Trenberth Debunks Himself

[SSDD]

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?

You think any hard evidence is in there???? bring it on over and post it.

 

[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.

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

Of course you don't....like you don't see the obvious evidence of data tampering. My guess is that you don't, because you are just stupid.

 

[westwall]

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.



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.



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.

Simple. Show us a measurable effect that CO2 is having. To date you have all failed. You can whine, snivel, and curse me all you want, but the science doesn't care about you or your opinion. Science cares about facts.

So far you have none. You have computer models of proven worthlessness.

 

[westwall]

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.

Because they ASSUMED it. Don't you get it? They haven't bothered to look at natural causes because that would negate their power. It's ALL about money now. Why do you think they are ALLWAYS talking about taxing people?

Truly you can't be that dumb, can you?

 

[westwall]

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?

Because they didn't bother to look at anything else. Because they only published studies that supported what they want. Because they falsified data to support what they want.

etc. etc. etc......

 

[westwall]

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

Look in the mirror when you make that claim. It is YOU who has nothing.

 

[Abraham3]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

 

[westwall]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not sure if it's funny, or just sad, that Abby still can't understand that "Well these guys all said it" is not proof that what they are saying is accurate.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Because they ASSUMED it. Don't you get it? They haven't bothered to look at natural causes because that would negate their power. It's ALL about money now. Why do you think they are ALLWAYS talking about taxing people?

Truly you can't be that dumb, can you?

Of course he can. You are a scientist.....look at the evidence....it is massive and unequivocal.

 

[Abraham3]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

 

[SSDD]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

I have read more than a few of them. the MAJORITY are meta analyses, computer models, and non peer reviewed "studies" promulgated by NGO's. Go ahead and read a few. Get back to me when you have something actually worth looking at.

In his eyes, those represent the hard unequivocal evidence required to support his position.

 

[SSDD]

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

Are you familiar with the term "hysterical blindness" You seem to be a selective sufferer. You don't seem to be able to see the glaring evidence of fraud before your eyes.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not sure if it's funny, or just sad, that Abby still can't understand that "Well these guys all said it" is not proof that what they are saying is accurate.

Are you having trouble spelling "Abraham"? Rather than swapping childish insults with your buds here (can't you just hear the "hyuk hyuk hyuk"?) why don't you try talking to ME about the topic at hand?

What's sad is that someone with enough ego to TELL us all how gifted he is can produce nothing in the way of an argument in a technical discussion beyond insults that wouldn't hold up in a gaggle of seventh graders.

I'm not a climate scientist, I'm an ocean engineer. I'm not conducting climate research. My position here is that the vast majority of the people that ARE conducting that research, the actual experts in the field, are agreed on several points: the world is getting warmer and the primary cause has been and continues to be human GHG emissions. I see you all trying - over and over again - to reject that, but from any objective viewpoint, the contention that a consensus exists among the experts is irrefutable. AGW is accepted science. Your positions are those of the lunatic fringe. Most of you oppose it because you believe it's a political issue. Some of you simply oppose science in general. And several of you here argue against it because either you believe or you wish others to believe, that you are smarter than the rest of the planet.

Completely, utterly, overwhelmingly PATHETIC

 

[SSDD]

I'm not sure if it's funny, or just sad, that Abby still can't understand that "Well these guys all said it" is not proof that what they are saying is accurate.

Are you having trouble spelling "Abraham"?

What's sad is that someone with enough ego to TELL us all how gifted he is can produce nothing in the way of an argument in a technical discussion beyond insults that wouldn't hold up in a gaggle of seventh graders.

I'm not a climate scientists, I'm an ocean engineer. I'm not conducting climate research. My position here is that the vast majority of the people that ARE conducting that research, the actual experts in the field, are agreed on several points: the world is getting warmer and the primary cause has been and continues to be human GHG emissions. I see you all trying - over and over again - to reject that, but from any objective viewpoint, the contention that a consensus exists among the experts is irrefutable. AGW is accepted science. Your positions are those of the lunatic fringe. Most of you oppose it because you believe it's a political issue. Some of you simply oppose science in general. And several of you here argue against it because either you believe or you wish others to believe, that you are smarter than the rest of the planet.

I don't believe you. Engineers who believe in the AGW scam are scarcer than hens teeth. People who make their living by applying the laws of physics don't buy into the AGW hoax. So you are stupid and a liar...How does that make you feel? Are you proud of yourself?

 

[Abraham3]

Once again, I do not believe you. The IPCC has a firm policy about peer reviewed sources. Why don't YOU get back to me when you've decided to give honesty a try? The inordinately biased and unqualified blog Hockey Schtick puts up 70 links. I examined four of them and found that Hockey Schtick had simply lied about their contents and conclusions and that they had virtually NOTHING to say about AGW or solar causation. Out of ONE of FOURTEEN chapters of AR5 I give you 860 links to peer reviewed studies and you won't look at ONE of them and try to feed us more lies.

I'm really impressed with your academic principles 'professor'.

Are you familiar with the term "hysterical blindness" You seem to be a selective sufferer. You don't seem to be able to see the glaring evidence of fraud before your eyes.

I looked at four of the references you provided and made comments on their content. There was NO substantive response on those from ANY of you. Yet when I present you with 860 references you refuse to read a single one of them. It is not I that suffers willful blindness.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not sure if it's funny, or just sad, that Abby still can't understand that "Well these guys all said it" is not proof that what they are saying is accurate.

Are you having trouble spelling "Abraham"?

What's sad is that someone with enough ego to TELL us all how gifted he is can produce nothing in the way of an argument in a technical discussion beyond insults that wouldn't hold up in a gaggle of seventh graders.

I'm not a climate scientists, I'm an ocean engineer. I'm not conducting climate research. My position here is that the vast majority of the people that ARE conducting that research, the actual experts in the field, are agreed on several points: the world is getting warmer and the primary cause has been and continues to be human GHG emissions. I see you all trying - over and over again - to reject that, but from any objective viewpoint, the contention that a consensus exists among the experts is irrefutable. AGW is accepted science. Your positions are those of the lunatic fringe. Most of you oppose it because you believe it's a political issue. Some of you simply oppose science in general. And several of you here argue against it because either you believe or you wish others to believe, that you are smarter than the rest of the planet.

I don't believe you.

I couldn't care less, but fair enough.

Engineers who believe in the AGW scam are scarcer than hens teeth.

On what do you base that? That survey of Canadian petroleum employees?

People who make their living by applying the laws of physics don't buy into the AGW hoax.

I got a sneaking suspicion that I know one fuckload more engineers than do you and I have to disagree.

So you are stupid and a liar...How does that make you feel? Are you proud of yourself?

Coming from you, yeah, I think I am.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you having trouble spelling "Abraham"? Rather than swapping childish insults with your buds here (can't you just hear the "hyuk hyuk hyuk"?) why don't you try talking to ME about the topic at hand?

Uhhhmm. This is the internet. Can't hear anything.





What kind of crazy LSD are you on?

What's sad is that someone with enough ego to TELL us all how gifted he is can produce nothing in the way of an argument in a technical discussion beyond insults that wouldn't hold up in a gaggle of seventh graders.

Fallacy, begging the question.

I'm not a climate scientist, I'm an ocean engineer. I'm not conducting climate research. My position here is that the vast majority of the people that ARE conducting that research, the actual experts in the field, are agreed on several points: the world is getting warmer and the primary cause has been and continues to be human GHG emissions.

And still you think that "They said it" is proof that what they said was true.

You are a sad and pathetic excuse for a scientists. With crap scientists like you out there, it's no wonder the AGW nonsense continues.

I see you all trying - over and over again - to reject that, but from any objective viewpoint, the contention that a consensus exists among the experts is irrefutable.

If a million scientists say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

AGW is accepted science.

So is string theory. Doesn't mean it's true.

Your positions are those of the lunatic fringe. Most of you oppose it because you believe it's a political issue. Some of you simply oppose science in general. And several of you here argue against it because either you believe or you wish others to believe, that you are smarter than the rest of the planet.

That was completely, utterly, and overwhelmingly PATHETIC.

 

[zeke]

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

Bullshit. Here is a fact. Man has never done what is happening right now and has been happening for over 100 years.

Man has NEVER mined and drilled for trillions of pounds of coal and oil and burnt them.
Never.

We are in the middle of a great experiment, doing something that man hasn't done before.
And we have no idea of the ultimate outcome.

And the indicators is that a bad effect is occurring.

Ignore it if you want. Won't change a thing.

You seem to think that man can't do anything to change or alter our environment.

When scientists used to warn us about nuclear winter in the advent of a full, all out nuclear war, were they (scientists) lying about the results? I mean, man can't effect something like the climate of the earth. Right?

 

[asterism]

Go to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Scroll to page 237. Read the approximately 860 entries of supporting studies published in peer reviewed journals. These are the references for Chapter 2 of AR5: "Observations: Atmosphere and Surface". AR5 has fourteen (14) more chapters and six (6) annexes.

AR5 has orders of magnitude more supporting reference material - more EVIDENCE, all from peer reviewed, published studies, than does any collection you could even begin to assemble supporting your denier-cult fantasies.

ALL from peer reviewed studies?

Are you sure about that?