There Is A Real Problem...

[alang1216]

You said "if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing"? If all three are NOT the same climate must be changing. Small changes in global climate can have small changes in sea level and we already experience coastal flooding in many cases. Any rise in sea level will compound an already dangerous situation.

Here's the latest research on sea level rise ... Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era ... this study gives the upper bound of mean sea level rise at 26 inches between now and year 2100 ... any claim of sea level rise more than this is NOT based of data, and should be considered pure fantasy ... come this January, at either full or new Moon, head over to the coast with a 26 inch stick ... at high tide, put one end of this stick on the sand where the highest wave reaches and the other end straight up ... now level across and see where this highest wave and the highest tide will reach 100 years from now ... right, nowhere close to the existing sand berm ... do you honestly think your great-great-grandchildren will care ... or do you think they'll be more worried about these 80-year-old dumps they live in? ...

Bonus question: Why January? ...

Except that is not how things work. The coastline of the Eastern US is determined by sea level. A rising sea will make the barrier islands retreat inland. How much retreat? a 26 inch rise could mean thousands of square miles of the USA that will disappear. Multiply that by every coast on the globe...

 

[ReinyDays]

So you can extrapolate global climate from a single point on the earth? Impressive.

Who doesn't like Santa Claus? It wasn't Santa but it was NOAA.

Will Iceland's climate change from polar to sub-arctic? No idea but I can see it changing dramatically if the glaciers disappear and more solar radiation is absorbed in the summertime. Summer days are very long up there.

I'm referring to all the points on Earth's surface ... the climate isn't changing ... therefore the global climate isn't changing ... I live in the United Sates and I'm allowed to disagree with NOAA ... I'm even allowed to say I disagree with NOAA ... I can even call the NSA operative reading this post a yellow-bellied coward ... and frequenty do ...

How can you say you have no idea if the climate there is changing and then say it's changing dramatically ... the difference between polar and sub-arctic is profound once you see climate as something more than temperature ... in this case, the winds come from opposite directions ... whether permanent ice or not ...

Except that is not how things work. The coastline of the Eastern US is determined by sea level. A rising sea will make the barrier islands retreat inland. How much retreat? a 26 inch rise could mean thousands of square miles of the USA that will disappear. Multiply that by every coast on the globe...

Please show us ... do you have any evidence of this ... or is this a fanciful tale to scare people ... a lot of people ... I'm shocked at the level of urbanization along the East Coast ... are all those communities and villages not worth adding three feet to their sea walls? ... or what's the problem with the existing ten foot sea walls only being eight foot in 100 years? ...

The West Coast is where the mountains meet the sea ... after 30 millions years, the mountains aren't moving ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Alang1216 writes from post 6

• Climate changes. It always has and always will. In the past, NYC was under 100s of feet of ice. That has changed.
• Glaciers around the world are generally retreating, pointing to a global temperature rise.
• The rising temperatures may be natural or man-made but it doesn't matter, the effects will be the same.
  
• Anything we do to mitigate rising temperatures will have the same success, regardless of the cause.
• If we make reasonable efforts to make the world energy use more efficient and rising temperatures are real, we may mitigate its' worst effects, if rising temperatures are not real, we have made the world a richer place.

=================================

My line by line reply:

1) Everyone knows Climate changes, so why do warmists keep saying skeptics are climate change deniers, they do it because it is about politics, trying to force a stupid socialism program onto the people in the pretended effort to combat a non existent problem. You saw what Political Chick posted about what various people say, Eden Offenhoffer was very specific about what they really want to do.

Quote from post 3:

“Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC's fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."

Quote from Post 5:

"Christine Stewart, Canada's former Minister of the Environment said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. ... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

You going to continue to ignore them Alang?

2) Generally they are in retreat, but doesn't matter since CO2 isn't causing it. However warmists routinely ignore hard evidence that glaciers over all are growing since the beginning of the Negative insolation around 3,000 B.C.

Mt. Logan (#2 tallest Mt. in North America) most of the glaciers there is only 300 years old and growing, there are some fragments of 8,000 year old ice there that survived the interglacial period.

A Glacier in Northern Greenland didn't exist 6,000 years ago, the Hans Tausen Ice cap in Peary land.

Mt. Churchill in east Alaska, was free of ice before 500 A.D, it is now about 1,500 foot thick by 40 miles long.

Fremont Glacier in Wyoming is not even 300 year old, it is at 43 degrees north, a disturbing sign that the interglacial phase is decaying into a new Glaciation phase.

3) The warming phase is short and dominantly natural, that is what EMPIRICAL data tells us. It is good for the life of the planet too with the of increase CO2 in the atmosphere, life is responding by increasing productivity with more land becoming green.

4) Why do you want to fight natural warming? which will end soon when the forces of Nature changes to a cooling phase. This is what bothers me is the idea that a warmer Earth is bad for us when it is actually GOOD for us, heck we lived through the predicted year 2100 modeling temperature guesses easily just 8,000 years ago when the world in general was around 2-3C warmer than now. It was even warmer in the previous interglacial period Eemian when it was a LOT warmer than now. Polar Bears and Humans survived it well.

5) America is already the world most efficient user of energy, the rest of the world is laboring under daft climate action laws and resolutions have difficulty keeping up. Rising temperatures is temporary since the underlying trend since the Minoan times is COOLING.

If the western world would stop trying to prevent Africa and Asia from using proven stable energy sources, they will become richer and healthier, buy quiche eating ecoloony scumbags are trying hard to deny it. You one of them?

You should stop being easily lied too and learn to think logically and factually.

Propaganda should be avoided, why don't you try?

Why do you want to fight natural warming? Because extinction is natural too. Our world is based on the existing geography. If sea levels rise there is less land available and the best land will disappear first. Where will Floridians go? Bangladeshis? Will they go quietly and not disturb us here in the US?

That is the your best reply you can make here?

It is clear you have no answer to my point by point reply. You make this horrid deflection in the desperate bid that i will fall for it, too bad your few lines are too stupid and evasive to make it worthy of a reply.

Epic fail!

 

[Sunsettommy]

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming?

Maybe because there is evidence?

It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not a climate scientist are you? NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Models are NOT the only evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
​

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Your NASA link doesn't even address my statement at all, here is what I stated, that you never answered:

"It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid."

Your "consensus" farce have been running for decades now on the AGW conjecture babble (Which are a series of ever changing NON falsifiable models) that runs to year 2100. You are too ignorant and stupid to realize that you made an idiotic deflection attempt in favor of the worn out useless consensus fallacy, which doesn't address what I said at all!



The rest of your empty crap was smashed by SSDD, It doesn't matter how much CO2 increases, it can't warm up the atmosphere BECAUSE the outflow of energy leaving the planet greatly exceeds the postulated warm forcing power of CO2. The overrated trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range simply doesn't keep up with the increased RATE of energy loss from the planet as SSDD clearly shows.

You have fallen for the lies and propaganda over a feeble IR absorber, surely you can't continue to be this ignorant after this expose he made using satellite data?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You people who believe in AGW are always going on about the "evidence", but don't seem to be able to actually produce any of it. Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe because you choose to ignore it?

Everyone can hear Hirono say exactly what I said she did.

Yes, which is why they know you're lying outright to everyone's face. You're a fraud who openly faked a quote.

Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.

Your own source says you're lying.

Democratic senator treats climate change like a religion - The Locker Room
---
as though it’s a religion, it’s not, it’s science.”
---

When you're as deep in the liar-hole as you are, you should stop digging. But you won't. You'll just keep telling everyone to believe you over our lying ears.

Are you really this sick???


Everyone can hear Hirono say exactly what I said she did.





But you said the headline was a 'dumb lie.'

Now you're admitting she said it....but want to 'adjust' it to make it more palatible to morons like you....



Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.



At 0:37


Even with Hirono saying it herself???

"....a religion, it's not a science."

I got the CC running on it,which also show what you quoted, mamooth is a typical moonbattery liar, you done enough here to show that this mental basket case isn't worth talking to, she will always B.S. and lie to you. This is one of the very worst warmists on the forum, a true deluded pathological liar.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making it up as you go? What was the name of the glacier? And what might those glaciers have looked like prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age? I don't guess you realize that with the exception of the period of the Little Ice Age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....and the earth still hasn't warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

Do you ever actually look anything up, or do you just regurgitate the pap you are fed by alarmists....or make it up as you go?

Sólheimajökull Glacier. Want to see the family photos? Look here for more info.

Not sure where you got your temp data but here's what I found:

Awwww did you cry over the glacier?

The article doesn't say much about that "dead" glacier, when it started (probably during the LIA time), negligible information to be found on the internet. The article says this and nothing else:

"The former Okjökull glacier, which a century ago covered 15 sq km (5.8 sq miles) of mountainside in western Iceland and measured 50 metres thick, has shrunk to barely 1 sq km of ice less than 15 metres deep and lost its status as a glacier.:

Your chart is a bald faced lie! based on these long discredited papers:

Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., Ni, F. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(36), 13252-13257.

Marcott, S.A., Shakun, J.D., Clark, P.U., Mix, A.C. (2013). A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. 339(6124), 1198-1201.

Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Rosenbloom, N., Stone, E. J., McKay, N.P., Lunt, D.J., Brady, E.C., Overpeck, J.T. (2013). How warm was the last Interglacial? New model-data comparisons. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A, 371(2001), 20130097.

Perkins, S. (2013, March 7). Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak. Nature News. Accessed February 4, 2014.

Gawad! you are so ignorant that you don't even realize they made bogus claims that have since been smashed by others, it is clear you are do far behind on this stuff.

 

[alang1216]

I live in the United Sates and I'm allowed to disagree with NOAA ... I'm even allowed to say I disagree with NOAA ...

You certainly can. You can choose to disbelieve in any any of the sciences, after all, what do those scientists know?

How can you say you have no idea if the climate there is changing and then say it's changing dramatically ...

You asked about specific climates for a specific location. I believe Iceland's climate will change if the glaciers and permanent snow fields disappear but what they will become I don't know.

Please show us ... do you have any evidence of this ... or is this a fanciful tale to scare people ... a lot of people ... I'm shocked at the level of urbanization along the East Coast ...

I studied coastal dynamics in college and it is a field with lots of information you may find interesting. Start here.

are all those communities and villages not worth adding three feet to their sea walls?

Why would they need to add 3 feet to their walls if climate isn't changing? Or are you saying they should add three feet AFTER they are destroyed by flooding?

 

[alang1216]

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming?

Maybe because there is evidence?

It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not a climate scientist are you? NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Models are NOT the only evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
​

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Your NASA link doesn't even address my statement at all, here is what I stated, that you never answered:

"It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid."

Your "consensus" farce have been running for decades now on the AGW conjecture babble (Which are a series of ever changing NON falsifiable models) that runs to year 2100. You are too ignorant and stupid to realize that you made an idiotic deflection attempt in favor of the worn out useless consensus fallacy, which doesn't address what I said at all!



The rest of your empty crap was smashed by SSDD, It doesn't matter how much CO2 increases, it can't warm up the atmosphere BECAUSE the outflow of energy leaving the planet greatly exceeds the postulated warm forcing power of CO2. The overrated trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range simply doesn't keep up with the increased RATE of energy loss from the planet as SSDD clearly shows.

You have fallen for the lies and propaganda over a feeble IR absorber, surely you can't continue to be this ignorant after this expose he made using satellite data?

Ironic that you claim 'It is all "theoretical", models all the way down' and then list other "theoretical" models to show it is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making it up as you go? What was the name of the glacier? And what might those glaciers have looked like prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age? I don't guess you realize that with the exception of the period of the Little Ice Age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....and the earth still hasn't warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

Do you ever actually look anything up, or do you just regurgitate the pap you are fed by alarmists....or make it up as you go?

Sólheimajökull Glacier. Want to see the family photos? Look here for more info.

Not sure where you got your temp data but here's what I found:

Well, what you found was propaganda aimed at influencing children. Actual scientists don't present data like that....nor do they use "mike's nature trick" to hide the decline...they don't tack on an instrumental record to the end of a 10,000 year proxy record, which is what that chart represents.

According to climate science, and the earth sciences in general, the gold standard for temperature reconstructions are ice cores. They provide the highest resolution possible if one wants to see what the temperature of the "recent" past looks like. Among the various ice core reconstructions, two are considered the top shelf of the gold standard temperature reconstructions. They are the reconstructions derived from the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica, and the GISP2 ice cores taken above the Arctic Circle in Greenland. Here are temperature reconstructions derived from those ice cores which cover the past 10,000 years.

The following is the GISP2 from Greenland....As you can see, it clearly shows that the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...further it shows periods of rapid temperature change; both warming and cooling in which the temperature changed much more, and in a much shorter period of time that any change we have seen.

This is the Vostock ice core reconstruction from Antartica, again, looking at the past 10,000 years. As you can see, once again, the reconstruction shows that the present temperate is considerably cooler than the past 10,000 years. This reconstruction also shows periods in which the temperature changed more, and more rapidly in a shorter period of time than any change we have seen.

If you look at both graphs, you will see that similar temperature increases, and decreases, during the same periods of time were happening in both the Arctic and Antarctic. In addition, hasn't climate science been telling us for decades that the arctic and antarctic regions are the canaries in the coal mine and what happens in the polar regions also happens in the rest of the world?

The fact is that there is no rational, scientifically valid reason to explain why both the northern and southern polar regions would experience similar increases and decreases in temperature over the past 10K years and not the globe in between

This is actual science, not the sort of childish propaganda that you apparently look to if you want information on the state of climate science. So every argument, and every claim of evidence you offered up has been shown to be wrong. Does that mean that you reconsider your position, or as I suspect, do you deny all actual science in favor of your quasi religious faith?

 

[SSDD]

You certainly can. You can choose to disbelieve in any any of the sciences, after all, what do those scientists know?

Religion is a matter of belief....science is a matter of evidence...and I can't help but notice that thus far, everything you have presented as evidence has only been evidence of how easily you are fooled. If there is actual observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, then by all means lets see some...a single piece would be more than I have seen over the past 3 decades.

You can choose to believe whatever you like...but don't call it science.

You asked about specific climates for a specific location. I believe Iceland's climate will change if the glaciers and permanent snow fields disappear but what they will become I don't know.

Iceland's climate has already changed...with the exception of the little ice age...which the earth is still warming out of, Iceland, as well as the rest of the world is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Your fake graph designed to fool children certainly doesn't prove otherwise.

I studied coastal dynamics in college and it is a field with lots of information you may find interesting. Start here.

If you did, and actually paid attention, then you should know that in most of the places where climate science wails and waves their hands endlessly over sea level rise, it isn't sea level rise but is that the land is sinking...and since climate science knows that as well, but doesn't bother to mention it to the uneducated, it is clear that they are pushing propaganda, and pseudoscience for the purpose of supporting a false narrative.

 

[SSDD]

So you can extrapolate global climate from a single point on the earth? Impressive.

It isn't just one point on earth. But, if you look at the polar regions together, and they show the same sort of temperature history, then you have something...unless of course, you can provide a rational, scientifically valid reason that the polar regions might show similar temperature history but the earth between was doing something entirely different.

Again...here are gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores taken above the arctic circle, and from antarctica...they both show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Will Iceland's climate change from polar to sub-arctic? No idea but I can see it changing dramatically if the glaciers disappear and more solar radiation is absorbed in the summertime. Summer days are very long up there.

Take a look at the GISP2 temperature reconstruction from Greenland. It shows clearly that prior to the onset of the little ice age, Iceland, as well as most of the Arctic were "sub arctic" What do you think the Glaciers looked like for most of the past 10K years in iceland? Do you really think that they are receding more dramatically today than they did between 1100 and 900 years ago? How about between 4000, and 3300 years ago? Think the glaciers may have receded a bit during that period? How about between 8100 and 7600 years ago? Far more temperature change then and in a far shorter period of time? You think the ice loss today even begins to compare with the ice loss during that time? And tell me...has iceland managed to survive the radical climate changes it has seen over the past 10K years? Do you think those changes can even begin to compare with the sedate change of a degree in 150 years that we have seen?

 

[SSDD]

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming?

Maybe because there is evidence?

It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not a climate scientist are you? NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Models are NOT the only evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
​

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Your NASA link doesn't even address my statement at all, here is what I stated, that you never answered:

"It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid."

Your "consensus" farce have been running for decades now on the AGW conjecture babble (Which are a series of ever changing NON falsifiable models) that runs to year 2100. You are too ignorant and stupid to realize that you made an idiotic deflection attempt in favor of the worn out useless consensus fallacy, which doesn't address what I said at all!



The rest of your empty crap was smashed by SSDD, It doesn't matter how much CO2 increases, it can't warm up the atmosphere BECAUSE the outflow of energy leaving the planet greatly exceeds the postulated warm forcing power of CO2. The overrated trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range simply doesn't keep up with the increased RATE of energy loss from the planet as SSDD clearly shows.

You have fallen for the lies and propaganda over a feeble IR absorber, surely you can't continue to be this ignorant after this expose he made using satellite data?

Ironic that you claim 'It is all "theoretical", models all the way down' and then list other "theoretical" models to show it is wrong.

Observation shows the models to be wrong...

 

[Sunsettommy]

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it's a result of man-made global warming?

Maybe because there is evidence?

It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not a climate scientist are you? NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Models are NOT the only evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
​

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Your NASA link doesn't even address my statement at all, here is what I stated, that you never answered:

"It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid."

Your "consensus" farce have been running for decades now on the AGW conjecture babble (Which are a series of ever changing NON falsifiable models) that runs to year 2100. You are too ignorant and stupid to realize that you made an idiotic deflection attempt in favor of the worn out useless consensus fallacy, which doesn't address what I said at all!



The rest of your empty crap was smashed by SSDD, It doesn't matter how much CO2 increases, it can't warm up the atmosphere BECAUSE the outflow of energy leaving the planet greatly exceeds the postulated warm forcing power of CO2. The overrated trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range simply doesn't keep up with the increased RATE of energy loss from the planet as SSDD clearly shows.

You have fallen for the lies and propaganda over a feeble IR absorber, surely you can't continue to be this ignorant after this expose he made using satellite data?

Ironic that you claim 'It is all "theoretical", models all the way down' and then list other "theoretical" models to show it is wrong.

You are truly devoid of critical thinking skills, since ALL of the charts SSDD posted are based on real data, none of them are models, are you that stupid?

The VOSTOCK chart are based on ice core data, same with Greenlands GISP2 ice core data, the OLR monthly data are from Satellites, the Mauna Loa CO2 data and that CO2 changes are FOLLOWING temperature changes also based on the data, so are the airborne CO2 fraction changes are based on the data..

You ignored his big post because you have been conned and trained to ignore real data, for pseudoscience.

None of it are models, stop being this stupid and ignorant!

 

[ReinyDays]

You certainly can. You can choose to disbelieve in any any of the sciences, after all, what do those scientists know?

I respect NOAA ... what they do well they do VERY well ... presenting advanced fluid hydrothermodynamics to 7-year-old children is something they DON'T do well ... no one does ... as evidenced by the dialogue about climate ... (ha ha ha ... NS ... see how your eyes just glazed over) ...

You asked about specific climates for a specific location. I believe Iceland's climate will change if the glaciers and permanent snow fields disappear but what they will become I don't know.

Well ... you're wrong ... your belief system is flawed ... when climate drives a dry wind over an ice field, the moisture uptake does NOT depend on the permanence of the ice ... why you don't know is because you're speaking nonsense ...

I studied coastal dynamics in college and it is a field with lots of information you may find interesting. Start here.

I studied math in college ...

Nice citation ... very informative ... however, it doesn't confirm your claim of "thousands of square miles" being washed away along the eastern seaboard ... that's five miles inland along the entire US Atlantic coast ... you have a conservation of mass issue with your claim ... when wave action washes beach sand away from one location, that sand is re-deposited at another location ... and of course in the past fifty years, human did their rodent thing and hauled the fool sand back in dump trucks ...

The beaches we do have here on the West Coast change shape according to the El Nino cycle ... big fifteen foot tall rick-rack barriers usually completely buried in sand until a strong El Nino happens and all that sand washes away, the barrier then protects the homes built nearby ... but once the El Nino cycle subsides, all that sand is re-deposited ... but that's just a couple hundred feet of material, you're talking several miles ... once again I must ask, how do you demonstrate this? ...

Why would they need to add 3 feet to their walls if climate isn't changing? Or are you saying they should add three feet AFTER they are destroyed by flooding?

You have mistaken me ... I have no problem with global warming, my claim is that a couple of degrees isn't near enough to change any climate, especially since so much of the global climate has very little to do with temperature ... I'm sure you had to take college physics in your coastal dynamics studies, so I don't have to explain to you thermal expansion ... I shouldn't have to explain cause-and-effect either ... don't you think? ...

Ironic that you claim 'It is all "theoretical", models all the way down' and then list other "theoretical" models to show it is wrong.

Just input data from 100 years ago and run the model ... see, the results are no where close to today's conditions ... the climate models themselves are self-falsifying ... you studied coastal dynamics, you should know this ...

 

[alang1216]

You asked about specific climates for a specific location. I believe Iceland's climate will change if the glaciers and permanent snow fields disappear but what they will become I don't know.

Well ... you're wrong ... your belief system is flawed ... when climate drives a dry wind over an ice field, the moisture uptake does NOT depend on the permanence of the ice ... why you don't know is because you're speaking nonsense ....

When climate drives a dry wind over an ice field, the moisture uptake does DEFINITELY depend on the permanence of the ice. If the ice is gone there will by NO moisture uptake.

Nice citation ... very informative ... however, it doesn't confirm your claim of "thousands of square miles" being washed away along the eastern seaboard ... that's five miles inland along the entire US Atlantic coast ... you have a conservation of mass issue with your claim ... when wave action washes beach sand away from one location, that sand is re-deposited at another location ... and of course in the past fifty years, human did their rodent thing and hauled the fool sand back in dump trucks ...

Actually, I may have been too conservative. Florida alone is more than 65,000 sq miles and the average elevation in Florida is 6 feet,some places are as little as 3 feet above sea level.

Why would they need to add 3 feet to their walls if climate isn't changing? Or are you saying they should add three feet AFTER they are destroyed by flooding?

You have mistaken me ... I have no problem with global warming, my claim is that a couple of degrees isn't near enough to change any climate, especially since so much of the global climate has very little to do with temperature ... I'm sure you had to take college physics in your coastal dynamics studies, so I don't have to explain to you thermal expansion ... I shouldn't have to explain cause-and-effect either ... don't you think?

Climate has a lot to do with temperature, ocean temperature. Living with El Nino, you should understand. A small change in ocean temperature or a change in ocean circulation can have a large impact on climate.

 

[alang1216]

Maybe because there is evidence?

It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid.

I'm not a climate scientist are you? NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Models are NOT the only evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
​

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Your NASA link doesn't even address my statement at all, here is what I stated, that you never answered:

"It is all "theoretical", models all the way down.

Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

The real problem are ignorant people pushing a modeling construct, that doesn't exist in Nature at all. Some warmists here have always ignored the hard evidence because they are ignorant and stupid."

Your "consensus" farce have been running for decades now on the AGW conjecture babble (Which are a series of ever changing NON falsifiable models) that runs to year 2100. You are too ignorant and stupid to realize that you made an idiotic deflection attempt in favor of the worn out useless consensus fallacy, which doesn't address what I said at all!



The rest of your empty crap was smashed by SSDD, It doesn't matter how much CO2 increases, it can't warm up the atmosphere BECAUSE the outflow of energy leaving the planet greatly exceeds the postulated warm forcing power of CO2. The overrated trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range simply doesn't keep up with the increased RATE of energy loss from the planet as SSDD clearly shows.

You have fallen for the lies and propaganda over a feeble IR absorber, surely you can't continue to be this ignorant after this expose he made using satellite data?

Ironic that you claim 'It is all "theoretical", models all the way down' and then list other "theoretical" models to show it is wrong.

You are truly devoid of critical thinking skills, since ALL of the charts SSDD posted are based on real data, none of them are models, are you that stupid?

The VOSTOCK chart are based on ice core data, same with Greenlands GISP2 ice core data, the OLR monthly data are from Satellites, the Mauna Loa CO2 data and that CO2 changes are FOLLOWING temperature changes also based on the data, so are the airborne CO2 fraction changes are based on the data..

You ignored his big post because you have been conned and trained to ignore real data, for pseudoscience.

None of it are models, stop being this stupid and ignorant!

I believe I was replying to your post which contained:

"Yes it is warming, but CO2 is obviously NOT the driver of it. Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!"​

Is "energy budget math" not a model?

 

[mamooth]

Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

So you actually don't understand the simple difference between forcing and total outgoing longwave.

This is basic stuff, and you fail completely at it. Why are you bothering the grownups with your idiot prattle?

I got the CC running on it,which also show what you quoted,

Hilarious. You and PC are both telling everyone to trust you over our own lying ears, and even over your own denier sources. Just why did you think it was a good idea to jump down into the stupid-liar hole with PC? Stop faking quotes.

mamooth is a typical moonbattery liar, you done enough here to show that this mental basket case isn't worth talking to, she will always B.S. and lie to you. This is one of the very worst warmists on the forum, a true deluded pathological liar.

You are truly devoid of critical thinking skills, since ALL of the charts SSDD posted are based on real data, none of them are models, are you that stupid?

They're either cherrypicking fallacies, or they're not relevant to anything. Non-stupid people see that. Obviously, you don't. Understand that we laugh at you for exactly the same reason we laugh at flat-earthers. You're not a brave and brilliant truth tellers; you're just cult morons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Heck using Trenberth's own energy budget math, CO2 CAN'T cause global warming anyway. The amount of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the theoretical warm forcing of CO2, ALWAYS!

So you actually don't understand the simple difference between forcing and total outgoing longwave.

This is basic stuff, and you fail completely at it. Why are you bothering the grownups with your idiot prattle?

I got the CC running on it,which also show what you quoted,

Hilarious. You and PC are both telling everyone to trust you over our own lying ears, and even over your own denier sources. Just why did you think it was a good idea to jump down into the stupid-liar hole with PC? Stop faking quotes.

mamooth is a typical moonbattery liar, you done enough here to show that this mental basket case isn't worth talking to, she will always B.S. and lie to you. This is one of the very worst warmists on the forum, a true deluded pathological liar.

You are truly devoid of critical thinking skills, since ALL of the charts SSDD posted are based on real data, none of them are models, are you that stupid?

They're either cherrypicking fallacies, or they're not relevant to anything. Non-stupid people see that. Obviously, you don't. Understand that we laugh at you for exactly the same reason we laugh at flat-earthers. You're not a brave and brilliant truth tellers; you're just cult morons.

"Hilarious. You and PC are both telling everyone to trust you over our own lying ears, and even over your own denier sources."


I'm lovin' it!!!


I prove....PROVE....that Liberal elite says global warming is a religion, not science (at 0:37 seconds....she says it) and you prattle on about not believing what one hears with their own ears.







Remember all the times folks claimed Liberalism is a mental illness..???

You just proved them right.

 

[mamooth]

I prove....PROVE....

You faked a quote. That's not debatable, since even your own links say you faked it.

Consider your eternal soul. Do you really want to spend eternity burning in hell and watching the libs up in heaven? The libs will be pwning you for eternity, and that's a long time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I prove....PROVE....

You faked a quote. That's not debatable, since even your own links say you faked it.

Consider your eternal soul. Do you really want to spend eternity burning in hell and watching the libs up in heaven? The libs will be pwning you for eternity, and that's a long time.

This is the level of insanity the Left has induced. I provide Liberal man-hating Senator Hirono, actually saying "It's a religion, not science" which anyone can hear her say at 37 seconds into the vid....and this howling mental patient with the cat avi says I faked it....



"Hilarious. You and PC are both telling everyone to trust you over our own lying ears, and even over your own denier sources."


I'm lovin' it!!!


I prove....PROVE....that Liberal elite says global warming is a religion, not science (at 0:37 seconds....she says it) and you prattle on about not believing what one hears with their own ears.



"Believe in climate change as though it's a religion, it's not a science"






Remember all the times folks claimed Liberalism is a mental illness..???

You just proved them right.