year time frame. In light of that, the last 100 years is a dramatic rise that should not be conflated with the much slower glacial rise. The glacial cycle in the upper graph is just a slowly moving baseline to the current rise.

In short, I would disagree that a graph compressed to one pixel would be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And I would further add that the graphs do not illustrate that the comparatively rapid rise in the last 100 years has anything to do with the glacial cycle.

Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?

 

[Wuwei]

Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?

I'm arguing more than that. I said that a graph compressed to one pixel could not be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And in that light the rapid rise of the last 100 years is not a part of the glacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?

I'm arguing more than that. I said that a graph compressed to one pixel could not be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And in that light the rapid rise of the last 100 years is not a part of the glacial cycle.

No. Let's establish that first. Then we can move on to your next point, ok? Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?