Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,300 of 1576

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1201
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^The story was amazing. Your attempt to make the story fit your anti-global warming agenda pathetic.

  2. #1202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    That was an interesting video. The above was part one of four and about an hour and eight minutes long.
    Thanks, I thought the story was amazing. Just trying to keep things interesting. Nice to read something other than the usual dingbat responses.
    yes we've all grown tired of your responses, dingbat. Your whole premise to this thread is that the entire world is lying, and your opinion (that is not backed by any reputable science) is correct is about as close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance as I've ever seen.

  3. #1203

    Default The TRUTH. !!!!The antarctic ice is collapsing!!!!!!

    60 years of global warming, ice melt and glacier collapse in the antarctic!!!!!

    The eleventh British antarctic research station Halley is here.......
    Location

    Position: Lat. 75° 35′ S, Long. 26° 39′ W (2012 Halley VI)
    General location: Brunt Ice Shelf, Caird Coast

    Anybody want to guess what happened to the ten previous research stations?

    "Previous locations

    1956 (IGY) Lat. 75° 31′ S, Long. 26° 36′ W
    1957 (IGY) Lat. 75° 30′ S, Long. 26° 36′ W
    1967 (Z II) Lat. 75° 31′ S, Long. 26° 39′ W
    1973 (Z III) Lat. 75° 31′ S, Long. 26° 43′ W
    1983 (Z IV) Lat. 75° 36′ S, Long. 26° 40′ W
    1989 (Z IV) Lat. 75° 36′ S, Long. 26° 46′ W
    1988 (Z V) Lat. 75° 35′ S, Long. 26° 14′ W
    1992 (Z V) Lat. 75° 35′ S, Long. 26° 19′ W
    1998 (Z V) Lat. 75° 35′S, Long. 26° 30′ W
    2001 (Z V) Lat. 75° 35′ S, Long. 26° 34′ W"
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #1204

    Default The TRUTH. Snow cover collapse in North America

    In this graph you can see how snow cover is collapsing in North America as global warming continues unabated....................

    The data for this graph from NASA is here.............
    https://climate.rutgers.edu/measures/snowice/




    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1205
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

    Step one: Set up a straw man "Snow cover collapse in North America due to global warming."

    Step two: Draw erroneous conclusions from said straw man.

    Contrary to your claim, most climate scientists have predicted that global warming is likely to not lead to reduced snow cover, and perhaps some increases in the short-term.

    The reasons are explained in the following article published in February 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences:

    While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306672/

  6. #1206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.




    and this figure in particular


  7. #1207

    Default

    [QUOTE=Channing;917009]How about Arctic sea ice?





    Try posting something without fake data from a software simulation.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #1208
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    So most of that data is satellite data. What software simulation are you referencing?

  9. #1209

    Default

    oh he's covered this before. He doesn't understand what simulations are, and can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that while they can't 100% accurate predict everything, they can provide a realistic view of potential future outcomes should the trends continue.

  10. #1210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 04:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #1211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

    Step one: Set up a straw man "Snow cover collapse in North America due to global warming."

    Step two: Draw erroneous conclusions from said straw man.

    Contrary to your claim, most climate scientists have predicted that global warming is likely to not lead to reduced snow cover, and perhaps some increases in the short-term.

    The reasons are explained in the following article published in February 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences:

    While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306672/
    No. The IPCC predicted less snowfall. When more snowfall came they said that was because of climate change too (as demonstrated by te paper you provided). So less snowfall is because of climate change, and more snowfall is because of climate change. Anybody can google this, and many other predictions. More heat is global warming, record cold is global warming. More drought is because of global warming, as is less drought. More rain, and less rain is also predicted. When something happens they pull one of these papers out of their *** and say it was predicted.

    Science like this is so stupid it boggles the mind.

    Here's one paper of many..................

    "Abstract:
    Sensitivity of the snow energy balance to climatic changes: prediction of snowpack in the Pyrenees in the 21st century
    "Comparison with respect to current conditions indicated a decrease of 50 to 60% in maximum snow.........."

    https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v36/n3/p203-217/

    This paper predicts less snow, and more snow.........


    "Warmer climate: less or more snow?"
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...382-007-0289-y
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 05:10 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  12. #1212

    Default

    taking segments of data and ignoring everything else isn't TRUTH

  13. #1213

    Default

    And less or more snow is climate change.

  14. #1214
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.

    SO that graph is -0.2 to 0.2 for a the extremes of data. Whereas the newer graphs drop 2.0 million square kilometres. So you're just proving my point. The drop from 1990 to 2016 is huge compared to the variance in your graph.

  15. #1215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How about Arctic sea ice?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    As 2018 came to a close, Arctic sea ice extent was tracking at its third lowest level in the satellite record, while sea ice in the Antarctic remained at historic lows.
    I covered this fraud in an earlier post. Satellite data goes back to the 1970's. Here's a graph from the 1990 IPCC report.............

    You see why they hide the earlier data? Can you see what fraudsters they are?

    Your top two graphs are fraud graphs that hide and change the data.
    Your other graph going back to the 1880's is fake data from software simulations. Notice the observed 1970's dip is completely erased.
    SO that graph is -0.2 to 0.2 for a the extremes of data. Whereas the newer graphs drop 2.0 million square kilometres. So you're just proving my point. The drop from 1990 to 2016 is huge compared to the variance in your graph.
    So they just change the data whenever they feel like it?

    Bow to Zod.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-01-2019 at 08:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #1216
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    No the data in the past just didn't vary much, while since 1990 it HAS dropped. A lot.

    I'm not sure you have an ability to interpret data on your own. Do you just copy and paste your posts from someone who does all the thinking for you? So you're unable to actually respond to things off script?

  17. #1217
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,160

    Default

    Yes, that's exactly what he does. I'm sure with a bit of Google-fu it would be possible to figure out which blog he's copy/pasting from.

  18. #1218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^Add to this that highly accurate satellite measurement of sea ice extent only began in 1979. Data collected before 1979 is considered less reliable.

    Since 1979, a collection of satellites has provided a continuous, nearly complete record of Earth’s sea ice cover. Valuable data are collected by satellite sensors that observe the microwaves emitted by the ice surface. Unlike visible light, the microwave energy radiated by ice passes through clouds. This means it can be measured year-round, even through the long polar night.The continuous sea ice record began with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the Nimbus-7 satellite (1978-1987) and continued with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS) on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites (1987 to present). The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer–for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite also contributed data (2002-2011), a record that was extended with the 2012 launch of the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on JAXA’s GCOM-W1 satellite.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...aIce/page2.php

    Looking at the longer-term record, no surprise that Mr.Combust copied a chart from a denier blog which covers a 18-year time period on which a trend line could be drawn showing a slight increase in sea ice.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 17-01-2019 at 11:03 AM.

  19. #1219

    Default

    ^ he sources a lot of stuff from: http://notrickszone.com/ include that same graph we've seen a lot lately. Also uses https://realclimatescience.com/
    Last edited by Medwards; 17-01-2019 at 11:02 AM.

  20. #1220
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  21. #1221

    Default

    Hey, no one told me that I had to let facts and arguments change my uninformed opinions!

  22. #1222
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Oops. Sorry.

    The goal here is to let facts and vetted, independently verifiable arguments augment, grow, and potentially change or cement your original anecdotal opinion.



    I know, I know... I'm a party pooper.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  23. #1223

    Default

    Nah I prefer cognitive dissonance

  24. #1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #1225
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^Disagree. This thread is in the Off-Topic/General Discussion section where it belongs. What evidence do you have that people are talking about Edmonton related matters elsewhere? Some of us have an interest in discussing matters that are not Edmonton-related.

    Mr.Combust can be a bit unsufferable at times and definitely has a severe case of confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance or call it what you will.

    But I've occasionally agreed with his critiques of some of the more alarmist folks in the global warming fraternity.

    And he's kept me on my toes, for example, and caused me to find new resources I wasn't previously aware of. Having some fun on my lunch break looking through the denier notrickszone.com blog Mr.Combust likes to copy and paste from (thanks Medwards). The content is so one-sided and misleading that it could be a parody blog to con the global warming deniers but there you go.

    One way the C2E moderator could be helpful is to remind Mr.Combust to provide links to the sources of his hilarious charts and graphs.

  26. #1226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    If we let MrCombust's posts go unchallenged, then people might believe him.

    I'm not worried about changing his mind, I'm worried about those that read the thread without formed opinions.

  27. #1227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    If we let MrCombust's posts go unchallenged, then people might believe him.

    I'm not worried about changing his mind, I'm worried about those that read the thread without formed opinions.
    My lord. You used the same rationale in the heinous Holocaust Denial thread which is one of the few threads in C2E history that were more disquieting and distorted than this one. Quite fortunately that thread finally got the axe, it should never have been allowed to persist here imo.

    But you're doubling down on being wrong on this one.

    Debating lunacy does not erase or negate it. It provides an active forum for idiotic distorted views.

    Basically the cross section of regular posters in both respective threads seem to have this same elemental thought distortion. That idiocy needs to be actively rebuked and that makes it somehow go away.

    The thread and 13pages of this garbage is evidence refuting that. Richard is of course correct. Not one person participating has been dissuaded. This is, as others have mentioned simply another cognitive dissonance experiment.

    Yours and others Persistence is just allowing one poster here to bang his drum endlessly getting more views and hits for a much longer period of time.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #1228
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    The irony is incredibly thick here. You will post the same argument over and over and over again in other threads until everyone's just exhausted and gives up. This has happened in numerous threads, and no doubt you're about to do the same again. Yet you come in here and think you have the right to dictate to others what they post in a single thread? Get off it. If you don't care about the topic, then ignore it. Simple. No board rules are being broken in this thread, and for the most part, it's one guy shouting at clouds with the occasional person chiming in to debunk blatantly false information. Big deal.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-01-2019 at 12:56 PM.

  29. #1229

    Default

    MrCombust has been a troll from the first post. And a successful one. Trolls don't care about positions, or education, just attention, whch many C2E members have been quite happy to give.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  30. #1230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    The irony is incredibly thick here. You will post the same argument over and over and over again in other threads until everyone's just exhausted and gives up. This has happened in numerous threads, and no doubt you're about to do the same again. Yet you come in here and think you have the right to dictate to others what they post in a single thread? Get off it. If you don't care about the topic, then ignore it. Simple. No board rules are being broken in this thread, and for the most part, it's one guy shouting at clouds with the occasional person chiming in to debunk blatantly false information. Big deal.
    Are your really this obtuse?


    My point is clear. If you can't comprehend it too bad. Nor do I have many posts in this thread and nor do I intend to.

    RichardS raised the same question. What is actually being accomplished in threads like these other than limitless persistence?

    ironically you defend obstinance on display here but call out mine in the same post.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 01:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #1231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    MrCombust has been a troll from the first post. And a successful one. Trolls don't care about positions, or education, just attention, whch many C2E members have been quite happy to give.
    Precisely.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #1232
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.

  33. #1233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.
    Do you have any familiarity with the concept of intermittent reinforcement paradigms? Guess what is the most powerful reinforcement paradigm known, and that is consistently reinforcing the thread spammer

    As mentioned its the responses, replies, that throw fuel on this nonsense. This is what creates the continuance. Without which the spamming either goes away or find another home. Really in all my time online I've never seen somebody just post 50 posts in a row to a thread to themselves on a messageboard. Well, KC comes close, heh, and I'm just jk ing with that. KC provides interesting potential content and topics and links. Although most kind of OT.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 01:44 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  34. #1234

    Default

    ^ we kinda saw this when we all seemingly tuned out this thread at the same time... he started drifting into the existing threads about the subject

  35. #1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ we kinda saw this when we all seemingly tuned out this thread at the same time... he started drifting into the existing threads about the subject
    I had never seen that in any other threads and had not noted any slow down here. heh, but Intermittent reinforcement also makes extinction of behavior more difficult.

    edit;I just did some checking. Almost all of Combusts posts over last year are spontaneously combusted in this thread. A few others are in "Do you still believe in global warming"
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 02:16 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  36. #1236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.

  37. #1237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.
    I wasn't comparing the topics. I was citing the same rationalizations ( demonstrably false) used by the same poster in both of those threads.


    It was specifically cited that decrying needs to occur in order for a message not to spread or to limit or counter the message. As if that is effective. That missive is a theoretical construct, it isn't factual, and as such threads indicate, responding to inanity does more to perpetuate that ongoing discussion.


    I can't find the link right now but one theorist said that debating intentional misinformation causes harm in allowing that misinformation an apparent equal footing on the same stage. As such, unintended legitimacy is granted. This is a complicated theme, not everybody easily understands that refutation can often be counterproductive if it just continues unabated.


    Question.

    Has refutation in this thread worked? Has it silenced the misinformation campaign?
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2019 at 02:53 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  38. #1238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As entertaining as this thread is, I have to ask if anyone here has changed their position given the information shared?

    We're now on Page 13...
    Thank you. There is absolutely zero point to this thread and it has no connection with Connect2Edmonton.

    Nor do I find continual rehashing of misinformation in the thread all that interesting.

    Instead it occupies a top spot on new threads everyday like a bunch of other disconnected US political threads usually do.

    This occupying the discussion here results in people who would want to talk about Edmonton related matters just doing that elsewhere.

    Please close the thread. Enough already.
    Yet for several years c2e added ever more pages battling (40 pages and counting) on the life changing impacts of millimetre increases or decreases in screen sizes or device thicknesses. (Millisecond increases in download speed or whatever.) Debating differences in design on incredibly short-lifecycle products is in one sense like endlessly arguing the qualities of toilet paper. Go figure.

    The devices aren’t made here and the only connection to Edmonton is that they are used here - like kitchen faucets, cars, buses, etc

    The All Inclusive Smart Phone War - Page 40

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...one-War/page40


    Sent from my iPhone

    On the other hand, sentiments, biases, science and un-science revealed in threads like this on the global warming debate can provide an insight into the risks we are undertaking as a city or province. Here and in the US following the science has led to the planned closure of billions of dollars of coal plant, electric price impacts, and in the future will lead to positive health impacts, maybe positive health care cost impacts, technology adoption and truly massive new skills/jobs impacts in Alberta, potential importation of billions upon billions in solar and wind products as well as the commensurate export or reduction of an equal amount of Alberta wealth to pay for said products, etc.

    Then, we see how, through watching US politics, we can be competitively disadvantaged almost overnight through their reversal of similarly such planned changes. We can also see how a political party doing what many would say is the most sound, scientifically supported course of actions will very likely get thd party turfed from office for actually doing such things (carbon tax, coal gen closures) without sensitivity to the risk of decisions and so without awareness of the opposing forces and without incorporating escape clauses in decisions.

    In short, this thread is a finger to the wind (read that as you may).
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 03:18 PM.

  39. #1239

    Default

    Wow, some of you guys are really upping your game. Some of you are actually abiding by the forum rules, reading my posts, actually staying on point, and actually responding to what I actually posted.

    Impressive.

    It's still comical when yooos pretend everybody in the world agrees with you, and then tell me I have a confirmation bias though. That's always good for a laugh.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  40. #1240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Wow, some of you guys are really upping your game. Some of you are actually abiding by the forum rules, reading my posts, actually staying on point, and actually responding to what I actually posted.

    Impressive.

    It's still comical when yooos pretend everybody in the world agrees with you, and then tell me I have a confirmation bias though. That's always good for a laugh.
    Oh, be quiet. We’re trying to defend your right to free speech no matter how wrong or tiresome it may be.


    On confirmation bias - everyone has it - including you.

  41. #1241

    Default

    Admin - Thread Ignore Pleeeeease!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  42. #1242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Dear fellow Edmontonians and Albertans,

    I agree with Marcel and this is a key point. No forum rules are being broken in this thread. Despite Mr.Combust's one-dimensional thinking, he doggedly sticks to the topic at hand without engaging in personal attacks and other unpleasantness. He's able to disagree without being disagreeable, an example some of the rest of us could even emulate.

    And to compare global warming denial to Holocaust denial as a poster did above trivializes the latter.
    I wasn't comparing the topics. I was citing the same rationalizations ( demonstrably false) used by the same poster in both of those threads.


    It was specifically cited that decrying needs to occur in order for a message not to spread or to limit or counter the message. As if that is effective. That missive is a theoretical construct, it isn't factual, and as such threads indicate, responding to inanity does more to perpetuate that ongoing discussion.


    I can't find the link right now but one theorist said that debating intentional misinformation causes harm in allowing that misinformation an apparent equal footing on the same stage. As such, unintended legitimacy is granted. This is a complicated theme, not everybody easily understands that refutation can often be counterproductive if it just continues unabated.


    Question.

    Has refutation in this thread worked? Has it silenced the misinformation campaign?
    “debating intentional misinformation causes harm”

    Sounds like an article I posted but don’t agree with. I have faith that - give time and over time - people can rationally evaluate information or find agreement with others that have rationally evaluated information. The double-sided sword of censorship, or for that matter authoritarianism, just takes an expedient shortcut to prevent debate.

  43. #1243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Admin - Thread Ignore Pleeeeease!

    Maybe off topic general discussion threads could be eliminated from the what’s new aggregator. ???


    That way the new downtown tower discussions debating which shades of window glass colour are best could be given prominence.
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 03:37 PM.

  44. #1244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Unless MrCombust is given no platform or voice here to spout his nonsense, then he will continue to go on, if I or others ignore him or not. This thread will keep popping up on the active feed, even if we don't respond.

    Close the thread or ban MrCombust, or this just continues.
    Do you have any familiarity with the concept of intermittent reinforcement paradigms? Guess what is the most powerful reinforcement paradigm known, and that is consistently reinforcing the thread spammer

    As mentioned its the responses, replies, that throw fuel on this nonsense. This is what creates the continuance. Without which the spamming either goes away or find another home. Really in all my time online I've never seen somebody just post 50 posts in a row to a thread to themselves on a messageboard. Well, KC comes close, heh, and I'm just jk ing with that. KC provides interesting potential content and topics and links. Although most kind of OT.
    They begged me to do it
    i.e. the KC - misc thread


    “intermittent reinforcement paradigms” - that’s a new one to me. Though I’ve heard of random reinforcement.


    The word spam is much like the word offensive. Mostly used by people that don’t like what someone is saying, whereas they find no offence with other similarly offensive comments. Such as people spamming that the new RAM is ugly. . Moreover, when society decided that the emperor’s clothes were just fine, why didn’t they tape over the mouth of that nuisance kid spamming the already widely accepted viewpoint?
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2019 at 03:53 PM.

  45. #1245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They begged me to do it
    i.e. the KC - misc thread


    “intermittent reinforcement paradigms” - that’s a new one to me. Though I’ve heard of random reinforcement.


    The word spam is much like the word offensive. Mostly used by people that don’t like what someone is saying, whereas they find no offence with other similarly offensive comments. Such as people spamming that the new RAM is ugly. . Moreover, when society decided that the emperor’s clothes were just fine, why didn’t they tape over the mouth of that nuisance kid spamming the already widely accepted viewpoint?
    Here it is



    http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/sked.htm
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  46. #1246

    Default The TRUTH. Wild camels in Edmonton, A visit to the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton...........

    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit to the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton was hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during that hot, dry period, not long ago.

    Mexico to the Yukon.........., we got camels in the Yukon, but the climate thugs tell you 2018 is the "hottest year on record".

    They even ask me........., "What would it take for you to believe in climate change?" My new response......... "Camels in the Yukon".

    Thanks Royal Alberta Museum, thanks.


    "Yesterday's Camel (sometimes called Western Camel or American Camel) roamed western North America from Mexico to the Yukon, from about 1 million years ago to 10,000 years ago"




    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-01-2019 at 08:17 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  47. #1247
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,202

    Default

    To fight climate misinformation, point to the man behind the curtain


    Point not just to the lies, but who's behind them, researchers suggest.

    How can the misinformation campaign driving this divide be fought? Just reporting and reiterating the facts of anthropogenic climate change doesn’t seem to work. A paper in Nature Climate Change this week argues that attempts to counter misinformation need to draw on the research that is illuminating the bad actors behind climate denialism, the money funding them, and how their coordinated campaigns are disrupting the political process.
    Rebutting the misinformation is part of the strategy, they write—but we “must also confront the institutional and political architectures that make the spread of misinformation possible in the first place.”

  48. #1248
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton has hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during the hot, dry period, not long ago.
    It's almost like Earth's orbit and rotation change in predictable, well studied ways that explain past ice ages and intermediate warm periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...ycles#Problems

  49. #1249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Well Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta. There's been some complaints this thread doesn't pertain to Edmonton, or Alberta. As usual, the advocates are nuts.

    That aside, lets add some Edmonton content with a visit the Royal Alberta Museum.

    In the natural history geologic area the museum has historical pictures of the Athabasca glacier that show it's receding. They attribute this to "climate change'. The climate has changed, so they're right about that. Another chart describes climate of the past. The chart describes a time, circa 10,000 years ago when Edmonton has hotter and dryer.

    So the Royal Alberta Museum describes a time in the recent past, before CO2 rose, as hotter and dryer.

    You can find this display across from the display of Yesterday's camel. A camel that roamed the area of Edmonton during the hot, dry period, not long ago.
    It's almost like Earth's orbit and rotation change in predictable, well studied ways that explain past ice ages and intermediate warm periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...ycles#Problems
    Yes, here we see the Milankovitch cycles at work. Fractions of a degree over thousands of years.

    Natural variation in temperature greater than 4 degrees for 10,000 years. Now CO2 controls the temperature. So silly.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-01-2019 at 04:44 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  50. #1250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^The graph posted above is just the latest example of your severe case of confirmation bias. You posted the graph because it confirms your bias that the present warming (to the extent it exists) is no big deal. Ice core samples going back 10,000 years - while somewhat useful as proxies for climate change - are full of unknowns and high degrees of uncertainty. Yet, because this particular graph confirms your bias, it is The Truth.

    Yet when information is presented that contradicts your bias, you claim it's because the data is fraudulent (as you did in post #1210 in replying to Arctic Sea Ice charts posted by Channing in #1206). Instead you post your own chart showing a trend of a very small increase in Arctic Sea Ice between 1972 and 1990. When I contradicted this in post #1218 with a chart showing a clear longer-term trend in Arctic Sea Ice decline since 1953, you failed to response to this evidence because it contradicts your own bias.

  51. #1251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The graph posted above is just the latest example of your severe case of confirmation bias. You posted the graph because it confirms your bias that the present warming (to the extent it exists) is no big deal. Ice core samples going back 10,000 years - while somewhat useful as proxies for climate change - are full of unknowns and high degrees of uncertainty. Yet, because this particular graph confirms your bias, it is The Truth.

    Yet when information is presented that contradicts your bias, you claim it's because the data is fraudulent (as you did in post #1210 in replying to Arctic Sea Ice charts posted by Channing in #1206). Instead you post your own chart showing a trend of a very small increase in Arctic Sea Ice between 1972 and 1990. When I contradicted this in post #1218 with a chart showing a clear longer-term trend in Arctic Sea Ice decline since 1953, you failed to response to this evidence because it contradicts your own bias.
    Ice core data is corroborated by a mountain of data and has been reproduced in different locations by different teams but you say it has "high degrees of uncertainty"?????? Hysterical. Support your claim.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2019 at 04:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #1252
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    If you are seriously interested in the uncertainties of ice core data, there is a good overview at this link:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal.../ice-cores.pdf

    Proxy data like ice cores and tree rings are always going to be less reliable than actual measurement. Among other limitations, they usually are only available for a handful of geographic locations rather than the entire globe. But since the earliest thermometers only came into widespread use in the mid-1800s, and measurement of sea ice extent only began in the mid-1900s, ice cores do provide some useful clues about what past climates might have been.

    The further you go back in time the greater the uncertainties are going to be. This is even true of the global surface temperature record. Until about 50 years ago, land based sites in the mid-latitudes of Europe and the United States tended to be over-represented in the temperature record. Which is the reason that some of these weather stations were eliminated by the various organizations measuring global temperatures, and a more representative sample of land and ocean stations located at all latitudes and longitudes added.

  53. #1253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    If you are seriously interested in the uncertainties of ice core data, there is a good overview at this link:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal.../ice-cores.pdf

    Proxy data like ice cores and tree rings are always going to be less reliable than actual measurement. Among other limitations, they usually are only available for a handful of geographic locations rather than the entire globe. But since the earliest thermometers only came into widespread use in the mid-1800s, and measurement of sea ice extent only began in the mid-1900s, ice cores do provide some useful clues about what past climates might have been.

    The further you go back in time the greater the uncertainties are going to be. This is even true of the global surface temperature record. Until about 50 years ago, land based sites in the mid-latitudes of Europe and the United States tended to be over-represented in the temperature record. Which is the reason that some of these weather stations were eliminated by the various organizations measuring global temperatures, and a more representative sample of land and ocean stations located at all latitudes and longitudes added.
    Your link doesn't support your claim. A paper discussing uncertainties in a measurement proxy isn't a statement the proxy has "a high degree of uncertainty". Don't lecture me with crap you make up, and then post links that actually refute what you say.

    +- 2 year accuracy in a proxy going back 100,000 years?

    From your own link I guess you didn't read, or don't understand......

    "A handful of quantitative high-resolution reconstructions, notably of surface massbalance and temperature on the Antarctic (Monaghan et al., 2007; Schneider et al., 2006)and Greenland ice sheets (McConnell et al., 2000,Vinther et al., in review), has recentlybeen obtained from spatial networks of ice cores."

    ", they showed that while the absolute accuracy of thedating was ±2 years, the relative accuracy among several cores was <±0.5 year"
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-01-2019 at 10:19 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  54. #1254

    Default

    Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk
    Experts predict up to 1,500 individual private flights in and out of airfields serving Swiss ski resort for World Economic Forum
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...s-climate-talk




    David Attenborough might have urged world leaders at Davos to take urgent action on climate change, but it appears no one was listening. As he spoke, experts predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets will fly to and from airfields serving the Swiss ski resort this week.


    Political and business leaders and lobbyists are opting for bigger, more expensive aircrafts, according to analysis by the Air Charter Service, which found the number of private jet flights grew by 11% last year.


    “There appears to be a trend towards larger aircraft, with expensive heavy jets the aircraft of choice, with Gulfstream GVs and Global Expresses both being used more than 100 times each last year,” said Andy Christie, private jets director at the ACS.


    This is partly due to the long distances travelled, he said, “but also possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another”. Last year, more than 1,300 aircraft flights were recorded at the conference, the highest number since ACS began recording private jet activity in 2013.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #1255

    Default The TRUTH. Katharine Hayhoe, scientist, laughs at climate change skeptics, while she lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    To fight climate misinformation, point to the man behind the curtain


    Point not just to the lies, but who's behind them, researchers suggest.

    How can the misinformation campaign driving this divide be fought? Just reporting and reiterating the facts of anthropogenic climate change doesn’t seem to work. A paper in Nature Climate Change this week argues that attempts to counter misinformation need to draw on the research that is illuminating the bad actors behind climate denialism, the money funding them, and how their coordinated campaigns are disrupting the political process.
    Rebutting the misinformation is part of the strategy, they write—but we “must also confront the institutional and political architectures that make the spread of misinformation possible in the first place.”
    Katharine Hayhoe is a top climate scientist, director of the climate science centre at a Texas University. She was given grant money to help write the recent US climate report. We've already discussed the lies in the climate report. According to Channing's report above we should also look at "the man behind the curtain". Channing's report above was published in the journal Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. Scientific journals are supposed to be the gatekeepers of good science. Before being published in a journal your report must be verified by other scientists. If Einstein were to publish today he would publish in the journal Nature. But we all know an Ad hominem attack isn't science. So the most prestigious scientific journal in the world is advocating Ad hominem attacks against people who question climate science. Anybody can see how fake (and disgusting) climate science is, even if it is published in the journal "Nature". "Nature's" reputation will sink with the climate change ship.

    But let's do what Channing's report says anyway, lets apply this fake science, as published in Nature, to the climate scientists who write these reports. Let us do look at "the man behind the curtain"..........

    In this video Katharine Hayhoe laughs at climate skeptics. Even though she's the director of the climate science centre at the University, she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report".

    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-01-2019 at 10:04 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  56. #1256
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    Katharine Hayhoe was not someone I was previously aware of. But after listening to the interview, I can see why climate change deniers feel threatened by her. She's an excellent communicator and really breaks the stereotype of the humorless gloom and doom climate scientist.

    No surprise either that MrCombust misrepresents what she actually says in the CNN interview. She chuckles at the interviewer's question about climate scientists like her being accused of "rolling in the dough," and points out that she received no extra compensation for helping write the US government report beyond her salary at Texas Tech University.

  57. #1257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Katharine Hayhoe was not someone I was previously aware of. But after listening to the interview, I can see why climate change deniers feel threatened by her. She's an excellent communicator and really breaks the stereotype of the humorless gloom and doom climate scientist.

    No surprise either that MrCombust misrepresents what she actually says in the CNN interview. She chuckles at the interviewer's question about climate scientists like her being accused of "rolling in the dough," and points out that she received no extra compensation for helping write the US government report beyond her salary at Texas Tech University.
    It does seem that MrCombust clearly lacks rudimentary listening skills. I heard her say: “I got paid zero dollars to write this report. My my salary would have been exactly the same...” (reference: listen at just past the 4 minute mark in the above CNN sourced video). She said “this” report not “that” report and then clarifies with the salary statement.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2019 at 11:15 AM.

  58. #1258

    Default The TRUTH. Almost forgot! Happy New Year Edmonton! Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019

    Let's kick off 2019 with some science from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics............

    "Has global warming already arrived?

    Highlights

    •The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.
    •The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.
    •The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence.


    Abstract

    The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming(known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature fieldof global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...030?via%3Dihub

    Context of this paper by me............

    Basic global warming theory says that CO2 traps heat. The sun is strongest in the tropics, the troposphere isn't affected by man or other terrestrial influences, satellite data from UAH and RSS track these temperatures daily. The troposphere is where the man made signal should be pronounced. All the climate models predict it. The "hot spot" predicted by global warming theory isn't there. For more information on this particular aspect of climate change google "hot spot" It's the buzzword for this phenomenon.


    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-01-2019 at 05:33 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  59. #1259

    Default

    What? No comment or your biased excerpt above trying to show bias?

    Well, “Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta”, in post 1255 above MrCombust’s commentary included this:


    ...But let's do what Channing's report says anyway, lets apply this fake science, as published in Nature, to the climate scientists who write these reports. Let us do look at "the man behind the curtain"..........

    In this video Katharine Hayhoe laughs at climate skeptics. Even though she's the director of the climate science centre at the University, she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report".
    “she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report". ”

    However, I heard this:

    “I got paid zero dollars to write this report. My my salary would have been exactly the same...”. Well, so maybe she only has the salaried position because of the “climate change” movement. Hard to say. Long before the global warming issue arise there were large numbers of climate scientists studying climate for all kinds of other extremely vital reasons.


    So, naturally we should ask if and what and from whom MrCombust receives(ed) his career income and whether he was a beneficiary of a CO2 emitting entity.

    Me, personally I sure was and as a citizen of Alberta receive many benefits from Alberta’s resource extractions.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2019 at 05:25 PM.

  60. #1260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    What? No comment or your biased excerpt above trying to show bias?

    Well, “Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta”, in post 1255 above MrCombust’s commentary included this:


    ...But let's do what Channing's report says anyway, lets apply this fake science, as published in Nature, to the climate scientists who write these reports. Let us do look at "the man behind the curtain"..........

    In this video Katharine Hayhoe laughs at climate skeptics. Even though she's the director of the climate science centre at the University, she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report".
    “she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report". ”

    However, I heard this:

    “I got paid zero dollars to write this report. My my salary would have been exactly the same...”. Well, so maybe she only has the salaried position because of the “climate change” movement. Hard to say. Long before the global warming issue arise there were large numbers of climate scientists studying climate for all kinds of other extremely vital reasons.


    So, naturally we should ask if and what and from whom MrCombust receives(ed) his career income and whether he was a beneficiary of a CO2 emitting entity.

    Me, personally I sure was and as a citizen of Alberta receive many benefits from Alberta’s resource extractions.
    Just call me old school. You tell me you did a job and got zero dollars for it, I will trust you and assume you got zero dollars for it. If I find out you, your associates, and the University shared in a million dollar grant.......... in my mind you're done.

    I don't think i'm alone in this attitude, especially in Edmonton.

    You're entitled to your opinion.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  61. #1261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    What? No comment or your biased excerpt above trying to show bias?

    Well, “Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta”, in post 1255 above MrCombust’s commentary included this:


    ...But let's do what Channing's report says anyway, lets apply this fake science, as published in Nature, to the climate scientists who write these reports. Let us do look at "the man behind the curtain"..........

    In this video Katharine Hayhoe laughs at climate skeptics. Even though she's the director of the climate science centre at the University, she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report".
    “she scoffs at the notion she's making money working as a climate scientist. And at 4:10 she says with a straight face "I got paid zero dollars to write that report". ”

    However, I heard this:

    “I got paid zero dollars to write this report. My my salary would have been exactly the same...”. Well, so maybe she only has the salaried position because of the “climate change” movement. Hard to say. Long before the global warming issue arise there were large numbers of climate scientists studying climate for all kinds of other extremely vital reasons.


    So, naturally we should ask if and what and from whom MrCombust receives(ed) his career income and whether he was a beneficiary of a CO2 emitting entity.

    Me, personally I sure was and as a citizen of Alberta receive many benefits from Alberta’s resource extractions.
    Just call me old school. You tell me you did a job and got zero dollars for it, I will trust you and assume you got zero dollars for it. If I find out you, your associates, and the University shared in a million dollar grant.......... in my mind you're done.

    I don't think i'm alone in this attitude, especially in Edmonton.

    You're entitled to your opinion.
    You provided no information on the grant to allow people to make a judgement on any potential vested interests. Every proponent and critic should likely be scrutinized as to their sources of funding and any financially driven bias those funding sources might instill? I asked for yours but you haven’t provided any yet. Also, your anti-global-warming sources should be scrutinized. Do you do that?

    You also provided the quote above which cut short of her very pertinent and immediately following remark. Such selective editing is a practice that I find to be a sleazy form of manipulation.

    So. Was the grant mentioned in the CNN interview?
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2019 at 07:19 PM.

  62. #1262

    Default

    Interesting:

    Is federal funding biasing climate research? | Climate Etc.
    https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/i...mate-research/

  63. #1263

    Default The TRUTH. Kids are walking out of school

    As usual the climate fools scream "science", but completely ignore it.

    Now they get their kids to march, skip school, and lecture at the Davos economic summit.

    Here's Greta Thunberg, lecturing at the Davos economic summit, telling everybody we're all going to die. She's a 16 year old girl from Sweden. Not sure how Greta got to Davos, but we all know how the summit leaders and their entourages got there, don't we?

    All this does is remind me of the Salem witch trials. Fake science from kids now. Obviously, someone has put Greta in a position to tell all the standard climate lies. Greta has no idea what would happen if her, and her family, no longer had access to home heating in Sweden.

    Here's Greta Thunberg lecturing to our world leaders.............She says "our house is on fire", and........ "we only have 12 years left to save the planet". Didn't we already have 12 years left to save the planet 12 years ago? There are now literally hundreds of these dire, point of no return, warnings over the last 30 years. Every year another warning, every year, another chance.



    And here's some actual science, a tide gauge from Stockholm. Sweden, where Greta is from. Sea level has been dropping, as in NOT RISING, actually DROPPING, there for 100 years..........
    I didn't see Greta present this as evidence of climate change..........

    Last edited by MrCombust; 02-02-2019 at 11:52 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  64. #1264
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^What is the source for the above graph?

    Curious because when we first visited Stockholm a few summers back, I had assumed it was on or very close to the Baltic Sea. It's actually a half day's power boat ride from the Baltic on a waterway that connects a large freshwater lake to the Baltic.

    Moreover, the graph appears to show there has been a 30 to 40 centimetre drop in sea level over the past 130 years. That a drop of over a foot which is a lot and makes me wonder whether this could be due to causes other than climate change.

  65. #1265

    Default The TRUTH. Where do kids get their fake science from?

    Adults.

    1 million views on youtube
    Science, from astrophysicist Neil deGrass Tyson.
    Enjoy.

    This nitwit slams skeptics for CHERRY PICKING...............

    ".........when they wanna CHERRY PICK one scientific result, or another..........'
    ".......the press will find a single paper and say here's a new truth................."

    Then CHERRY PICKS a single, normal, weather event......... rain caused by a hurricane.................

    "....................50 inches of rain in Houston.........."

    And then presents it as irrefutable evidence CO2 is affecting the climate.

    "..........this is a shot across our bow...................."
    "..........what will it take?...................................'

    Then lies................

    "........the consensus of scientific experiments, and scientific observation..........."

    There are no scientific experiments that can verify feedbacks will amplify the minor effect of CO2 in the future.
    There is no scientific observation CO2 affects temperature, it cannot be isolated from all the other factors.
    There is no scientific observation feedbacks will amplify the minor effect of CO2 in the future.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  66. #1266

    Default The TRUTH. -27 is the high today. It's cold, because of global warming.

    More "science" from Nicole Mortillaro, Senior Writer, Science and Technology — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation...........

    "
    The fact is, it's climate change, or global warming, that's behind this extreme cold."


    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...rtex-1.4998820


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  67. #1267
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^Have to agree with you on this.

    Attributing every weather extreme (hot or cold) to global warming is just lazy journalism and probably bad science. And the jet stream has always been pretty wavy. Noted weathercaster Bill Matheson liked to warn us about "that most dreaded of meteorological phenomena, the Siberian High." That's likely a more credible explanation for what befell the Midwestern US earlier this week and us at the moment than Ms. Mortillaro's "science."

    Now will you please post the source for the chart in #1263 above.

  68. #1268

    Default

    Right click image, inspect or view source...

    The source is:

    https://www.psmsl.org/

  69. #1269
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    ^Thanks. It's a common courtesy to provide links to charts and data of which you are not the author.

    Did some googling and found that post-glacial land uplift is the explanation for why the land masses of Sweden and Finland are rising more quickly than sea levels:

    “Globally sea level rises by about three millimeters per year in the last decade, whereas the land uplift, the post-glacial uplift in Scandinavia for example, reaches up to nine millimeters per year, so it is about three times faster than the sea level is rising at the maximum“, says Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University and Head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. „That is why many places, especially around Scandinavia, experience relative sea level drop.“

    The fact that the land in Finland is rising at the same rate as the sea or even faster means that sea level is dropping everywhere along the coastline. The same goes for Finlands neighboring country, Sweden, where land is rising at similar rates. This is causing problems along the coastlines of these countries such as for the shipping industries in the area. „The conditions for sea transportation in the area is getting more tricky“, says Sven Knutsson, professor of Soil Mechanics at Luleå University of Technology.

    https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stor...are-drying-out
    There has been lots of research published about post-glacial land uplift in countries bordering the Baltic Sea. Which again proves MrCombust's agenda in posting the Stockholm sea level chart in #1263 was not intended to inform, but rather to mislead.

  70. #1270

    Default

    common courtesy would be okay if you didn't want people to easily fact check you, and see that you are very selectively choosing very minute points of data and claiming the entire set of data is wrong because of a minor decrepancy being fixed, and claiming it was all fudged, believe me, I typed TRUTH in capital letters and can't have any sort of AGENDA behind my posts.

  71. #1271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^Have to agree with you on this.

    Attributing every weather extreme (hot or cold) to global warming is just lazy journalism and probably bad science. And the jet stream has always been pretty wavy. Noted weathercaster Bill Matheson liked to warn us about "that most dreaded of meteorological phenomena, the Siberian High." That's likely a more credible explanation for what befell the Midwestern US earlier this week and us at the moment than Ms. Mortillaro's "science."

    Now will you please post the source for the chart in #1263 above.
    So this is bad science? But NASA fudging the temperature record up half a degree is good science? Perhaps you could share with the forum how you distinguish the good science from the bad science?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #1272

    Default

    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?

  73. #1273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  74. #1274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    It's Alberta. Of course there are people that deny man made climate change. Of course there are deniers in other provinces and countries as well but the denial is particularly strong in oil producing regions.

  75. #1275
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,281

    Default

    It's almost like there is an economic incentive not to believe it.

  76. #1276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    It's almost like there is an economic incentive not to believe it.
    As opposed to climate scientists who do research for free in their spare time. Katharine Hayhoe gets paid zero dollars to do climate reports for the government. She said so as she laughs at climate skeptics in the video I posted. These climate scientists are such saints! But where does all the billions of dollars in funding go if they're all working for free?

    I'm a skeptic so I won't be doing it but you guys should take up a collection for Katharine Hayhoe. I'm sure researching and writing that report took many, many hours and she didn't get a dime of the million dollar grant earmarked to produce it. At least, that's what she said. And you guys believe her, right?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 06-02-2019 at 11:30 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  77. #1277
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,281

    Default

    Again I think you may be deluding yourself if you think the profits from climate research are in any way comparable to energy production profits. Yes, research has to be funded somehow surprisingly, people have to make money so they can continue to live, and continue doing research. Did you know that charities get grants too, and people make money in the non-profit industry? Shocking I know.

    If these scientists were simply chasing the biggest dollar, there is quite a few industries that would be willing to pay top dollar to "show" that climate change doesn't exist. Real Estate developers, property owners, oil companies, coal companies, even most governments benefit from it not being real. If you think this is a false industry that has been created for profit, don't you think that maybe it would have been quickly squashed by irrefutable proof funded by these industries who are hurt by it's existence? That scientists would be on to the next make money quick scheme?

    Oh wait, now even oil companies are now admitting climate change is real, what possible reason could they have to do that? Maybe they realize it will actually hurt their long term profits. Or maybe it's because the paycheck from BIG CLIMATE finally came in the mail. I guess we'll never know.

    Yes I decided to write a post dripping in sarcasm instead of posting actually statistics, but what's the point? This will be equally ineffective, but at least I had fun with it.

  78. #1278
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I'm a skeptic so I won't be doing it but you guys should take up a collection for Katharine Hayhoe. I'm sure researching and writing that report took many, many hours and she didn't get a dime of the million dollar grant earmarked to produce it. At least, that's what she said. And you guys believe her, right?
    Yes I believe her. And so should you unless you have evidence to the contrary.

    University professors with relevant expertise being seconded to work on major government research projects while receiving zero compensation beyond their academic salary is actually the norm.

  79. #1279

    Default The TRUTH. Trudeau and McKenna may reach a new level of dingbat.

    "The government also holds out the prospect of purchasing international credits to fulfill its United Nations commitment. In a graph provided to the provinces and obtained by The Globe and Mail, Ottawa said it will work at the UN to establish the rules for international trading. "Once [the rules are] established, we will evaluate both the need for and opportunity of utilizing international credits," it said.Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said the pan-Canadian plan "gets to our targets," though she acknowledged some of the carbon cuts will be secured through trading international emissions credits, including with California.
    While the measures are costly, "the costs of inaction on climate change are much greater," Ms. McKenna said in an interview from Nanjing, China, before flying back to Ottawa for the talks."


    Yes Ladies and Gentlemen of Alberta and Edmonton. Canadians may be buying "carbon credits" (whatever they are?) from international institutions to pay for our carbon sins. The money will be raised by a carbon tax, no doubt. So you'll be getting taxed, and the money will be sent to ??????????? who knows. And for what?

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle33267047/
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #1280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.

  81. #1281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Sounds like MrCombust. She also doesn't believe that Islamophobia is a thing either.

    Gatineau councillor questioned evidence Earth is round
    Coun. Nathalie Lemieux questioned existence of Islamophobia last week

    "In an online comment two weeks ago, Lemieux suggested there is a conspiracy to eliminate evidence that the Earth is flat.

    "Who decided that the Earth is round, and why should we believe it?" she asked.


    "The first question to ask" she wrote, "is now that people realize that it's possible that the Earth is flat, why do they want to hide the explanations that prove it." She also wondered how much money is diverted to NASA and said she does not believe anything on the news, preferring to conduct her own research.


    "The world is a stage and several actors are amusing themselves at our expense thinking they are more intelligent than us," she wrote.


    Lemieux's assistant confirmed Tuesday that the councillor made the comments, which appeared under a news article about YouTube clamping down on videos promoting conspiracy theories. She said Lemieux was not available for an interview."

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ound-1.5007009

  82. #1282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Well that was a short dialog. It took you one post to pull out the usual climate advocate tactics.

    Here's your assignment if you're interested. Define the term "climate change" for the context of discussion. Based on your flippancy above, i doubt you'll be able to do this. And we can't discuss climate change if we don't define it, can we?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  83. #1283

    Default

    Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)

    This cold snap is cold, but doesn't disprove global warming or climate change.

  84. #1284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)

    This cold snap is cold, but doesn't disprove global warming or climate change.
    You defined it, then used a different definition in your statement. Nobody disputes your first definition of climate change. Nobody disputes the climate changes. In your statement you changed the definition to inherently include man is the cause.

    Try again if you like.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  85. #1285
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Nobody disputes the climate changes.
    Which is why I avoid using the term 'climate change' whenever possible. Climate change can be twisted to mean almost anything including global cooling.

    If forced to use only two words, I prefer 'global warming.'

    Better yet and more precise is the four word descriptor 'human-caused global warming.' If there is a preference to include a reference to climate, 'human-induced climate warming' is also OK.

  86. #1286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)

    This cold snap is cold, but doesn't disprove global warming or climate change.
    You defined it, then used a different definition in your statement. Nobody disputes your first definition of climate change. Nobody disputes the climate changes. In your statement you changed the definition to inherently include man is the cause.

    Try again if you like.
    It's like running into a wall with you. I've proven many times over, using many different sources, to show you that man is a leading cause in climate change we are currently witnessing.

    Please spend some time here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



  87. #1287

    Default

    more stuff to ignore MrCombust:

    A blanket around the Earth


    A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).
    Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
    Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."
    Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:


    • Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.


    • Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.


    • Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.


    • Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.


    • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

    Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
    Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
    On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.
    The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

    • On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.


    • Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.


    • A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.


    • Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

    The role of human activity

    In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
    The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.
    The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...licymakers.pdf.
    Solar irradiance

    It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
    Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
    But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

    • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.


    • If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.


    • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.



    References






  88. #1288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)

    This cold snap is cold, but doesn't disprove global warming or climate change.
    You defined it, then used a different definition in your statement. Nobody disputes your first definition of climate change. Nobody disputes the climate changes. In your statement you changed the definition to inherently include man is the cause.

    Try again if you like.
    It's like running into a wall with you. I've proven many times over, using many different sources, to show you that man is a leading cause in climate change we are currently witnessing.
    You're the wall. You didn't answer the question. I suspect you don't understand anything you cut and paste. So you never actually answer any questions posed. Your posts amount to an appeal to authority. "Cuz NASA says."

    Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy called "(argumentum ab auctoritate".

    So you didn't answer the question and then added a logical fallacy.

    It's not convincing, and it's not a discussion. I'm not here to out cut'n-paste you. I'm here to discuss the science.




    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-02-2019 at 12:38 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  89. #1289

    Default

    I answered the question. I'm sorry you can't read the answer. Maybe you are confusing me with Edmonton Daily Photo. Please don't do that.

    Do you have a problem with the answer I supply you? Is there a problem with the source of my information? Are you saying that you never cut and paste stuff into this thread? You seem to be moving goal posts anytime someone respond to you with facts like I have.

    there's no denying man-made CO2 emissions are a leading cause of our current climate change.

    If you decide to respond to this post, please quote it entirely.

    Also, onus probandi

  90. #1290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I answered the question. I'm sorry you can't read the answer. Maybe you are confusing me with Edmonton Daily Photo. Please don't do that.

    Do you have a problem with the answer I supply you? Is there a problem with the source of my information? Are you saying that you never cut and paste stuff into this thread? You seem to be moving goal posts anytime someone respond to you with facts like I have.

    there's no denying man-made CO2 emissions are a leading cause of our current climate change.

    If you decide to respond to this post, please quote it entirely.

    Also, onus probandi
    You make so many logical errors in your posts it overwhelms the topic, and the point. That's why I usually don't respond to you.

    I don't dispute your definition of climate change. And I don't dispute the climate changes. Your definition did not include any reference to man.

    So if that's your definition of "climate change", then we're done.

    If you think the climate is changing due to man's influence, or you think the climate WILL change in the future. Then define that aspect of climate change.

    After all, if you can't even define man made climate change, how can you possibly prove it's happening?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-02-2019 at 01:34 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  91. #1291
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    You make so many logical errors in your posts it overwhelms the topic, and the point. That's why I usually don't respond to you.
    Ahahahahah that's hilarious. Most of what you post has a hint of irony, but this just takes the cake.

  92. #1292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    You make so many logical errors in your posts it overwhelms the topic, and the point. That's why I usually don't respond to you.
    Ahahahahah that's hilarious. Most of what you post has a hint of irony, but this just takes the cake.
    This is the problem when I respond to posts. You guys love to jump in, pile on, name-calling, insults, mockery...........

    It destroys the discussion, because it's not a discussion.

    The irony for me is that you hold yourselves in such high regard. You defenders of science. LOL
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  93. #1293

    Default

    Post 1287

    Maybe you can tell me what you have issue with in my replies instead of telling me logical fallacy. Yes, I copy/pasted something. Is there something wrong with that? You do it all the time.

  94. #1294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    You make so many logical errors in your posts it overwhelms the topic, and the point. That's why I usually don't respond to you.
    Ahahahahah that's hilarious. Most of what you post has a hint of irony, but this just takes the cake.
    This is the problem when I respond to posts. You guys love to jump in, pile on, name-calling, insults, mockery...........

    It destroys the discussion, because it's not a discussion.

    The irony for me is that you hold yourselves in such high regard. You defenders of science. LOL
    Defenders of science? you mean TRUTH...

  95. #1295

    Default

    Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm here to present you some more TRUTH... if you can handle it.

    1. "CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. IT’S A GREEN GAS WHICH PLANTS, CROPS AND TREES NEED TO GROW."

    This is true, but in the context of climate change, this is misinformed.
    Yes, plants need carbon dioxide (CO2) for photosynthesis as humans need oxygen for respiration. In fact, the world’s forests store and cycle huge amounts of carbon. However, there’s a limit to the amount that they can be stored in any given woodland area, and with deforestation increasing this limit is getting lower. CO2 itself does not cause problems; it is part of the natural global ecosystem. The problem is caused by the quantity being released by human activity: there hasn’t been this level of CO2 in the atmosphere for 800,000 years.
    Our carbon emissions are contributing to the greenhouse effect – trapping heat and making the Earth warmer.




    2. "CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN HERE AT LEAST 5 MILLION YEARS, YOU FOOLS!"

    In its basic sense, this statement is true (except for the last part, which they must obviously be mistaken about!) The Earth’s climate does go through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our current warming being experienced is completely out of sync with previous cycles – it is so much higher!
    However – and it’s a big, however – when people talk about climate change today they mean anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, this is how the Earth’s average temperature is warming because of human activities such as burning coal, oil and gas for energy and cutting down trees to make way for agriculture. Climate change is currently happening to an extent that cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Global temperatures have been rising for over a century, accelerating in the past 30 years, and are now the highest since records began.
    The global scientific community widely agrees that the warming we are experiencing is man-made… you fools!




    3. "A FEW DEGREES DON’T MATTER."

    During the last ice age, which ended 12,000 years ago, the world's average temperature was only 4-5°C cooler than it is today. Yet those few degrees have made a drastic difference: parts of Britain were under a mile of ice, and sea levels were about 100 metres lower than they currently are.
    Just a few degrees can have very dramatic effects, and what's happening now is at a far greater rate than we've ever seen. More importantly, we know that it's largely caused by human activity.
    We’ve seen just over 1°C over the last century and we’re seeing real effects and impacts of climate change on nature and people all over the world – most recently, in the UK, in extreme weather, both very cold and very hot. To avoid the worst impacts, we need to keep the already unavoidable rise to 1.5°C. We can do that by cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the energy we produce, the buildings we live in, the way we travel, the products we manufacture and the food we eat.




    4. "POLAR BEARS HAVE INCREASED THEIR NUMBERS. THEY HAVE OBVIOUSLY BENEFITTED FROM CLIMATE CHANGE."

    This is not true. Climate change is the most serious threat faced by the planet’s biggest land-based carnivores. The Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average, and the sea ice is melting earlier and forming later each year. This makes it more difficult for females to get onto land in late autumn to make their dens, and onto the sea ice in spring to feed. In parts of the Arctic, bears are struggling without food for longer than previously. This fasting dramatically reduces their body weight, which in turn reduces their chance of surviving the summer season.
    Loss of sea ice also threatens polar bears' main prey, seals, which depend on sea ice to raise their young and rest. Polar bears are considered 'vulnerable' in the IUCN red list of threatened species, with between 22,000 and 31,000 remaining in the wild. And their numbers are predicted to decline by 30% by the middle of this century. As the top predator in the Arctic food chain, it is vital to protect these creatures to ensure that the ecosystem remains balanced.




    5. "WIND FARMS AND SOLAR ARE EXPENSIVE AND INEFFICIENT. NUCLEAR, COAL AND OIL ARE THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY TO PROVIDE FOR OUR ENERGY NEEDS."

    It's a commonly-held belief that renewable energy is expensive, but solar power has been the cheapest form of energy generation (per unit of energy generated) for a long time, onshore wind costs about the same as gas, and offshore wind is now cheaper than nuclear and close to challenging gas too. The costs of renewables have fallen faster than anyone (including our optimistic climate team!) could have predicted.
    There are many misconceptions surrounding this issue; a recent survey found that many people think nuclear power is a cheap source of energy, when in fact it's the most expensive of the currently available forms. Onshore wind is actually the UK’s cheapest power source.
    Pairing renewable energy with improved technology is actually proving to be very good for your bank account! Technology like double glazing and loft insulation may not sound glamorous, but it reduces our bills and helps save the planet at the same time.
    WWF's vision is that we will use 100% renewable energy to provide our energy needs within a generation.




    6. "I THOUGHT A WARMER CLIMATE BROUGHT LESS NASTY WEATHER."

    Global warming will mean nicer weather in the UK, more Indian summers and less of our British drizzle... right?
    You might be forgiven for believing so, with this still being a very common myth about climate change. The truth is far more complicated than that – and it bodes less well for your holiday plans. The rise in global temperatures that we're experiencing is caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions and affects weather patterns and ecosystems in complex ways, making storms, floods, droughts and other extreme events more likely.
    Global warming means more extreme, erratic, unpredictable weather.
    For the UK, we could see less seasonal weather, with colder winters, more intense heatwaves that last longer and wetter more intense summers. Met Office data shows that climate change makes disasters like Storm Desmond seven times more likely in the UK. We’ve seen evidence in 2018 already in Europe with the ‘beast from the east’ extreme cold-snap earlier this year, and right around the northern hemisphere this summer, with a heatwave that broke temperature records all over the place.




    7. "WHY IS THE WWF TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?"

    Many people ask us why WWF is so involved in tackling climate change. Shouldn’t we just stick to saving wildlife, like tigers and pandas?
    Here's the stark truth: one in six species is at risk of extinction because of climate change if we don't get things under control. Those species are the ones we’re perhaps most familiar with – penguins and polar bears, for example. But it’s true of species we see here in the UK, too. Puffins are threatened by climate change, as their prey migrate to colder waters and it becomes harder for them to source enough food to raise their chicks. It’s a similar story for lots of UK seabirds, and this is partly why their numbers have plummeted in recent years.
    At WWF our job is to improve the relationship between people and the natural world. Right now, climate change is putting pressure on both, and it affects all the work we do. If we solved every other threat to wildlife but ignored climate change, we’d have wasted our time tackling those other threats!




    8. "EVERYTHING IS AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT THINGS ADAPT!"

    This one isn't a myth, Darwin got the adaptation part right. But let’s clarify the wording: everything is affected by climate change, and some things adapt.
    To survive, plants, animals and birds confronted with climate change have two options: move or adapt. There are several examples of species that have begun to adapt to climate change already.
    But increasingly it's a different story for many. With the speed of climate change we are experiencing already, it’s becoming impossible for many species to adapt quickly enough to keep up with their changing environment. And, as habitats are destroyed by roads, cities and dams, moving becomes increasingly difficult. If you can’t adapt quickly enough, and you can’t move – then you die.




    9. "GLOBAL WARMING WAS MADE UP AS A WAY TO MAKE MONEY."

    Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; if it was a conspiracy by one group, then why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 97% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.
    Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and it's our responsibility to tackle it urgently. The time has gone for us to pass this problem onto the next generation; we must face up to this now.




    10. THE ONLY WAY THIS PLANET WILL SURVIVE IS US HUMANS GETTING WIPED OUT.

    This, we firmly believe, is wrong. It’s easy to start feeling that we've gone too far already and that the best thing for our planet would be the extinction of the human race.
    It's WWF's mission to build a world where people and nature thrive together. The technology and systems we need to move to 100% renewable energy by 2050 and use our planet's resources sustainably are already available.
    Humans and wildlife can benefit each other. We can learn to live in harmony with the natural world.
    Let's do it!




    Climate change is complicated. We know that. That’s why we’re making as much noise about it as possible.



    Source:
    https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-about-climate-change

    (you should always add a source, so people can see where your data is coming from, and your agenda or bias)
    Last edited by Medwards; 07-02-2019 at 02:25 PM.

  96. #1296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm here to present you some more TRUTH... if you can handle it.
    Forum Rules and Guidelines

    Rules



    1. Descriptive subject lines and research into your posts are encouraged. These simple procedures reduce the chance of duplicate posts and ensure that other members can read items that they find important and ignore the rest.




    1. No commercial-oriented posts (spam), and no flooding with useless content........................
    2. When posting newspaper articles, only post the first 150 words followed by a link to the article's source.


    Posting Guidelines

    1. When posting images be considerate of people who have slower computers and connections that you. Try and keep large gallerys off site or else at least warn in the thread title if there are many images.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  97. #1297

    Default

    awhhh sounds like the TRUTH hurts.

    go ahead, report my post if you think there is an issue with it. It's not spam, its not flooding with useless content, its not a newspaper article either but it is sourced (unlike most of your thousand+ of posts on this thread) Images are allowed.
    Last edited by Medwards; 07-02-2019 at 03:41 PM.

  98. #1298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Are we still trying to deny man influenced climate change here?

    Did I stumble into 4 chan?
    Climate change is a hoax. I look forward to educating you.
    Ok sure... how about we start with the true shape of the earth...

    Mark grabs the popcorn and sits back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    awhhh sounds like the TRUTH hurts.

    go ahead, report my post if you think there is an issue with it. It's not spam, its not flooding with useless content, its not a newspaper article either but it is sourced (unlike most of your thousand+ of posts on this thread) Images are allowed.
    You couldn't answer my question. Logical fallacies. Mockery. And now abusing the forum.

    In the name of fake piety and fake science. You exemplify climate science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  99. #1299

    Default

    I have answered your question. Several times on this thread. Maybe take a look in the mirror with your "Logical fallacies. Mockery. And now abusing the forum. In the name of fake piety and fake science. You exemplify climate science."

    You seem to have problems reading, which explains a lot in this thread... however I'm not the user you keep quoting, Edmonton Daily Photo.

  100. #1300

    Default

    LOL @ the Green New Deal from Cortez. Even Pelosi is starting to distance herself from this loon

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •