Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 801 to 900 of 1168

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you dont seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They arent expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be wrong as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

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

  2. #802

    Default

    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm

  3. #803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    My post was about cyclones.
    Correction. Your post was about cyclones in a very select cherry-picked point of time.


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Predictions about them were wrong.
    If you allow only the minute amount of data you've cherry picked, you're correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Changing the cherrypicked IS debunking my post.
    yup, ftfy. Notice the small edit


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.
    too late
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    okay! Lets talk.

  5. #805
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's a good resource for you MrCombust: http://www.pickyourown.org/CNALedmonton.htm
    My post was about cyclones. Predictions about them were wrong. Changing the topic isn't debunking my post.

    My post about cyclones cannot be debunked.

    How about hurricanes? You guys want to talk about hurricanes next?
    do we want to talk about hurricanes next? probably not.

    not to insult the hurricanes along with the cyclones but we're probably just not ready to respond to your version of the TRUTH about hurricanes quite yet.

    at this point, we're simply overloaded and just can't handle the TRUTH.

    maybe we just need some time to take a break if you're willing to give us that. say for a couple of years?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #806

    Default The TRUTH about fake carbon credits.

    Ontario has created a fake financial product called "carbon credits". They will do nothing for the environment and are worthless except... companies will be forced to buy and trade them under the cap and trade rules.

    Alberta is next.

    https://business.financialpost.com/o...-can-feel-good

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

  7. #807
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.

  8. #808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  9. #809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    [...] My posts can't be un-bunked.
    ftfy
    Tropical cyclones are declining. The climate models predicted more.

    The climate models are wrong.

    Pretending that is debunked doesn't make it debunked.

    Climate advocates are fascinating.
    Something you dont seem to understand is that forecasting models are almost never right. They arent expected to be right and no professional in any forecast dependent field would ever make 100% forecast dependent decisions.

    Moreover, forecast models are rarely totally wrong either. They are a compilation of selected, necessarily and methodologically limited and certainly not comprehensive historical information and data which then is likely further modified throughout with adjustments, assumptions and and formulas, regressions, etc based on history and employ assumptions and proven rules to project forward. At some level they will very likely be getting something right and something wrong.

    Your own views of the future will also entail you making and applying historical data and experience you have encountered and then projecting it forward based on assumptions you are making. Any forecasts you make will almost certainly be wrong as well.
    Let me understand you correctly.

    You're admitting tropical cyclones were predicted to increase, and instead they decreased.

    Am I correct?
    I have no idea what they were predicting. However I would bet that some parts of their modelling got some things right and some things wrong. Moreover in predicting within any complex system, timing is often wrong. Thats why sometimes longer term predictions often perform better than short term predictions.

    Also, say they got it all wrong. That just means they will have to go back to the drawing board and try again. Thats the nature of science vs ideology.

    The issue of climate change has been distilled down into some simplistic threats that may or may not materialize and may or may not occur according to current predictive timelines. However, there are thousands of models being worked on and a good number of them will yield predictions that cant match reality now but will slowly evolve into useful predictive tools.

    We lived for decades with poor local weather predictions and took them with a grain of salt. Nonetheless we didnt abandon the forecasts but instead stuck with the idea of continuous improvement in such forecasting and today they are far better at short term local weather forecasts.

  10. #810
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    You should probably do some research into the economics of carbon pricing and cap and trade before you say they do nothing.

    But on the other side Ontario is getting rid of the cap and trade thanks to Doug Ford... So hooray for you I guess? Scientific illiteracy wins out again.
    You're absoluty right. Bankrupting all the businesess will reduce CO2 emissions.
    actually there are a number of jurisdictions that have demonstrated exactly the opposite. as scotland phased out the use of coal for electricity generation and home heating and the costs of electricity and natural gas rose to the point where they became unaffordable - effectively bankrupting them - people reverted to cutting and burning peat and drastically increased co2 emissions as a result (along with smog and air pollution).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #811

    Default

    This link below speaks to the issue. Seems pretty clear that their predictive capabilities are limited and they know it. The point is, they are trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t so they basically expect their models to be wrong in some or other fashion.


    Impacts – XIV – Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change 1 – The Science of Doom

    https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/09/24...mate-change-1/

  12. #812

    Default The TRUTH. All time, record high, temperatures recorded......

    here....

    .

    and here...…..

    Last edited by MrCombust; 22-07-2018 at 06:53 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #813
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    ^
    and youre going to tell us these are noteworthy and relevant because???
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #814

    Default The TRUTH. More weather stations recording "global" warming............

    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #815
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    ^
    if youre measuring changes and trends, your baseline doesnt matter. as an example, to use yours, the heat effects at the airport are no different than they were a half century ago so the changes and trends are still valid.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    These stations tell a story. the story that the scientists in charge of measuring temperature data WANT a warming trend in the record, and will do ANYTHING to see that there is one.
    ...
    Please provide the installation dates associated with each photo.

    You conclude that their locations are chosen to increase the temperature record so you must have the dates available to you. Equipment would have been updated over the years but the locations could go back to the 1970s and so that would predate any great conspiracy to choose distorting locations. (I can’t imagine A/C installers would wish to locate their equipment to upwardly bias the data. Well, on the other hand maybe I’m wrong and maybe the A/C industry could actually want to conspire to get people to perceive rising temperatures. It might bring forward sales. Hmmmmm... sorry, I mean hummmm.


    I would imagine weather stations at airports have always been near tarmac, leaky hanger buildings, etc. Older hangers being leakier would have raised surrounding temperatures more. The heat island effect of an A/C unit would only be a few metres and would depend on wind direct but the effect would be towards an upward bias if it had an effect. The effect of tarmac would be quite vast.

    Similarly North America cities have increased physical mass and energy consumption and so related heat dissipation could have increased. This would be offset through dramatically increase in the cooling effect of the maturing forest canopy. Reductions in diesel and other particulates would be providing less heat absorbing material. ...
    Last edited by KC; 23-07-2018 at 09:28 PM.

  17. #817

    Default

    So Mr Combust is your main issue with CO2 causing rising temperatures or with whether there are even rising temperatures?

  18. #818

    Default

    Cold wave reveals potential benefits of urban heat islands -- ScienceDaily

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0723143002.htm

  19. #819

    Default The TRUTH. About the Holocene maximum

    In a previous post Michael Mann debates with skeptics in a video. In the video Michael Mann says it's hotter now than it has been in 10,000 years.

    But there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence about the Holocene maximum. A 3,000 year warm period that ended about 6,000 years ago. In that warm period there was a forest where the 1km thick Athabasca glacier now rests. Here's another paper with evidence Norway was 6 degrees warmer than present. Are all the scientists studying past geological warm periods wrong? Where's Michael Mann's evidence the Holocene maximum never happened? Climate change rests on a parallel universe that ignores known, past warm periods, and known natural variability. How do the climate scientists address all the evidence of past warm periods? They ignore them, and pretend they never happened.

    "The Holocene Thermal Maximum around Svalbard, Arctic North Atlantic; molluscs show early and exceptional warmth"

    "Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6C warmer at around 10.29.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there."

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.


  21. #821

    Default The TRUTH. Another climate change lawsuit thrown out of court

    Seems climate change lawsuits don't pass the bar...……….


    In a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling regarding protestors' violations of an injunction against trespass on the property of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project, Judge Affleck flatly rejected a defence that climate change was a higher obligation than rule of law in the province. (Docket: S183541 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair, 2018 BCSC 1239)


    http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...18BCSC1239.htm
    Last edited by MrCombust; 01-08-2018 at 12:30 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #822
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Uh, I don't think you'll find anyone with a shred of common sense that would take issue with that decision. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual science of climate change.

  23. #823
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Trudeau is rolling back, he'll never meet his targets lol.. While McKenna realises, we don't want to kill business.. Duh!

  24. #824

    Default

    Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...ne-warm-period

  25. #825

    Default The TRUTH. Welcome to the Ordovician period......

    About 450 million years ago........................

    CO2 is 7,000 ppm. compare to 400ppm of today.
    Life is abundant and expands in diversity.
    Tragically, the period ends in a massive extinction event thought to be brought on by falling temperatures.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #826
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Are you claiming that the sun's output and the Earth's orbit were identical half a billion years ago, relative to today?

  27. #827

    Default The TRUTH. about oil in the arctic

    Why is there oil in the arctic?

    Oil in the arctic comes from the extensive, and abundance of life that once was.

    For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise.

    Now we live in a frozen world. During short inter glacial periods, the ice melts and Toronto is NOT covered in 1km of ice.

    The earth is getting colder. In a geological time frame it will soon be a frozen ball.

    Maybe CO2 will slow the process. The advocates of "climate change" don't want that.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Why is there oil in the arctic?

    Oil in the arctic comes from the extensive, and abundance of life that once was.

    For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise.

    Now we live in a frozen world. During short inter glacial periods, the ice melts and Toronto is NOT covered in 1km of ice.

    The earth is getting colder. In a geological time frame it will soon be a frozen ball.

    Maybe CO2 will slow the process. The advocates of "climate change" don't want that.
    “For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. “

    I’d say not the North Pole.

    But many would agree that Torontoians can be very cold people.



    Now you’ve got me curious as to when the arctic arrived in the north.
    Last edited by KC; 07-08-2018 at 10:57 AM.

  29. #829
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    He apparently doesn't know the difference between billions and millions, either. Complex life has only existed on the planet for half a billion years.

  30. #830
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Came across this blog post that shows just one of the many ways "skeptics" will cherry pick and skew data to suit their ends: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/

  31. #831

    Default The TRUTH. Skeptics and cherry picking

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Came across this blog post that shows just one of the many ways "skeptics" will cherry pick and skew data to suit their ends: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08...-i-sucker-you/
    You can tell advocates 100 times skeptics don't dispute the earth has warmed. I've said this in a number of my posts here. Same argument again, and again. Marcel and his liar blog endlessly knocking down a strawman of what I DIDN'T say.

    But when NOAA tricks you by fudging the data higher, it's "science"

    Last edited by MrCombust; 09-08-2018 at 02:59 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  32. #832
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?

  33. #833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #834
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    I <3 the irony in all your posts.

  35. #835
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    Nah, I grasp them just fine. You specifically said "For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. " That's a direct quote. I ask again, how could it have been a tropical paradise for billions of years when complex life has only existed for roughly half a billion? "Tropical paradise" indicates jungles and palm trees and so on, when it would have in fact been barren with only the most basic of single cell archaea present and an un-oxygenated atmosphere up until 500 million years ago. No plant life whatsoever.

  36. #836

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Care to comment on how for "billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise" when complex life didn't even exist until 500 million years ago? Or how the Earth's orbit and Sun's output were completely different 450 million years ago, making any straight line comparisons between CO2 levels then and now totally irrelevant?
    No, you don't respond to what I actually say. You seem unable to grasp simple concepts.
    Nah, I grasp them just fine. You specifically said "For billions of years the north pole was a tropical paradise. " That's a direct quote. I ask again, how could it have been a tropical paradise for billions of years when complex life has only existed for roughly half a billion? "Tropical paradise" indicates jungles and palm trees and so on, when it would have in fact been barren with only the most basic of single cell archaea present and an un-oxygenated atmosphere up until 500 million years ago. No plant life whatsoever.
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  37. #837
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.

  38. #838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.
    The simple concepts I'm referring to, that you don't understand, is that your spell checking, confusion about metaphores, and off topic corrections, in no way disputes my posts about climate change, nor does it prove I'm "profoundly ignorant". But yes, once again I'm embarrassed about trying to have an intelligent discussion with a climate advocate.

    And if spell checking is all you have to refute my posts I suppose I have my own little victory.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 10-08-2018 at 02:29 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  39. #839

    Default The TRUTH. Research paper on radiative forcing over Antarctica, CO2 may be causing cooling

    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


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

  40. #840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


    Very interesting, thank you.

    You do realize though that the findings of the paper actually support the idea that the overall global result of the greenhouse effect is positive, i.e. it causes warming?

    Considering the global distribution of the GHE as determined from satellite (figure 2.5) and from the CMIP5 historical model runs (figure 2.27) confirms that negative values of GHE only occur over the East Antarctic ice sheet. This holds true for monthly and longer averages.

  41. #841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "The Greenhouse Effect with Increasing CO2 Is Cooling Antarctica
    A research paper by the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany presents a radiative analysis of the greenhouse effect over central Antarctica using measurements and models to shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative in central Antarctica. An increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space over central Antarctica, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing CO2 causes some warming only in the portion of the atmosphere (the troposphere) where temperatures decline with altitude so that the radiative emissions from CO2 at higher altitudes are less than at lower altitudes. But the average altitude of the ice surface of Antarctica (over land) is 2126 m, and the ice surface in East Antarctica reaches 4082 m, which puts it above the troposphere. There in the stratosphere, temperatures increase with altitude, so CO2 at higher altitudes emit more radiation, which can escape to space without being re-absorbed, than CO2 nearer the ice surface due to its lower temperature. The temperature trend at the South Pole from 1957 2013 is 0.03 0.12 C, or no significant temperature change. The most negative greenhouse effect occurs in autumn with its peak in March, which is also the season with the strongest surface cooling.

    From the paper......

    "
    In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling."

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/1/BzPM_0692_2015.pdf


    Very interesting, thank you.

    You do realize though that the findings of the paper actually support the idea that the overall global result of the greenhouse effect is positive, i.e. it causes warming?

    Considering the global distribution of the GHE as determined from satellite (figure 2.5) and from the CMIP5 historical model runs (figure 2.27) confirms that negative values of GHE only occur over the East Antarctic ice sheet. This holds true for monthly and longer averages.
    Yes, I do. The tagline at the bottom of every one of my posts addresses climate sensitivity. It's basic climate science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  42. #842
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,355

    Default

    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  43. #843

    Default

    The three types of people around:

    (a) global warming is a fake designed to increase immoral taxation through the carbon tax

    (b) global warming is real, but the carbon tax is against my human rights

    (c) global warming is real, but the carbon tax won't do anything about it and should therefore be abolished.

    All tax-evading politics, nothing else. Which kind are you?

    (PS. If you think not only that global warming is real but that something politically strong should be done about it, then you are a dangerous radical and are best *********.)

  44. #844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    What about the empirical evidence CO2 is enhancing plant growth all over the world? That's a result of burning fossil fuels. It's a fact, and it's not going away.

    But you're right, if global warming is happening, over population is the source of the problem. Over population is the source of just about every environmental problem.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  45. #845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Since you really want to get an answer to this I'll address it. However the topic of this discussion thread is global warming. If you want to discuss paleology please start a new discussion thread and I'll address it there.
    Nah, I'll just keep demonstrating from time to time how profoundly ignorant you are about pretty much everything in the hopes that eventually you'll give up and stop leaving steaming piles of it here. Now, as for "paleology": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paleology

    the study or knowledge of antiquities and especially prehistoric antiquities
    Swing and a miss! The word you were looking for was "paleontology". That basic spell check you used left you high and dry.
    if anything, any response just encourages him to respond with even more piles

  46. #846
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Yes, I do. The tagline at the bottom of every one of my posts addresses climate sensitivity. It's basic climate science.
    Your misquoted and out of context tagline?

  47. #847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Well my belief about global warming is over population and the use of burning fossil fuels. The world is not flat and does not spin like a controlled top.
    What about the empirical evidence CO2 is enhancing plant growth all over the world? That's a result of burning fossil fuels. It's a fact, and it's not going away.

    But you're right, if global warming is happening, over population is the source of the problem. Over population is the source of just about every environmental problem.
    Where’s this proof? Are you accepting this CO2 greenhouse growth effect idea but rejecting the CO2 greenhouse temperature effect idea?

  48. #848
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    The Last time the Globe warmed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4


    Interesting video that gives insight on the many aspects of climate change, including the causes and effects, and goes into the geological record of how we know what happened.

  49. #849
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,355

    Default

    Good video. The host talks fast and obviously reading from a teleprompter but he makes sense.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #850

    Default The TRUTH. Just another fraudulent climate change video

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    The Last time the Globe warmed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4


    Interesting video that gives insight on the many aspects of climate change, including the causes and effects, and goes into the geological record of how we know what happened.
    Climate advocacy video. Host pretends and reports on a mountain of information from 56 millions of years ago. He can't stop talking about CO2 and blames just about everything that happened on climate change caused by CO2. Like most climate advocacy sales pitches they pretend to have far more certainty than is realistic given the sparce evidence.

    CO2 levels during the Ordovician period were much higher and the CO2 spike was very short while temperatures were high for 100,000's of thousands of years. Basic information like this is left out.

    And its not the last time the earth warmed. During the Eemain warm period, only 130,000 years ago (not 55 million), elephants and hippos roamed England.

    Another fraudulent climate change video.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-08-2018 at 10:58 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  51. #851

    Default The TRUTH. It's not a fairy tale...........

    Ice cores show our warm weather inter glacial period is short. Most of the time the world is much colder. When the period ends, it will end quickly, and the cold will last 100,000 years. Imagine your children, or grandchildren migrating south to survive the relentless winter. Crop failures everywhere in Canada. People think because it's always been warm, that it will always be warm, and they're wrong.

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

  52. #852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Ice cores show our warm weather inter glacial period is short. Most of the time the world is much colder. When the period ends, it will end quickly, and the cold will last 100,000 years. Imagine your children, or grandchildren migrating south to survive the relentless winter. Crop failures everywhere in Canada. People think because it's always been warm, that it will always be warm, and they're wrong.

    Here’s a source plus an interesting discussion:

    Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

    https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

  53. #853

    Default The TRUTH. Just another fraudulent climate change blog.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Ice cores show our warm weather inter glacial period is short. Most of the time the world is much colder. When the period ends, it will end quickly, and the cold will last 100,000 years. Imagine your children, or grandchildren migrating south to survive the relentless winter. Crop failures everywhere in Canada. People think because it's always been warm, that it will always be warm, and they're wrong.

    Heres a source plus an interesting discussion:

    Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

    https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/
    Who cares who they are. Who cares what credentials they have? The people in your link lie about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. They discuss the correlation but fail to mention temperature rises first. It is time the lying stopped. No one can be trusted to evaluate the impact of climate change if they lie.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  54. #854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Ice cores show our warm weather inter glacial period is short. Most of the time the world is much colder. When the period ends, it will end quickly, and the cold will last 100,000 years. Imagine your children, or grandchildren migrating south to survive the relentless winter. Crop failures everywhere in Canada. People think because it's always been warm, that it will always be warm, and they're wrong.

    There are a number of interesting observations that arise from this graph.

    First of all, current CO2 levels of about 400ppm are off the top of the scale of the graph and without precedent in 800,000 years.

    Secondly, there is clearly a tight positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. If the climate were to cool at current CO2 levels then this correlation would suddenly become negative for the first time in 800,000 years.

    Finally, that graph shows a rise in temperatures on the order of 10C correlating with a rise in CO2 levels of about 40%. This argues against the assertion that a doubling of CO2 levels would only cause a rise in temperature of just 1C.

  55. #855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Ice cores show our warm weather inter glacial period is short. Most of the time the world is much colder. When the period ends, it will end quickly, and the cold will last 100,000 years. Imagine your children, or grandchildren migrating south to survive the relentless winter. Crop failures everywhere in Canada. People think because it's always been warm, that it will always be warm, and they're wrong.

    There are a number of interesting observations that arise from this graph.

    First of all, current CO2 levels of about 400ppm are off the top of the scale of the graph and without precedent in 800,000 years.

    Secondly, there is clearly a tight positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. If the climate were to cool at current CO2 levels then this correlation would suddenly become negative for the first time in 800,000 years.

    Finally, that graph shows a rise in temperatures on the order of 10C correlating with a rise in CO2 levels of about 40%. This argues against the assertion that a doubling of CO2 levels would only cause a rise in temperature of just 1C.
    I have addressed your points in previous posts. Opening an umbrella doesn't make it rain. The correlation is the ocean releasing CO2 when it warms, and absorbing CO2 when it cools.

    See post 412, or just look at this graph carefully.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-08-2018 at 03:38 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  56. #856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I have addressed your points in previous posts. Opening an umbrella doesn't make it rain. The correlation is the ocean releasing CO2 when it warms, and absorbing CO2 when it cools.

    See post 412, or just look at this graph carefully.
    I've read all of that: Milankovitch cycles, CO2 rises following temperature rises, low climate sensitivity, etc, etc, etc. However, the existence of any of that does not preclude the possibility of CO2-driven global warming. It's like asking people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer because 10% of lung cancers arise in non-smokers.

  57. #857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    I have addressed your points in previous posts. Opening an umbrella doesn't make it rain. The correlation is the ocean releasing CO2 when it warms, and absorbing CO2 when it cools.

    See post 412, or just look at this graph carefully.
    I've read all of that: Milankovitch cycles, CO2 rises following temperature rises, low climate sensitivity, etc, etc, etc. However, the existence of any of that does not preclude the possibility of CO2-driven global warming. It's like asking people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer because 10% of lung cancers arise in non-smokers.
    You were doing so well. Nothing precludes the possibility unicorns hide under mushrooms. And you can't prove it's not true.

    You need evidence climate change is caused by CO2. CO2 rising after the temperature changes isn't evidence.

    There's no evidence cancer causes smoking. But many people get cancer after they smoke. That suggests smoking causes cancer.

    You gotta be pretty desperate for evidence of climate change if all you have is CO2 rising after the temperature changes. You would do well to find a better argument.

    But there isn't better evidence, is there?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-08-2018 at 08:03 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  58. #858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You were doing so well. Nothing precludes the possibility unicorns hide under mushrooms. And you can't prove it's not true.

    You need evidence climate change is caused by CO2. CO2 rising after the temperature changes isn't evidence.

    There's no evidence cancer causes smoking. But many people get cancer after they smoke. That suggests smoking causes cancer.

    You gotta be pretty desperate for evidence of climate change if all you have is CO2 rising after the temperature changes. You would do well to find a better argument.

    But there isn't better evidence, is there?
    There is, of course, plenty of high-quality evidence of this.

    What I have not seen is you present any reasonable repudiation of this evidence. All I've seen is claims of orchestrated conspiracies, attempted distractions, and outright denials.

  59. #859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You were doing so well. Nothing precludes the possibility unicorns hide under mushrooms. And you can't prove it's not true.

    You need evidence climate change is caused by CO2. CO2 rising after the temperature changes isn't evidence.

    There's no evidence cancer causes smoking. But many people get cancer after they smoke. That suggests smoking causes cancer.

    You gotta be pretty desperate for evidence of climate change if all you have is CO2 rising after the temperature changes. You would do well to find a better argument.

    But there isn't better evidence, is there?
    There is, of course, plenty of high-quality evidence of this.

    What I have not seen is you present any reasonable repudiation of this evidence. All I've seen is claims of orchestrated conspiracies, attempted distractions, and outright denials.
    There are levels of evidence. Conjecture is a low level of evidence. Coincidence is also a low level of evidence. There is no evidence of climate change. But you have to know what is meant by "climate change" before you provide what you think is evidence. The favourite tactic of climate advocates is to keep changing the definition of "climate change" while they discuss it. What definition are you using that you have so much "evidence"?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  60. #860
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You were doing so well. Nothing precludes the possibility unicorns hide under mushrooms. And you can't prove it's not true.

    You need evidence climate change is caused by CO2. CO2 rising after the temperature changes isn't evidence.

    There's no evidence cancer causes smoking. But many people get cancer after they smoke. That suggests smoking causes cancer.

    You gotta be pretty desperate for evidence of climate change if all you have is CO2 rising after the temperature changes. You would do well to find a better argument.

    But there isn't better evidence, is there?
    There is, of course, plenty of high-quality evidence of this.

    What I have not seen is you present any reasonable repudiation of this evidence. All I've seen is claims of orchestrated conspiracies, attempted distractions, and outright denials.
    There are levels of evidence. Conjecture is a low level of evidence. Coincidence is also a low level of evidence. There is no evidence of climate change. But you have to know what is meant by "climate change" before you provide what you think is evidence. The favourite tactic of climate advocates is to keep changing the definition of "climate change" while they discuss it. What definition are you using that you have so much "evidence"?
    ????

    if you are the one professing to present us with The TRUTH about climate change, shouldnt you be the one providing us with the definition you are using to make that claim?

    so far the only thing i have been able to glean from your posts is that the climate is indeed changing but you dont believe co2 has played a role in it and you dont seem to believe that we can or should do anything to limit our contributing to it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  61. #861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    You were doing so well. Nothing precludes the possibility unicorns hide under mushrooms. And you can't prove it's not true.

    You need evidence climate change is caused by CO2. CO2 rising after the temperature changes isn't evidence.

    There's no evidence cancer causes smoking. But many people get cancer after they smoke. That suggests smoking causes cancer.

    You gotta be pretty desperate for evidence of climate change if all you have is CO2 rising after the temperature changes. You would do well to find a better argument.

    But there isn't better evidence, is there?
    There is, of course, plenty of high-quality evidence of this.

    What I have not seen is you present any reasonable repudiation of this evidence. All I've seen is claims of orchestrated conspiracies, attempted distractions, and outright denials.
    There are levels of evidence. Conjecture is a low level of evidence. Coincidence is also a low level of evidence. There is no evidence of climate change. But you have to know what is meant by "climate change" before you provide what you think is evidence. The favourite tactic of climate advocates is to keep changing the definition of "climate change" while they discuss it. What definition are you using that you have so much "evidence"?
    ????

    if you are the one professing to present us with “The TRUTH about climate change”, shouldn’t you be the one providing us with the definition you are using to make that claim?

    so far the only thing i have been able to glean from your posts is that the climate is indeed changing but you don’t believe co2 has played a role in it and you don’t seem to believe that we can or should do anything to limit our contributing to it.
    Since you don't seem to know how science works, I'll explaain it. You propose a theory, then you provide evidence your theory is true. Here's how science doesn't work, you propose a theory, you expect people to believe it, when they can't prove your theory wrong you deem your theory true.

    You presented "evidence" CO2 affects temperature because CO2 rises after temperature rises. This is a grade 10 science class fail. Why shoudnt you provide this as evidence? It comes from NASA, NOAA and other scientific institutions. They are normalizing science stupidity.

    Do you have any evidence feedbacks will amplify the minor warming effect of CO2 in the future? Because that's what climate change is.

    And as for us stopping "climate change" (of which there is no evidence it's happening), if we spent hundreds of billions of dollars, how much would that reduce the temperature rise 100 years from now? What evidence do you have of that?

    And if we did trash our economy how many will die today because so much effort was spent on climate change. And will that solution be better? Because people are dying of starvation today, and you want to save people 100 years from now from an unproven theory?

    How many will not die of starvation because CO2 is increasing crop yields all over the world. What wil be the cost in lives (over a million years) if we put and end to increasing CO2?

    And what if the next ice age comes while we're trying to stop "global warming"? 300 million Americans may regert thier decision when thier farm becomes a frozen arctic tundra. The OP of my post is that this isn't a fairy tale, and it's not.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-08-2018 at 10:48 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #862
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    for all of us that expected deflection and obfuscation and insults instead of an answer, thanks again for not disappointing us and continuing to provide us with regular doses of humour, however unintended, on your part.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  63. #863

    Default


    And what if the next ice age comes while we're trying to stop "global warming"? 300 million Americans may regert thier decision when thier farm becomes a frozen arctic tundra. The OP of my post is that this isn't a fairy tale, and it's not.”

    Well, if not burning fossil fuels will make no difference in the direction the climate is going to change then the main goal of the effort is simply wasted. I can think of all kinds of scientific pursuits that didn’t pan out but they all added to the body of knowledge that could help in surprising ways.

    Now, if another ice age is going to ambush the world, and as the evidence builds, you can expect massive effort by people denying the scientific community’s new consensus. Another Truth about climate cooling thread will be started.

    If a rapid cooling occurs in my lifetime (not due to a nuclear winter), then I will have no regrets. What could be done? How could the world raise the temperatures? Chop down all the new growth caused by CO2?
    Last edited by KC; 19-08-2018 at 03:07 PM.

  64. #864
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    And what if the next ice age comes while we're trying to stop "global warming"? 300 million Americans may regert thier decision when thier farm becomes a frozen arctic tundra. The OP of my post is that this isn't a fairy tale, and it's not.
    Lol whaaaaat. You keep getting more and more ridiculous. "We shouldn't try and stop something that we know is happening, that is having a measured impact on the world, just in case an ice age happens, even though there are zero signs of that happening at all." Truly impressive logic right here.

    Should I also not eat and starve myself instead? You know, since there's always a chance I could get hit by a bus or something, then all that food I ate would have been for nothing.

  65. #865
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,355

    Default

    ^ LOL
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  66. #866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    And what if the next ice age comes while we're trying to stop "global warming"? 300 million Americans may regert thier decision when thier farm becomes a frozen arctic tundra. The OP of my post is that this isn't a fairy tale, and it's not.
    Lol whaaaaat. You keep getting more and more ridiculous. "We shouldn't try and stop something that we know is happening, that is having a measured impact on the world, just in case an ice age happens, even though there are zero signs of that happening at all." Truly impressive logic right here.

    Should I also not eat and starve myself instead? You know, since there's always a chance I could get hit by a bus or something, then all that food I ate would have been for nothing.
    Why are you putting quotes around words I didn't say?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  67. #867
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    ^Why are you putting quotes around words from Wikipedia that they didn't say?

  68. #868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Cartoon knows the TRUTH

  69. #869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Still true today. Easily ignored by tinfoil hat wearing climate change deniers...

  70. #870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "hottest year on record" is used when talking about actual observations made by man since 1850's. Not since the beginning of time. With that out the way, I question the rest of your reasoning, and the language you use make me just disregard everything you have to say. You're not here to debate, your here to pretend like you the expert... What qualifies you more than NASA besides your odd use of capital letters and calling people names? You hide behind an anonmyous user name - but what creditials do you have that would allow me to believe you have any sort of business telling me what the TRUTH is or isnt?
    None. I have no credentials. I recommend you don't believe a word I say. Don't trust my reasoning either, use your own.
    Best advice in this thread (emphasis added by moi)

  71. #871

    Default The TRUTH. The ******* child the IPCC won't speak of

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Still true today. Easily ignored by tinfoil hat wearing climate change deniers...
    The hockey stick graph was published in 2001 in the IPCC third assessment report. The fraud that went into creating the graph was eventualy uncovered. Michael Mann's software would produce a graph like this if you fed it random data. To this day the IPCC never speaks of this graph, and have never again published another one like it. Climate advocates cling to a fraud almost two decades old.

    And below that medwards posts a cartoon graph drawn by a comedian.

    This is what convinced people to demand the Albertan, and Canadian government introduce a $2,000/yr carbon tax.

    And what do you think you get for that $2,000/yr? Ask, and you won't get an answer.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-08-2018 at 12:52 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #872
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Still true today. Easily ignored by tinfoil hat wearing climate change deniers...
    The hockey stick graph was published in 2001 in the IPCC third assessment report. The fraud that went into creating the graph was eventualy uncovered. To this day the IPCC never speaks of this graph, and have never again published another one like it. Climate advocates cling to a fraud almost two decades old.
    How many times do I have to tell you that while some minor statistical errors were pointed out 20 years ago with a single proxy data set, that they didn't impact the overall conclusion to any significant degree and in the ensuing decades dozens of other independent temperature records from other groups have shown basically the exact same thing?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.
    You're flat out lying when you claim that the climate science community "never speaks of this graph, and have never again published another one like it." Or incredibly ignorant. Take your pick. If you make the claim again, we'll know you're a liar, because I'll even provide a handy chronological list of temperature reconstructions for your perusal:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_2,000_years

    Consider yourself informed.

  73. #873
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    And what if the next ice age comes while we're trying to stop "global warming"? 300 million Americans may regert thier decision when thier farm becomes a frozen arctic tundra. The OP of my post is that this isn't a fairy tale, and it's not.
    Lol whaaaaat. You keep getting more and more ridiculous. "We shouldn't try and stop something that we know is happening, that is having a measured impact on the world, just in case an ice age happens, even though there are zero signs of that happening at all." Truly impressive logic right here.

    Should I also not eat and starve myself instead? You know, since there's always a chance I could get hit by a bus or something, then all that food I ate would have been for nothing.
    Why are you putting quotes around words I didn't say?
    Wtf are you talking about it's directly in your post. We can all see it. Are you saying you copy and pasted this fantastic idea from somewhere without crediting it?

  74. #874

    Default

    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...

  75. #875

    Default The TRUTH. The hockey stick graph. Some advocates are lost in a time gone by.

    The original hockey stick graph was published in 2001.

    The IPCC never mentioned it again.

    Try and google "NOAA hockey stick graph", looks like they won't touch it either.

    Let's see what NASA thinks of the hockey stick graph. Have they updated it? What's the latest from NASA?

    "Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information"

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley...olloquium.html

    Some advocates of climate change are lost in time.

    But don't worry fellow Edmontonians and Albertans. You can count on me (and maybe alkeli)to bring you the latest research in climate science.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  76. #876
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    No, it's not ignored. It's just not a significant enough factor to have a noticeable impact. El Nino and even things like large volcanic eruptions often swamp any impact of the solar cycle. 2018 is going to be significantly hotter than 2007, for example. And I'm sure short term climate models take in to account that solar forcing, given that it's so predictable. But in the long term it's essentially irrelevant, given that it moves up and down around an average that's essentially unchanging on the timescales we're talking about (decades or centuries, not millions of years).

    Although studying it's impacts does help to confirm climate sensitivity estimates from other lines of research, which is kind of neat: https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...al-warming.htm
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 20-08-2018 at 02:13 PM.

  77. #877
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    The original hockey stick graph was published in 2001.

    The IPCC never mentioned it again.

    Try and google "NOAA hockey stick graph", looks like they won't touch it either.
    You're fixated on a colloquialism, when nothing of significance has changed in regards to the original graph in updated versions, while also completely ignoring the dozens of other proxy temperature reconstructions that show basically the exact same shape. I've asked you several times about these other temperature records in this thread, and you've continually ignored them. Just like you're doing once again.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    But don't worry fellow Edmontonians and Albertans. You can count on me (and maybe alkeli)to bring you the latest research in climate science.
    Nah, but we can count on you to ignore anything that contradicts your lies and misrepresentations of the actual science.

  78. #878
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    yes... that's it! every scientist and every agency from nasa on down must have forgotten to take the sun's cycles into account.

    sorry, couldn't resist.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  79. #879
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    At least he was honest about one thing at the near outset of the thread in post #36:

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    I'm not going to argue with nonsense you post unless it suits me.

  80. #880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    None. I have no credentials. I recommend you don't believe a word I say. Don't trust my reasoning either, use your own.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    But don't worry fellow Edmontonians and Albertans. You can count on me (and maybe alkeli)to bring you the latest research in climate science.

    ya totally.

  81. #881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    Yes, they're ignoring it. As well as THOUSANDS of other papers that don't support what they want to hear. Liar blogs pretend this research doesn't exist and/or pretend every paper ever written on the sun cycles indicate they're irrelevant. And liar blogs seem to be the only place the advocates look at.

    Looks like you're aware of the extensive research being done on sun cycles that affect climate. In terms of climate variability, it is only one of many areas being researched now.

    It will be interesting what happens, if I'm not mistaken a decades long cooling cycle is being predicted.

    I should post a few of the papers that have been published on this.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-08-2018 at 03:21 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  82. #882
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    Yes, they're ignoring it. As well as THOUSANDS of other papers that don't support what they want to hear. Liar blogs pretend this research doesn't exist and/or pretend every paper ever written on the sun cycles indicate they're irrelevant. And liar blogs seem to be the only place the advocates look at.

    Looks like you're aware of the extensive research being done on sun cycles that affect climate. In terms of climate variability, it is only one of many areas being researched now.

    It will be interesting what happens, if I'm not mistaken a decades long cooling cycle is being predicted.
    I should post a few of the papers that have been published on this.
    emphasis added...

    if??? not much doubt if about it - you are clearly mistaken.

    that's not to say someone isn't predicting it. just that they are likely as credible a source as you have been.

    there's likely even a nostradamus prediction for that post-dating his july 1999 end of the world prophesy so you can claim some sort of historical/pre-liar blog conspiracy accuracy in the prediction.

    so feel free... post away.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  83. #883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    Yes, they're ignoring it. As well as THOUSANDS of other papers that don't support what they want to hear. Liar blogs pretend this research doesn't exist and/or pretend every paper ever written on the sun cycles indicate they're irrelevant. And liar blogs seem to be the only place the advocates look at.

    Looks like you're aware of the extensive research being done on sun cycles that affect climate. In terms of climate variability, it is only one of many areas being researched now.

    It will be interesting what happens, if I'm not mistaken a decades long cooling cycle is being predicted.
    I should post a few of the papers that have been published on this.
    emphasis added...

    if??? not much doubt if about it - you are clearly mistaken.

    that's not to say someone isn't predicting it. just that they are likely as credible a source as you have been.

    there's likely even a nostradamus prediction for that post-dating his july 1999 end of the world prophesy so you can claim some sort of historical/pre-liar blog conspiracy accuracy in the prediction.

    so feel free... post away.
    I already posted links to hundreds of papers that don't support the hockey stick graph. Feel free to read a few of them and debunk them.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  84. #884
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    Yes, they're ignoring it. As well as THOUSANDS of other papers that don't support what they want to hear. Liar blogs pretend this research doesn't exist and/or pretend every paper ever written on the sun cycles indicate they're irrelevant. And liar blogs seem to be the only place the advocates look at.

    Looks like you're aware of the extensive research being done on sun cycles that affect climate. In terms of climate variability, it is only one of many areas being researched now.

    It will be interesting what happens, if I'm not mistaken a decades long cooling cycle is being predicted.
    I should post a few of the papers that have been published on this.
    emphasis added...

    if??? not much doubt if about it - you are clearly mistaken.

    that's not to say someone isn't predicting it. just that they are likely as credible a source as you have been.

    there's likely even a nostradamus prediction for that post-dating his july 1999 end of the world prophesy so you can claim some sort of historical/pre-liar blog conspiracy accuracy in the prediction.

    so feel free... post away.
    I already posted links to hundreds of papers that don't support the hockey stick graph. Feel free to read a few of them and debunk them.
    you didn't say you should post more papers that don't support the hockey stick graph, you said you should post a few of the papers that have been published predicting a decades long cooling cycle.

    to which i responded "post away".

    not that i expect them to be any more credible than your attempts to post links that actually do "debunk the hockey stick graph".

    so once again, feel free... post away.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  85. #885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Is everyone ignoring the 11-year cycle of the sun? We're right in its hottest part of the cycle right now...
    Yes, they're ignoring it. As well as THOUSANDS of other papers that don't support what they want to hear. Liar blogs pretend this research doesn't exist and/or pretend every paper ever written on the sun cycles indicate they're irrelevant. And liar blogs seem to be the only place the advocates look at.

    Looks like you're aware of the extensive research being done on sun cycles that affect climate. In terms of climate variability, it is only one of many areas being researched now.

    It will be interesting what happens, if I'm not mistaken a decades long cooling cycle is being predicted.

    I should post a few of the papers that have been published on this.
    I suppose you're referring to folks like Easterbrook. According to his 1998 projection there should be almost no orange or red on this map. How did that work out for him I wonder?


    Source: http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/

  86. #886

    Default The TRUTH. Obvious fraud in the temperature reconstructions

    In this graph from Berkeley Earth we see that six independent temperature reconstructions match each other to within 0.1 degrees over the past 150 years.

    Yes these are supposed to be independent temperature reconstructions of worldwide temperature.

    These organisations are trying to convey just how accurate their temperature reconstructions are.

    You just have to laugh at something like this. This is obvious collusion and fraud.

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

  87. #887
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,204

    Default

    So you've posted now about how inaccurate the data is, and now you're complaining that it's too accurate. Which is it?

  88. #888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    So you've posted now about how inaccurate the data is, and now you're complaining that it's too accurate. Which is it?
    Rather telling that after more than 300 posts the best possible case against global warming that he can come up with is to present data which unequivocally show... global warming.

  89. #889
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    It's almost like they're all studying the same thing, with different methods and data proxies, and arriving at similar conclusions. Must be a conspiracy and/or fraud! Not you know, 40-50 years of progress on a fairly new field in science that unequivocally shows the planet is rapidly warming.

    That graph almost looks like a... hockey stick. Weird.

  90. #890

    Default

    If I send 20 different people outside to tell me what the weather and 20 people come back and say it is "partially sunny and 15 degrees", MrCombust's conclusion is "This is obvious collusion and fraud."


    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    So you've posted now about how inaccurate the data is, and now you're complaining that it's too accurate. Which is it?
    Rather telling that after more than 300 posts the best possible case against global warming that he can come up with is to present data which unequivocally show... global warming.
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  92. #892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    So you've posted now about how inaccurate the data is, and now you're complaining that it's too accurate. Which is it?
    Rather telling that after more than 300 posts the best possible case against global warming that he can come up with is to present data which unequivocally show... global warming.
    Really I'm astounded this thread keeps going on. Why bother? Is there still need to denounce this? At what point does one consider that falsehood has already been established and move on?


    Yet I look at C2E and every day the top threads are "The TRUTH about global warming" "Whats socks is Donald Trump wearing" "What Russian interference in US election"


    All of these threads essentially being bleating of the same thing over and over again which had already landed at beating dead mules years ago. What is actually accomplished in these discussions? What does it have to do with Edmonton? What content is provided here by the majority of participation occurring in these OT threads every day as opposed to Edmonton content threads?
    What does it have to do with Edmonton???? Are you serious? Every Edmontonian household is going to be carbon taxed $2,000/yr nd get nothing in return. A large portion of our economy is based on oil. Workers in this sector are constantly being told they're destroying the planet.

    And it's all based on pseudo science and fake data.

    Get comfortable. Everybody is learning how much they've been lied to. People get angry when they find out they've been lied to, and taxed for a fraud.

    If you've been living under a rock you should know that skepticism and distrust about the whole thing is growing.

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

  93. #893

    Default

    Our government services have to be funded somehow, seems reasonable to me to do so in a way that targets consumption of non-renewable resources. In the off chance that Co2 isn't making as big a difference as we think or if there really is a cooling trend that would be dominant if we weren't emitting... then we've simply saved more of our precious resources for later generations. Win-win.

    We're not actually getting taxed $2000 of course. We all have the choice to drive less, and maybe live smaller.
    There can only be one.

  94. #894
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    ...
    What does it have to do with Edmonton???? Are you serious? Every Edmontonian household is going to be carbon taxed $2,000/yr nd get nothing in return. A large portion of our economy is based on oil. Workers in this sector are constantly being told they're destroying the planet.

    And it's all based on pseudo science and fake data.

    Get comfortable. Everybody is learning how much they've been lied to. People get angry when they find out they've been lied to, and taxed for a fraud.

    If you've been living under a rock you should know that skepticism and distrust about the whole thing is growing.

    You're welcome.
    1. every edmontonian household is not going to be carbon taxed $2,000/yr and there are things - including rebates and credits - being received in return in addition to the arms' length returns.

    2. pseudo science and fake data... according to who? non-scientists and anonymous internet bloggers posting the TRUTH?

    3. most of us are pretty comfortable, thank you very much. as for being angry about being lied to, perhaps you should stop?

    4. your own increased levels of personal paranoia and self-righteousness does not equate to growing skepticism and distrust.

    5. you're also still welcome. your regular doses of outrageous humour - even though apparently unintended on your part - are like c2e's equivalent to readers digest's "laughter is the best medicine".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  95. #895

    Default

    The government might as well shift carbon tax straight towards the source, the utilities. But then again that will just raise the cost of energy and gas anyways. I couldn't possibly be any more energy efficient in my home than I already am.

    In summer months my charge according to my consumption is $12/month for electricity with gas and water being about the same, yet after all the extra fees, my bill is still $265 in the summer. Winter it hits $380 at it's coldest.

    I have high-efficiency windows, furnace and water heater.
    My thermometer is 18 during the morning and evening, 16 at night and during weekdays when we're at work.
    Every light bulb in my house is LED.
    99% of the time there is ONE LED floor lamp turned on my house at half-brightness in the living room, and my TV.

    Yet the government talks like they're punishing us and saying we need to make smarter choices. Really? There's not much else I can do other than just turn off the heat completely and live in the dark!

    Drive less? So just quit my job? We live right in between where my wife and I work. Live smaller? Not possible. But yes let's punish everyone with BS taxes instead of coming up with legitimate solutions. When the government can't even come up with a method to how they arrive at a carbon tax number, and how they calculated it, then it's pretty darn sketchy if you ask me, and just another cash grab.

  96. #896

    Default

    They did apply it at the utility level. That the utility itemizes the bill doesn't mean it's being applied directly. That there are all kinds of delivery charges on top of your actual energy use doesn't have any bearing on whether the tax is worthwhile. I would prefer that more of those charges were applied per usage rather than flat fees but it is what it is.

    If you're really living as small as possible then the impact on you should be tiny. Maybe it's going to be more impactful on other people. People need incentives to come up with legitimate solutions, and increasing the monetary incentive for reducing consumption is the best we've got. Way better to have the government just tax what we're trying to avoid than to have big bureaucratic government try to figure out those legitimate solutions are and try to subsidize or impose them.
    There can only be one.

  97. #897

    Default

    You know that so many things are hidden in these extra fees right? Those fees have increased dramatically. In 2007 I spent 8 months away. I lived in an apartment building with electricity being the only utility since heat and water was included. I literally tuned off the main breaker to my apartment when I left. All my bills over the 8 months showed ZERO kwh used, yet the bills were still $38/month in just extra fees. I even tried to get the delivery fees removed arguing that they didn't deliver anything to me since I used 0 kwh's but they wouldn't remove the fees. Those extra fees are much higher now.

  98. #898

    Default

    Some of the fees are still justified - they're still checking up on the meters and administering your account, they're effectively renting you the meter and service to it.

    Metered apartment dwellers do get a raw deal. There's far less infrastructure on the distribution side than to a single family home but if you're individually metered you pay the full price even if all the meters are at a single location - although obviously an apartment's 400A 3-phase (or whatever) service and meter should cost more than a single home's 100A 240v.
    There can only be one.

  99. #899

    Default

    But nowadays they don't physically walk to each house to check, they just drive down the street and all the meters readings are collected wirelessly. Some now communicate without that either. I have one of the new meters and nobody comes to check it physically. So they cut cost by not paying people to spend days walking house to house, less staff, less staff hours, yet the cost still goes up. And they don't maintain them. The meters run perfectly fine for decades.

    It's like Canada Post going to the super mailbox. No letter carriers walking each street going house to house, cheaper, easier, quicker with the mailboxes with less staff and hours required, yet the cost of sending a letter or parcel never went down. This is not justification when they lower the cost for themselves but don't use that to benefit the customer. They do it to increase their profit margin.

  100. #900
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Costs go up relating to things like major new transmission projects in Alberta.

    https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/electric...n-charges.aspx

    And are similar to things like your provincial, federal and city taxes going to road building, even if you don't drive! (And then if you do drive, gax tax acts as a usage tax)

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 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
  •