Trenberth Debunks Himself

[Abraham3]

And who is going to determine its a stupid thing?

Those of us who are willing to think for ourselves, apply critical thinking skills, and evaluate the claims made based on logic.

In other words, not you.

Are you actually willing to claim that thousands of degree'd, actively researching and publishing scientists do NOT think for themselves, do NOT apply critical thinking skill and do NOT evaluate claims made based on logic?

You've got to be gifted in idiocy.

And as for your statement "Those of US..." - you can't even maintain a conversation in basic physical science. Where the fuck do you get off putting yourself above these folks?

 

[Abraham3]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

You mean the 74 of 79 actually asked? Better get your facts straight.

You spew ignorant crap like that but want us to believe you've got a PhD? A-fucking-mazing.

 

[Abraham3]

You don't think carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas aka greenhouse
gas?

You don't think CO2 is being spewed into the air by cars and coal plants
etc?

You don't think the earth will warm any more than it has even with
increased CO2?

Correct. Is man responsible. Other than the local Urban Heat Island
Effect (which is well documented but ignored by AGW supporters) I can
find no large scale effect that is provable.

No, CO2 IS a GHG. However, it operates on a logarithmic scale

You tell us you can find no large scale effect that is provable. So...
you must reject the Greenhouse Effect. Yet in the same breath you say
CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas. Which is it?

And it operates on a LOGARITHMIC scale. Is that, like, a magic word for
you? You're suggesting that the Earth's CO2 climate sensitivity has
gone to zero. Do you have any evidence to support that idea?

I can give you a logarithmic function that will stop warming with the
very next atom of CO2 and I can give you a logarithmic function whose
warming wouldn't detectably slow for a hundred million years. Telling
us it "operates on a logarithmic scale" tells us precisely NOTHING.

also operates in the same wavelengths as H2O vapor. Which is THE
dominant GHG.

Is that provable? Have you seen some large scale provable effect?

Water vapor IS the most significant greenhouse gas. It is NOT, however,
a significant factor with respect to global warming. The amount
of water vapor the Earth's atmosphere can hold is dependent on the
global temperature. Any excess will precipitate out of the system in
days, any shortcoming will be replaced by evaporation in days. It
cannot accumulate beyond the capacity the Earth's temperature dictates.
The same is NOT true for CO2, whose atmospheric levels are dependent on
the rate of supply and the ability of the Earth's various CO2 sinks to
absorb it. It is clear, however, that even were all human CO2
production to cease this instant, it would be centuries before
atmospheric levels returned to preindustrial values. Therefore, the
global warming potential of any particular unit of CO2 is thousands of
times greater than a similar unit of water vapor.

Man contributes 5% of the total global CO2 budget.

When you say "total global CO2 budget, you're obviously counting what's
held in the oceans, the soil and the planet's biota. CO2 that's NOT in
the atmosphere has no direct effect on global warming. So, let stop
trying to kid ourselves and look just at what's in the atmosphere
absorbing IR. There, man is responsible for 120/400ths or 30% of the
world's CO2. And as we all know, that level is increasing.

In the presence of ever increasing CO2 levels (far above what even
Hansen predicted was possible) the global temperature has remained flat
for 16 plus years. That means the AGW theory is a failure.

For the umpteenth time, 1941-1979 says this oft-repeated line is a
complete crock of SHIT. The climate's
behavior of the last 15 years is WELL within the demonstrated
natural variation.

Time to move on.

Time to face facts. AGW is real and represents a real threat to human
infrastructure and much of the world's plant and animal life.

 

[SwimExpert]

So the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW as valid aren't "actual scientists". That would be despite their PhDs, despite their research jobs, despite their published research and its citations.

Got it.

Once upon a time many scientists believed it was possible to turn lead into gold.

Not by any application of the scientific method. What possible relevance do you think that statement has? Do you think today's scientists have the same knowledge set, the same worldview and use the same procedures as were used by alchemists of the middle ages?

You should ask Issac Newton. He was big on that stuff.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you actually willing to claim that thousands of degree'd, actively researching and publishing scientists do NOT think for themselves, do NOT apply critical thinking skill and do NOT evaluate claims made based on logic?

Yes, yes indeed.

Damn near the entire body of "evidence" supporting AGW is based on the assumption that humans are the driving cause for the data observed. And therein lies the folly of it all.

 

[Abraham3]

Can you please TRY to make relevant comments?

"Damn near the entire body of "evidence" supporting AGW is based on the assumption that humans are the driving cause for the data observed. And therein lies the folly of it all."

Please explain why.

 

[SwimExpert]

Please explain why.

Because damn near the entire body of "evidence" assumes that humans are the driving factor behind climate change. What part of do you find confusing?

 

[Abraham3]

Because damn near the entire body of "evidence" assumes that humans are the driving factor behind climate change. What part of do you find confusing?

I did not say I was confused. I am wondering what you think is wrong with the conclusion of the world's climate scientists that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming of the last 150 years. You say they are wrong. Where is your evidence that they are wrong? Alternatively, where is your superior evidence that something else is the cause of that warming?

 

[SwimExpert]

I did not say I was confused. I am wondering what you think is wrong with the conclusion of the world's climate scientists that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming of the last 150 years

Listen carefully, and I promise to go slowly:

Their

conclusions

are

based

on

the

assumption

that

human

activity

is

the

driving

force.



It's

called

begging

the

question.



It's

a

logical

fallacy.

 

[Abraham3]

Prove it asshole.

 

[SSDD]

Because damn near the entire body of "evidence" assumes that humans are the driving factor behind climate change. What part of do you find confusing?

I did not say I was confused. I am wondering what you think is wrong with the conclusion of the world's climate scientists that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming of the last 150 years. You say they are wrong. Where is you evidence that they are wrong or where is your superior evidence that something else is the cause of that warming?

Nothing but assumption upon assumption upon assumption bolstered by data tampering. You are a world class dupe if you believe in the AGW hoax.

 

[Abraham3]

You people are truly worthless for a debate on any of this. You have lots of accusations but NOTHING in the way of evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it asshole.

the fact that you can provide no hard, unequivocal evidence is the proof. If there were actual empirical evidence out there, you would include it in every post..you don't....none of you warmer wackos do for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. Climate science is all assumption all the time....except when they are confusing correlation with cause.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's say for a second that the oceans aren't warming. Where is the energy going? Back into space??? Answer me this.

 

[Abraham3]

Prove it asshole.

the fact that you can provide no hard, unequivocal evidence is the proof. If there were actual empirical evidence out there, you would include it in every post..you don't....none of you warmer wackos do for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. Climate science is all assumption all the time....except when they are confusing correlation with cause.

Quote AR5 and prove to us it actually has no evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Let's say for a second that the oceans aren't warming. Where is the energy going? Back into space??? Answer me this.

Don't expect an answer. It is hard not to notice the fact that the peanut gallery has spent their entire time on this thread avoiding the fact that trenberth debunked himself and the oceans are in fact, not eating the heat....the fact is that there is no missing heat...never was. What there is is a terrible, fatal flaw in the hypothesis itself.

 

[SSDD]

Prove it asshole.

the fact that you can provide no hard, unequivocal evidence is the proof. If there were actual empirical evidence out there, you would include it in every post..you don't....none of you warmer wackos do for the simple reason that it doesn't exist. Climate science is all assumption all the time....except when they are confusing correlation with cause.

Quote AR5 and prove to us it actually has no evidence.

Quote what? There is no evidence there. Here is a direct quote of all of the actual empirical evidence to be found in all of climate science:

" ."

 

[Abraham3]

Let's say for a second that the oceans aren't warming. Where is the energy going? Back into space??? Answer me this.

Don't expect an answer. It is hard not to notice the fact that the peanut gallery has spent their entire time on this thread avoiding the fact that trenberth debunked himself and the oceans are in fact, not eating the heat....the fact is that there is no missing heat...never was. What there is is a terrible, fatal flaw in the hypothesis itself.

I have seen no quote from Trenberth in which he expresses any disagreement with BTK 2013. So where is the fucking "debunking"?

 

[Abraham3]

Quote AR5 and prove to us it actually has no evidence.

Quote what? There is no evidence there. Here is a direct quote of all of the actual empirical evidence to be found in all of climate science:

" ."

Really? You really want to make that claim?

 

[SwimExpert]

Prove it asshole.

Butthurt, eh?