Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 647

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What the heck caused that rapid upward swing in temperature in the year 1350?
    The Russians!

  2. #102
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

    And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
    Please take a minute to review the quote you used in your post #46. My failure was to not go back to your earlier post and then to double check the two different versions you provided against a verifiable source in order to sort out which one was the correct NASA quote.

    You say: “the faithful make one error after another”. The error I made followed up on your error which out of your hubris you tried twice now to put on me rather than simply apologizing. You need to look in the mirror as you criticize others while you make errors yourself.

    I’ll copy and paste the quote from your post #46 here adding bolding:

    “Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
    that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends
    over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/”
    I said this once, and I'll say it ONE (1) more time. I don't enter into semantic quagmires with climate advocates. Address the issue, or move on.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Hockey stick graph again. I'm done for the day but here's a gem. If you look at the index you'll see Mann was involved with three of the "reconstructions".

    Here's a two minute clip of Mann testifying before a Congressional Science Committee....................
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3f42t4C7XU

    And if you could use a good laugh today here's a hysterical talk by Canadian Mark Steyn about Michael Mann and his fraudulent hockey stick graph.
    Mann is suing Mark Steyn for calling his hockey stick graph a "complete fraud". It's even funnier if you know the context.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbAgl7w_Vws
    Done for the day but no time to look at your flawed misquote in post #46?

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What the heck caused that rapid upward swing in temperature in the year 1350?
    The Russians!
    Hillary's emails.

  6. #106

    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 KC View Post
    So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
    Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

    What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

    If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

    And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
    Please take a minute to review the quote you used in your post #46. My failure was to not go back to your earlier post and then to double check the two different versions you provided against a verifiable source in order to sort out which one was the correct NASA quote.

    You say: “the faithful make one error after another”. The error I made followed up on your error which out of your hubris you tried twice now to put on me rather than simply apologizing. You need to look in the mirror as you criticize others while you make errors yourself.

    I’ll copy and paste the quote from your post #46 here adding bolding:

    “Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
    that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends
    over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/”
    I said this once, and I'll say it ONE (1) more time. I don't enter into semantic quagmires with climate advocates. Address the issue, or move on.
    It not about semantics - it’s about an error. Your error.



    EVERYONE LOOK!

    MRCOMBUST can’t admit to even the smallest normally inconsequential error.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 03:08 PM.

  7. #107

    Default

    "dont you dare debate this with me, I'm not here for debate, I'm here to tell you what it is", MrCombust, probably

  8. #108

    Default

    I googled can’t admit error personality, and looky what I found. I have no idea if it’s meaningful or not. Just thought it was funny. Sorry MrCombust. Hope you laugh.
    So everyone/ anyone don’t use it to judge anyone here. Just throwing it out there as background noise due to what I see as an abnormal attitude I’m encountering here over a typo that led me astray and then get hit with condescension in response. My error for participating I guess.



    “Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    An inability to listen to others, and a lack of awareness of another person’s deadlines, time frames, interests or perspectives.

    An inability to admit wrongdoing – even sometimes when presented with objective evidence of their errors or behavior.

    Coldness, or overly practical responses to interpersonal relationships; a sense of distance or matter-of-factness, emotionally. “

    http://narcissisticpersonalitydisorder.org/
    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 03:36 PM.

  9. #109
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Planet Earth has been spinning for just under 5 billion years. It's gone through, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados and volcanos. I would think volcanos may have the biggest impact on the worlds temperatures. The times we live now is just the equivalent of a nano second in history. In a hundred years it could be a different story. In 500 hundred years a completely different one. If the earths temperatures fluctuate a few degrees every 200-300 years we have survived that and will survive it again.
    It's almost like you are being willfully ignorant of everything that people have been posting here. Climate change isn't only an issue because of the fact that the earth is warming, but also because of the rate it's happening at. Most changes happening over thousands of years, these changes are happening within a generation. Because of this, species aren't able to adapt, and the earth isn't able to correct for it. Our oceans are acidifying as they absorb the excess CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere, putting marine life at risk as well. Currently around 50% of CO2 is absorbed by plant matter and oceans, but as our production continues, their ability to absorb the excess we create will be inhibited. This also means that 50% of our CO2 is going into the atmosphere still.

    The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2fluxes.
    Acts of god such as volcanoes have a negligible effect on the long term climate.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm

  10. #110
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What the heck caused that rapid upward swing in temperature in the year 1350?
    i'm not sure the upward swing around 1350 has a cause per se or whether it's simply the rebound from the previous sharp downward slide caused by the 1257 samalas volcanic eruption. averaging that through from 1000 to about 1700 provides a pretty stable slightly downward trend for 700 years followed by a slightly parabolic increasingly upward rise. it may or may not be a "hockey stick graph" as it approaches the end of the x axis but the trend is still pretty readily apparent even to non-sports enthusiasts.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #111

    Default

    it is very much a hockey stick graph.


  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    it is very much a hockey stick graph.

    Looks like one to me!

  13. #113

    Default

    ...

  14. #114

    Default

    Preaching to the unwashed masses must be so aggravating!




    Look what I found! A graph on consensus!

    Oh, it’s from ‘That site!’
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 03:34 PM.

  15. #115

    Default

    Anybody want to see the same period from GISP2 ice core records?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #116
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...
    cute...

    except we are all going to die whether or not al gore is or isn't a m0r0n.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Anybody want to see the same period from GISP2 ice core records?
    Is this talking about the same thing?


    Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

    Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version)...”








    The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

    "Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred....



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm



    MrCombust, I’ll say this once and only once: I don’t tolerate preachers that can’t address the simplest of facts, let alone complex issues. Got that?

    You said in post #98 that you were done for the day. Yet you returned. Haven’t admitted to a simple mistake yet but you have posted more pretty pics.

    My apologies if this is getting tiresome, but you’re inability to even make an attempt at basic social skills is already very tiresome.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 05:04 PM.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Planet Earth has been spinning for just under 5 billion years. It's gone through, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornados and volcanos. I would think volcanos may have the biggest impact on the worlds temperatures. The times we live now is just the equivalent of a nano second in history. In a hundred years it could be a different story. In 500 hundred years a completely different one. If the earths temperatures fluctuate a few degrees every 200-300 years we have survived that and will survive it again.
    It's almost like you are being willfully ignorant of everything that people have been posting here. Climate change isn't only an issue because of the fact that the earth is warming, but also because of the rate it's happening at. Most changes happening over thousands of years, these changes are happening within a generation. Because of this, species aren't able to adapt, and the earth isn't able to correct for it. Our oceans are acidifying as they absorb the excess CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere, putting marine life at risk as well. Currently around 50% of CO2 is absorbed by plant matter and oceans, but as our production continues, their ability to absorb the excess we create will be inhibited. This also means that 50% of our CO2 is going into the atmosphere still.

    The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2fluxes.
    Acts of god such as volcanoes have a negligible effect on the long term climate.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm
    Not willfully ignoring it. The planet is 5.5-6 billion years old. It's gone through every climate change possible. We are but one species that have roamed this earth. Species come, species go. We might be gone one day and some other life form may take our place. I'm sure in billions of years there have been millions of times that the planet has quickly heated and millions where it's quickly cooled. Just because we are observing this in our lifetime does not mean it has not happened before. Our 3 (or 4 if lucky) score years and 10 on this earth are barely measurable in time and yet in the last 40 years we humans claim to know all about the last billions of years on earth. I get it that geologists can look at the layers of silt/rock etc to gauge temperatures but those geological bands don't are not going to tell the whole story.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  19. #119

    Default

    [QUOTE=kcantor;869253]
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...


    except we are all going to die whether or not al gore is or isn't a m0r0n.
    Nobody in Canada is going to die from global warming. You have my personal assurance on that.

    Global cooling........, that's a different story. The current, 10,000 year interglacial period, may be over.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #120

    Default

    Just test trying to post a video clip.
    Michael Mann, father of the hockey stick graph, testifying before a Congressional Science Committee.
    Under 2 minutes.

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

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Anybody want to see the same period from GISP2 ice core records?
    Is this talking about the same thing?


    Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

    Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version)...”








    The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

    "Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred....



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm



    MrCombust, I’ll say this once and only once: I don’t tolerate preachers that can’t address the simplest of facts, let alone complex issues. Got that?

    You said in post #98 that you were done for the day. Yet you returned. Haven’t admitted to a simple mistake yet but you have posted more pretty pics.

    My apologies if this is getting tiresome, but you’re inability to even make an attempt at basic social skills is already very tiresome.

    Liar blog. "Reconstruction" of Greenland temperatures is a software simulation. No actual measurements.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Anybody want to see the same period from GISP2 ice core records?
    Is this talking about the same thing?


    Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

    Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version)...”








    The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

    "Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred....



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm



    MrCombust, I’ll say this once and only once: I don’t tolerate preachers that can’t address the simplest of facts, let alone complex issues. Got that?

    You said in post #98 that you were done for the day. Yet you returned. Haven’t admitted to a simple mistake yet but you have posted more pretty pics.

    My apologies if this is getting tiresome, but you’re inability to even make an attempt at basic social skills is already very tiresome.

    Liar blog. "Reconstruction" of Greenland temperatures is a software simulation. No actual measurements.
    I think you missed my point - again

  23. #123

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;869281]
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...


    except we are all going to die whether or not al gore is or isn't a m0r0n.
    Nobody in Canada is going to die from global warming. You have my personal assurance on that.

    Global cooling........, that's a different story. The current, 10,000 year interglacial period, may be over.
    Oh, so were headed for the next ice age.

    “Here come the 70s”

  24. #124

    Default

    MrCombust, about that typo of yours.


  25. #125

    Default

    Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version)...”








    The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

    "Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred....



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

    Question for the forum............ KC posted this graph from skepticalscience, but I looked up the paper "Box et al 2009", no such graph appears on the paper. skepticalscience is a liar blog, and I've seen them do this before.

    The paper is here
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...2009JCLI2816.1

    Am I missing something, or did skepticalscience fraudulently make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #126

    Default

    Hilarious and.... fascinating.

    Com-busted

    I guess for some, admitting to any error no matter how small, even minuscule, evokes such deep seated fear that it must be avoided at all cost.


    Do appreciate the investigative digging but still have to wonder why one would come to forum when they are in need of a soapbox.
    Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018 at 10:49 PM.

  27. #127

    Default

    Well, KC, it's good to see you taking a stand against the some of the anonymously-overlapping and despicably-partisan political "contributors" on c2e.

    Godspeed.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Well, KC, it's good to see you taking a stand against the some of the anonymously-overlapping and despicably-partisan political "contributors" on c2e.

    Godspeed.
    Oh, I just enjoy the awkwardness some people bring upon themselves and whatever situation they are in with their simplistic-authoritarian-a-hole acts.

    All over an inability to admit to any weakness or error, not even an obvious but tiny little omission.



    It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth.
    Aleister Crowley
    (yes, I just googled hubris quotes)
    Last edited by KC; 26-01-2018 at 07:07 AM.

  29. #129

    Default Internet liar blogs and global warming. The TRUTH

    When searching for the truth about global warming beware internet liar blogs.

    See my repost (#125) of a skepticalscience page where the liar blog fraudulently makes up a graph and attributes it to a peer reviewed paper. There is no such graph in the peer reviewed paper. Anybody posting about global warming from "skepticalscience" needs to explain this fraud before using this site as a reference.

    People searching for THE TRUTH about global warming are often led astray by these liar blogs.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 26-01-2018 at 08:55 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #130

    Default

    So are you mulder or scully?


  31. #131

    Default


    Just as I suspected - nobody knows what caused it.

  32. #132
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    it is very much a hockey stick graph.

    Looks like one to me!
    It's a Canadian conspiracy to increase the popularity of hockey worldwide.

  33. #133

    Default

    Some of it looks more like curling broom to me, from the Hec Gervais days when old fat guys could smoke while playing and win championships.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  34. #134
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    so, if i have it correct, shouting "internet liar blogs" when discussing THE TRUTH is sort of like yelling "fake news"?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    When searching for the truth about global warming beware internet liar blogs.

    See my repost (#125) of a skepticalscience page where the liar blog fraudulently makes up a graph and attributes it to a peer reviewed paper. There is no such graph in the peer reviewed paper. Anybody posting about global warming from "skepticalscience" needs to explain this fraud before using this site as a reference.

    People searching for THE TRUTH about global warming are often led astray by these liar blogs.
    ‘beware internet liars’

    Wise advice!

    I neither believe much of what gets passed off as facts on the Internet, nor what gets passed off as correcting facts on the Internet.




    30 August 2005
    Most scientific papers are probably wrong
    By Kurt Kleiner

    Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true. “

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...robably-wrong/


    Moreover the Internet abounds with people with personality defects that impair their ability to engage in objective, rational and reasoned discussions.
    Last edited by KC; 26-01-2018 at 04:12 PM.

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Some of it looks more like curling broom to me, from the Hec Gervais days when old fat guys could smoke while playing and win championships.
    We could have a whole series of winter sports graphs and other pre-warming memorabilia. They’ll be collectibles in the future when winter is a thing of the past.

  37. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    so, if i have it correct, shouting "internet liar blogs" when discussing THE TRUTH is sort of like yelling "fake news"?
    Depends on the blog. Too many lying blogs on both sides. skepticalscience is the most prolific, and the most fraudulent. NASA's blog is pretty fraudulent too. There are very good blogs by some skeptics. There aren't any good global warming science blogs because global warming is a hoax. There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing warming. I know they point to a snowstorm and say "that's climate change", but that's just stupid. I'm here to show Edmontonians and Albertans what a fraud it is.

    I think I did a pretty good demonstration so far in showing what a fraudulent site skepticalscience is. the fake consensus we discussed is on that site, and on post 125 they make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper, which it wasn't. How much more fraudulent can you get?

    So far you've been reasonable and intelligent about it. Rare for the global warming advocates. Join the dark side kcantor. How can you not when I'm showing you all the lies? And, i'm still just getting started.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version)...”








    The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

    "Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred....



    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

    Question for the forum............ KC posted this graph from skepticalscience, but I looked up the paper "Box et al 2009", no such graph appears on the paper. skepticalscience is a liar blog, and I've seen them do this before.

    The paper is here
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...2009JCLI2816.1

    Am I missing something, or did skepticalscience fraudulently make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper?
    Question for the forum............ KC posted this graph from skepticalscience, but I looked up the paper "Box et al 2009", no such graph appears on the paper. skepticalscience is a liar blog, and I've seen them do this before.

    The paper is here
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...2009JCLI2816.1

    Am I missing something, or did skepticalscience fraudulently make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper?
    My bolding in the above excerpt.




    I would say MrCombust is missing something. MrCombust saw this graph and says this blog is a lie, that it is fraudulent because this graph was not in the Box paper.

    That’s interesting because I read here that this blog’s author doesn’t even seem to be making that suggestion at all. Not even as an inference. I’ve bolded the blog author’s comments below:





    And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version):



    I’ve added lines showing the average temperatures for the 1850s (blue) and the last 10 years (red), and the difference between those is a warming of 1.44ºC. I’ve also added the two most recent GISP2 temperature data points (for 1847 and 1855, red crosses). It’s obvious that the GRIP site is warmer than GISP2 (at Summit Camp). The difference is estimated to be 0.9ºC on the annual average (Box, pers comm).

    Let’s have ago at reconstructing Easterbrook’s Fig 5,

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
    Last edited by KC; 26-01-2018 at 05:47 PM.

  39. #139
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    so, if i have it correct, shouting "internet liar blogs" when discussing THE TRUTH is sort of like yelling "fake news"?
    Depends on the blog. Too many lying blogs on both sides. skepticalscience is the most prolific, and the most fraudulent. NASA's blog is pretty fraudulent too. There are very good blogs by some skeptics. There aren't any good global warming science blogs because global warming is a hoax. There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing warming. I know they point to a snowstorm and say "that's climate change", but that's just stupid. I'm here to show Edmontonians and Albertans what a fraud it is.

    I think I did a pretty good demonstration so far in showing what a fraudulent site skepticalscience is. the fake consensus we discussed is on that site, and on post 125 they make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper, which it wasn't. How much more fraudulent can you get?

    So far you've been reasonable and intelligent about it. Rare for the global warming advocates. Join the dark side kcantor. How can you not when I'm showing you all the lies? And, i'm still just getting started.
    while i do try to be reasonable and intelligent about most things, or at least put forward a good front as best i can, i think you missed the slight hint of sarcasm in my post...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    so, if i have it correct, shouting "internet liar blogs" when discussing THE TRUTH is sort of like yelling "fake news"?
    Depends on the blog. Too many lying blogs on both sides. skepticalscience is the most prolific, and the most fraudulent. NASA's blog is pretty fraudulent too. There are very good blogs by some skeptics. There aren't any good global warming science blogs because global warming is a hoax. There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing warming. I know they point to a snowstorm and say "that's climate change", but that's just stupid. I'm here to show Edmontonians and Albertans what a fraud it is.

    I think I did a pretty good demonstration so far in showing what a fraudulent site skepticalscience is. the fake consensus we discussed is on that site, and on post 125 they make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper, which it wasn't. How much more fraudulent can you get?

    So far you've been reasonable and intelligent about it. Rare for the global warming advocates. Join the dark side kcantor. How can you not when I'm showing you all the lies? And, i'm still just getting started.
    while i do try to be reasonable and intelligent about most things, or at least put forward a good front as best i can, i think you missed the slight hint of sarcasm in my post...
    No worries. You were fooled by the fake consensus. Let's see what else you were fooled by and see if things don't change.

  41. #141

    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 kcantor View Post
    so, if i have it correct, shouting "internet liar blogs" when discussing THE TRUTH is sort of like yelling "fake news"?
    Depends on the blog. Too many lying blogs on both sides. skepticalscience is the most prolific, and the most fraudulent. NASA's blog is pretty fraudulent too. There are very good blogs by some skeptics. There aren't any good global warming science blogs because global warming is a hoax. There is no evidence at all that CO2 is causing warming. I know they point to a snowstorm and say "that's climate change", but that's just stupid. I'm here to show Edmontonians and Albertans what a fraud it is.

    I think I did a pretty good demonstration so far in showing what a fraudulent site skepticalscience is. the fake consensus we discussed is on that site, and on post 125 they make up a graph and pretend it's from a peer reviewed paper, which it wasn't. How much more fraudulent can you get?

    So far you've been reasonable and intelligent about it. Rare for the global warming advocates. Join the dark side kcantor. How can you not when I'm showing you all the lies? And, i'm still just getting started.
    while i do try to be reasonable and intelligent about most things, or at least put forward a good front as best i can, i think you missed the slight hint of sarcasm in my post...
    No worries. You were fooled by the fake consensus. Let's see what else you were fooled by and see if things don't change.
    Let’s hope MrCombust shows a willingness to change as well. I don’t see that potential yet however.

    Unfortunately those subject to falling prey to their own mind’s propensity for selective perception and confirmation bias includes those seeking to prove confirmation bias in others.
    Last edited by KC; 26-01-2018 at 10:23 PM.

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ;869247]

    Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

    Unfortunately for Don, the first data.............blah, blah, blah, blah......................

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

    KC also said........
    "MrCombust, I’ll say this once and only once: I don’t tolerate preachers that can’t address the simplest of facts, let alone complex issues. Got that?
    You said in post #98 that you were done for the day. Yet you returned. Haven’t admitted to a simple mistake yet but you have posted more pretty pics.
    My apologies if this is getting tiresome, but you’re inability to even make an attempt at basic social skills is already very tiresome.[/QUOTE]"

    Also from KC............
    "‘beware internet liars’ . Wise advice!
    I neither believe much of what gets passed off as facts on the Internet, nor what gets passed off as correcting facts on the Internet."

    and..........
    "Unfortunately those subject to falling prey to their own mind’s propensity for selective perception and confirmation bias includes those seeking to prove confirmation bias in others."

    But KC prefers the musings of a truffle growing liar over Don Easterbrook, a Professor Emeritus of Geology from Western Washington University. We know Gareth Renowden is a liar because he attributes his graph to "Box, et al 2009" but there is no such graph in the "Box et al 2009" paper. And KC wants me to believe the truffle growing liar too. This is why I'm not interested in engaging the global warming advocates.

    From KC's link...............
    "Intermediate rebuttal written by Gareth"

    From LinkedIn......................
    "Gareth Renowden; Writer, photographer and truffle grower"

    When I asked KC about the graph with "Box et al 2009" on it in LARGE BOLD LETTERS, KC responded with "this blog’s author doesn’t even seem to be making that suggestion at all. Not even as an inference."

    Who can argue with logic like that?

    (No offense in this post is meant to truffle growers, or even truffle growing liars, it's just that PhD's in geology are preferred in this arena)
    Last edited by MrCombust; 28-01-2018 at 03:21 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  43. #143

    Default The TRUTH. A trip to global warming Mecca, and a confirmation of ice cores in Alberta

    It's time to take a trip to global warming Mecca. The path to the Athabasca glacier grows longer and longer as it recedes due to "global warming". Dates are posted along the way where the glacier USED TO BE. We've seen the hockey stick graph posted above, and the conflicting ice core graph from Greenland. Has it really been warmer in the past, or do we believe the lying truffle grower from skepticalscience that the 10,000 year warming trend only happened in Greenland?

    The truth is, there's a mountain of evidence of past warm periods. Global warming "science", and the liars that produce it, are trying to steamroll over well known warm periods and rewrite science to their liking. The problem is, the truth is sticky, it doesn't go away. There are thousands of scientific papers that have been written about the geologic past referring to warm periods. Hundreds of new ones are being written every year. If you want to see papers like this notrickzone is a good source, they compile and categorize them.

    Here's one from the Athabasca glacier.....................

    "8000 year old wood from the Athabasca Glacier, Alberta
    Several wood fragments of Pinus sp. (dated at 8230 f 80 and 8000 f 90 years BP) and Abies sp. were recovered from the snout of the Athabasca Glacier. This wood, derived from an unknown source up valley, indicates that the glacier was less extensive than at present during the Hypsithermal and that an area up valley of the present snout was tree covered ca. 8000-8300 years BP."
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/e88-015

    Think the 1km thick Athabasca glacier is receding? Well, it used to be a forest. Looks like the warm periods recorded in the Greenland ice cores happened in the rockies too.

    So when NASA tells you it's the "hottest year on record", or somebody posts the fraudulent hockey stick graph, or when the IPCC comes to town in February, Ask them, What the hell are you talking about?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-01-2018 at 10:21 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  44. #144

    Default

    "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?

  45. #145

    Default

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

  46. #146

  47. #147

    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.
    Thank you for...

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

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    None. I have no credentials. I recommend you don't believe a word I say.
    Waaaaay ahead of you here buddy. I've been discounting everything you've said here since Day 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Don't trust my reasoning either, use your own.
    I have & I've decided exactly where I lie regarding the issue of anthropogenic climate change. Which is 180 degrees from your position.

    Thanks for giving us tacit approval to treat your rantings as the delusions of a conspiracy-minded nutter that they are.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  49. #149
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    It's time to take a trip to global warming Mecca. The path to the Athabasca glacier grows longer and longer as it recedes due to "global warming". Dates are posted along the way where the glacier USED TO BE. We've seen the hockey stick graph posted above, and the conflicting ice core graph from Greenland. Has it really been warmer in the past, or do we believe the lying truffle grower from skepticalscience that the 10,000 year warming trend only happened in Greenland?

    The truth is, there's a mountain of evidence of past warm periods. Global warming "science", and the liars that produce it, are trying to steamroll over well known warm periods and rewrite science to their liking. The problem is, the truth is sticky, it doesn't go away. There are thousands of scientific papers that have been written about the geologic past referring to warm periods. Hundreds of new ones are being written every year. If you want to see papers like this notrickzone is a good source, they compile and categorize them.

    Here's one from the Athabasca glacier.....................

    "8000 year old wood from the Athabasca Glacier, Alberta
    Several wood fragments of Pinus sp. (dated at 8230 f 80 and 8000 f 90 years BP) and Abies sp. were recovered from the snout of the Athabasca Glacier. This wood, derived from an unknown source up valley, indicates that the glacier was less extensive than at present during the Hypsithermal and that an area up valley of the present snout was tree covered ca. 8000-8300 years BP."
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/e88-015

    Think the 1km thick Athabasca glacier is receding? Well, it used to be a forest. Looks like the warm periods recorded in the Greenland ice cores happened in the rockies too.

    So when NASA tells you it's the "hottest year on record", or somebody posts the fraudulent hockey stick graph, or when the IPCC comes to town in February, Ask them, What the hell are you talking about?
    This argument is pointless. Every scientist or person with even some semblance of an education knows the earth has been this warm in the past. The issue is not the temperature, it's the rate of change. At least know the arguments before you try and debate them.

  50. #150

    Default



    MrCompost, in Alberta we used to have these animals in abundance too. They are all dead due to a mass extinction, possibly by a global catastrophe that was caused by a dramatic change in climate, possibly due to a meteor strike.

    Let's not be responsible for our own extinction...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #151

    Default

    The earth is billions of years old. We've had millions of micro climate changes during that time. Just because we are here to witness it does not mean it's never happened before. Lots of factors have an effect on the weather, sun flares, atmospheric conditions etc. We can't control them all, they will continue in spite of us.
    Mother nature is going to be the boss in the end.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  52. #152

    Default

    The thing is, at least some of the current rapid rise is the direct result of something that we're doing.
    That we CAN change.

    We don't know for 100% certain that it's all anthropogenic, and it's also possible that it would be even larger but there's natural processes/cycles moving the other direction. But we do know that what we are doing is contributing to what is a historically rapid change in climates, and we can slow down that change.

    Why the hell wouldn't we?
    There can only be one.

  53. #153

    Default

    Some people would have you believe that 200 years of massive fossil fuel use would not have any effect on the atmosphere or climate.

    more hockey stick grapghs



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

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The thing is, at least some of the current rapid rise is the direct result of something that we're doing.
    That we CAN change.

    We don't know for 100% certain that it's all anthropogenic, and it's also possible that it would be even larger but there's natural processes/cycles moving the other direction. But we do know that what we are doing is contributing to what is a historically rapid change in climates, and we can slow down that change.

    Why the hell wouldn't we?
    "But we do know that what we are doing is contributing to what is a historically rapid change in climates"

    You think 1.5 degrees in 150 years (0.1 per decade) is rapid? You think that's never happened before? You sure about that?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  55. #155
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,547

    Default

    ^While accurate scientific measurement of global temperatures goes back about 150 years, the concern is that most of the warming (around 80 per cent) has taken place in just the past 40 years.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...d/12/1880-2017

    The past 40 years coincide with the decades in which most fossil fuel use has occurred (see graphs in the post just above yours).

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^While accurate scientific measurement of global temperatures goes back about 150 years, the concern is that most of the warming (around 80 per cent) has taken place in just the past 40 years.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...d/12/1880-2017

    The past 40 years coincide with the decades in which most fossil fuel use has occurred (see graphs in the post just above yours).
    Sooooooo, the rate of change isn't exceptional............., and the amount of warming isn't exceptional.......... ummmmm, what exactly is your point?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^While accurate scientific measurement of global temperatures goes back about 150 years, the concern is that most of the warming (around 80 per cent) has taken place in just the past 40 years.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...d/12/1880-2017

    The past 40 years coincide with the decades in which most fossil fuel use has occurred (see graphs in the post just above yours).
    Sooooooo, the rate of change isn't exceptional............., and the amount of warming isn't exceptional.......... ummmmm, what exactly is your point?
    ?

  58. #158

    Default The TRUTH. More scientific evidence CO2 won't affect temperatures.

    Hello my fellow Edmontonians and Albertans.
    We've seen from graphs and evidence above that natural changes in temperature could account for all of the present warming. There's nothing unusual happening. But what is the evidence that CO2 WILL cause warming, or that CO2 is causing most of the warming, even if it can't be proven from the noisy signal of normal variation? When trying to advance a theory in which you have a great deal of data, you look at past trends to see if what you propose has happened in the past.

    You've all seen the graphs. Posted on NASA's website, NOAA, Al Gore featured a graph in his film, Union of concerned scientists, bogs everywhere.

    Guess what? It's all fake.

    Milankovitch cycles (cycles in the earth's orbit) cause the earth to warm and cool by as much as 10 degrees. When the ocean cools it absorbs CO2, when the oceans warm it releases CO2, and so throughout the last million years we see temperatures rising and falling, followed by CO2. And it's not even a close correlation. The lag is 300 to 800 years. We can go back even further when CO2 was 4,000 ppm or more, (10X what it is now) and look for correlation. There is none.

    There is no evidence at all from past records that CO2 affects temperature.

    So when they post graphs and tell you cancer causes smoking, ask them, "What the hell are you talking about?"


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

  59. #159

    Default

    Did you notice the little red line spiking at over 400ppm at the far right of the graph? in the past 450,000 years it was never over 300ppm until now.

    You just proved you are WRONG!

    Recent graph
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 30-01-2018 at 08:37 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #160
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    ^^Facepalm. Maybe you hoped we wouldn't notice the insane spike that suddenly goes over 400 ppm at the end?

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    When the ocean cools it absorbs CO2, when the oceans warm it releases CO2, and so throughout the last million years we see temperatures rising and falling, followed by CO2.
    The ocean's ability to be a carbon sink is literally killing it.

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/...idification%3F

    What is Ocean Acidification?

    When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.


    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    When the ocean cools it absorbs CO2, when the oceans warm it releases CO2, and so throughout the last million years we see temperatures rising and falling, followed by CO2.
    The ocean's ability to be a carbon sink is literally killing it.

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/...idification%3F

    What is Ocean Acidification?

    When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.


    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

    Do you really think the entire ocean, worldwide, is all at one pH level? Vast areas of the ocean change in value by .3 units seasonally. River basins, underground volcanos, rainfall, and local geology also affects pH locally. NOAA publishes climate change advocacy and is on board to tell people what they want to hear. I'll be posting articles about NOAA fudging climate data and lying to school kids with fake CO2 experiments. Climate "science" is so rampant with fraud nothing is credible anymore.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 30-01-2018 at 09:48 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  63. #163

    Default



    I think this says it all. Look at the huge spike in at the end.

  64. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post


    I think this says it all. Look at the huge spike in at the end.
    This is why I don't argue with climate change advocates like yourself. You completely missed the point. It's impossible to discuss things with advocates who miss the point, and repeat unrelated points over and over. My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising. You want to make that point again and again? Go ahead.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  65. #165

    Default



    I think this says it all. Look at the huge spike in at the end.






  66. #166
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.
    You guys have poor reading comprehension. I didn't dispute it was caused by human activity. And the reason I didn't respond to your post is because you didn't respond to mine appropriately. And you have it wrong here again.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  68. #168
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.
    You guys have poor reading comprehension. I didn't dispute it was caused by human activity. And the reason I didn't respond to your post is because you didn't respond to mine appropriately. And you have it wrong here again.
    emphasis added...

    if that's your position - as it should be - then what’s the point of continuing this thread?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  69. #169
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,355

    Default

    Nevermind, the poster is clearly not interested in an intellectually honest discussion.

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.
    You guys have poor reading comprehension. I didn't dispute it was caused by human activity. And the reason I didn't respond to your post is because you didn't respond to mine appropriately. And you have it wrong here again.
    emphasis added...

    if that's your position - as it should be - then what’s the point of continuing this thread?
    If you would actually read my posts, and respond to what I actually say, you'd understand. Most of the responses to my posts from the global warming advocates here have nothing to do with what I posted. Even here you've made a couple of logical errors, and still don't understand my post.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  71. #171

    Default

    I'm not really a global warming advocate. More of a climate change advocate... If you want to label me, seems that's what your here for?

  72. #172

    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.
    Still applies,..

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm not really a global warming advocate. More of a climate change advocate... If you want to label me, seems that's what your here for?
    I know you're a climate change advocate. That's why you don't understand my posts. My posts are based on science, not advocacy. And when you respond to my posts, you post advocacy unrelated to what I said. Then you wonder why I'm not "discussing" it. You get frustrated I'm not responding to your advocacy. Then you think I'm not being sincere. It's what you're all doing. that's why I'm not responding to the posts of the global warming advocates here.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  74. #174
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    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 Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.
    You guys have poor reading comprehension. I didn't dispute it was caused by human activity. And the reason I didn't respond to your post is because you didn't respond to mine appropriately. And you have it wrong here again.
    emphasis added...

    if that's your position - as it should be - then what’s the point of continuing this thread?
    If you would actually read my posts, and respond to what I actually say, you'd understand. Most of the responses to my posts from the global warming advocates here have nothing to do with what I posted. Even here you've made a couple of logical errors, and still don't understand my post.
    so is it safe to assume being labelled “a global warming advocate” is similar to being labelled “left”? can one be both a global warming advocate and left?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm not really a global warming advocate. More of a climate change advocate... If you want to label me, seems that's what your here for?
    I know you're a climate change advocate. That's why you don't understand my posts. My posts are based on science, not advocacy. And when you respond to my posts, you post advocacy unrelated to what I said. Then you wonder why I'm not "discussing" it. You get frustrated I'm not responding to your advocacy. Then you think I'm not being sincere. It's what you're all doing. that's why I'm not responding to the posts of the global warming advocates here.
    So your science seems to disagree with the real scientists out there. You aren't being sincere, you have no credentials, but you are expecting us to believe you over well established scientists around the world.

    "None. I have no credentials. I recommend you don't believe a word I say. Don't trust my reasoning either, use your own."

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    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 Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    My post doesn't dispute CO2 is rising.


    No, but you disputed whether it was caused by human activity, and then completely ignored my post about radio-isotopic analysis that clearly shows it is.
    You guys have poor reading comprehension. I didn't dispute it was caused by human activity. And the reason I didn't respond to your post is because you didn't respond to mine appropriately. And you have it wrong here again.
    emphasis added...

    if that's your position - as it should be - then what’s the point of continuing this thread?
    If you would actually read my posts, and respond to what I actually say, you'd understand. Most of the responses to my posts from the global warming advocates here have nothing to do with what I posted. Even here you've made a couple of logical errors, and still don't understand my post.
    so is it safe to assume being labelled “a global warming advocate” is similar to being labelled “left”? can one be both a global warming advocate and left?
    This is the semantic quagmire I like to avoid when discussing global warming. Who knows where it will go as you ask one crazy question after another, each one unrelated to the topic. I'm posting climate change topics. You disagree? Fine. You want to discuss it? Respond with something related to the topic. You want to ask all kind of crazy questions? No thanks.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  77. #177
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    There's been a dozen posts in here that are related to the topic, yet you ignore them or brush them off. There's only one person in this thread who isn't willing to discuss anything. Hint: It's you.

  78. #178

    Default The IPCC is coming to town in February. What are you going to do?

    The public relation experts from the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) are coming to Edmonton. With a massive carbon footprint, and living off our donations, they fly all around the world telling us what a "threat" global warming is. Global warming advocates from Edmonton will brave frigid weather to hear the global warming Gods tell us that when Canada becomes a bit more like Tahiti, we're all going to die. As they get into their limo's they will tell you to reduce your carbon footprint by taking the bus. I always wonder what it is about a few degrees of warming that it will kill us all. Does everything drop dead when the temperature rises a few degrees?
    Oh sure, there's people in Africa that die when a heat wave hits, but nowhere near the number that die from poverty in all it's forms. "Got no potable water?", "Here's a solar panel.", "Kids dying of malnutrition?", "Sorry, we can't help, we need the money to subsidize windmills".

    Yeah, I know. This isn't science. I'll prepare some more posts. I'm still just getting started. Lot's more to come.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    There's been a dozen posts in here that are related to the topic, yet you ignore them or brush them off. There's only one person in this thread who isn't willing to discuss anything. Hint: It's you.
    Quote me one single post related to what I said. My post was discussing the fact that there's no evidence from temperature records in the past that CO2 affects the temperature. Show me the post that responded to that point.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    This is the semantic quagmire I like to avoid when discussing global warming. Who knows where it will go as you ask one crazy question after another, each one unrelated to the topic. I'm posting climate change topics. You disagree? Fine. You want to discuss it? Respond with something related to the topic. You want to ask all kind of crazy questions? No thanks.
    This is unquestionably the least self-aware post on C2E.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  81. #181

    Default

    I heard cutting the jungles in South and Central America is a boon for the global environment and climate. The bleaching and destruction of coral reefs is also good for the finishing industry and jobs, I heard.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    I heard cutting the jungles in South and Central America is a boon for the global environment and climate. The bleaching and destruction of coral reefs is also good for the finishing industry and jobs, I heard.
    You should do some research on this. The IPCC made a determination that burning wood was "carbon neutral" because when you cut down a tree it gets replaced by another tree. Now forests are being decimated, and if you object, they pull the IPCC report out of their *** and show it to you. You think these guys are saints trying to "save the planet"?

    "We're paying people to cut their forests down in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them. No-one is apparently bothering to do any analysis about this," one Brussels insider told EurActiv. "They're just sleepwalking"

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...target-biomass
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  83. #183
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    "Quote me one single post related to what I said"

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Did you notice the little red line spiking at over 400ppm at the far right of the graph? in the past 450,000 years it was never over 300ppm until now.

    You just proved you are WRONG!

    Recent graph
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    When the ocean cools it absorbs CO2, when the oceans warm it releases CO2, and so throughout the last million years we see temperatures rising and falling, followed by CO2.
    The ocean's ability to be a carbon sink is literally killing it.

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/...idification%3F

    What is Ocean Acidification?

    When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.


    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.
    Well for starters here's two. When your graph was shown to prove you wrong you ignored it, when noodle brought up the dangers of ocean acidification, you brushed it off with your opinion of

    " River basins, underground volcanos, rainfall, and local geology also affects pH locally. NOAA publishes climate change advocacy and is on board to tell people what they want to hear. I'll be posting articles about NOAA fudging climate data and lying to school kids with fake CO2 experiments. Climate "science" is so rampant with fraud nothing is credible anymore."

    Which you have no sources for, doesn't tell the whole story, and ignores the science behind the issue of rising pH levels. Of course noodle knows that pH levels fluctuate, again that's not the issue. In every argument you create a straw man, and then argue that instead. You are not open to other ideas unless they align with your own biases. People have been responding to your posts, you just don't see it as such because you're not capable of listening to people who disagrees with you.

  84. #184

    Default

    ‘Chemtrail' conspiracy theorists: The people who think governments control the weather
    By Chris Bell
    BBC UGC and Social News
    January 32, 2018

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511

  85. #185

    Default

    Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas - Scientific American

    "You've got true facts," Schmidt said of the Galileo Movement's pamphlet. "They're just not the relevant facts."


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas - Scientific American

    "You've got true facts," Schmidt said of the Galileo Movement's pamphlet. "They're just not the relevant facts."


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/
    Scientific American is a magazine trying to make a profit selling subscriptions. If the majority of readers want to hear about global warming, that's what they'll get.

    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the effect of CO2 alone is very small. This is not in dispute. Read the tag line on my posts. Read the very first post in this thread and you'll get a clue. The hockey stick graph is outdated bunk nobody believes. You only see it on liar blogs now. "Climate science" has moved on. I'll be posting about it.

    Congrats on being the only person here to challenge me with actual "science", and follow simple logic. But your "science" was flawed, and from a disreputable source. If you want to keep challenging me I welcome it, but you'll have to raise your game and learn what global warming is actually all about. Not just liar blogs and fake media stories. Fake media like Scientific American.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  87. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas - Scientific American

    "You've got true facts," Schmidt said of the Galileo Movement's pamphlet. "They're just not the relevant facts."


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/
    Your source is lying like skepticalscience does. Providing misleading "facts".

    "But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation. So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower."

    Water vapour is not a "trace gas", it is abundant in the atmosphere. It also blocks radiation. Water vapour blocks the same radiation that CO2 blocks. And CO2 only blocks the radiation in narrow bands. Water vapour blocks a wide band of radiation, including the same bands as CO2. And CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas as indicated by my tagline below. All this, your source leaves out. Very dishonest. they also outright lie about a number of things, but I'm staying on topic.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas - Scientific American

    "You've got true facts," Schmidt said of the Galileo Movement's pamphlet. "They're just not the relevant facts."


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/
    Scientific American is a magazine trying to make a profit selling subscriptions. If the majority of readers want to hear about global warming, that's what they'll get.

    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the effect of CO2 alone is very small. This is not in dispute. Read the tag line on my posts. Read the very first post in this thread and you'll get a clue. The hockey stick graph is outdated bunk nobody believes. You only see it on liar blogs now. "Climate science" has moved on. I'll be posting about it.

    Congrats on being the only person here to challenge me with actual "science", and follow simple logic. But your "science" was flawed, and from a disreputable source. If you want to keep challenging me I welcome it, but you'll have to raise your game and learn what global warming is actually all about. Not just liar blogs and fake media stories. Fake media like Scientific American.
    Right

    Scientific American has been published for 170 years and is read by scientists everywhere but you know that it is fake news.

    here is your prize

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

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas - Scientific American

    "You've got true facts," Schmidt said of the Galileo Movement's pamphlet. "They're just not the relevant facts."


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/
    Scientific American is a magazine trying to make a profit selling subscriptions. If the majority of readers want to hear about global warming, that's what they'll get.

    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the effect of CO2 alone is very small. This is not in dispute. Read the tag line on my posts. Read the very first post in this thread and you'll get a clue. The hockey stick graph is outdated bunk nobody believes. You only see it on liar blogs now. "Climate science" has moved on. I'll be posting about it.

    Congrats on being the only person here to challenge me with actual "science", and follow simple logic. But your "science" was flawed, and from a disreputable source. If you want to keep challenging me I welcome it, but you'll have to raise your game and learn what global warming is actually all about. Not just liar blogs and fake media stories. Fake media like Scientific American.
    Right

    Scientific American has been published for 170 years and is read by scientists everywhere but you know that it is fake news.

    here is your prize

    Double up the tinfoil. I posted that NASA is lying too. See posts 30 and 71.
    Prove me wrong or join my tinfoil hat club.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  90. #190
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the effect of CO2 alone is very small. This is not in dispute. Read the tag line on my posts.
    Your tag lane selectively quotes the Climate Sensitivity wikipedia entry. The entire excerpt reads as follows:

    "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
    How do you expect to be taken seriously when the selective quote in your tag lane is intended to deliberately mislead?

  91. #191

    Default The TRUTH. Introducing Canadian skeptic Steve McIntyre. The hockey stick buster

    Good morning Edmontonians.

    When the hockey stick graph was published Steven McIntyre noticed a few oddities about it and began a long, dogged, arduous journey to uncover how it was created.
    He and fellow Canadian Ross McKitrick asked for Michael Mann's supporting data. Numerous requests were made, years went by, and requests turned into formal Freedom of Information act demands. Even the FOS demands for the supporting data were refused. To this day all the data that went into creating the infamous hockey stick graph has still not been released.
    Watch Steven talk about Michaael Mann's hockey stick graph and the nonsense that went into it. Mr. McIntyre is a true gentleman, far more than I. He is far kinder to Michael Mann in this video than seems appropriate. Mr. McIntyre seems like a low key pushover, but as you watch the video you begin to realize he is a vicious pitbull, with old school integrity. And there's a great deal more he doesn't discuss in the video. Like feeding random data into Micheal Mann's computer program and getting a hockey stick graph result. After watching this video you will have a whole new perspective on "climate science" and the hockey stick graph.

    If you're not familiar with "climategate", the IPCC was hacked and e-mails between the scientists were released to the public.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 01-02-2018 at 06:10 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Prove me wrong or join my tinfoil hat club.
    Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

  93. #193
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost
    If you're not familiar with "climategate", the IPCC was hacked and e-mails between the scientists were released to the public.


    Yes, and 8 different inquiries found no significant wrongdoing. They did find that the scientists could play a bit nicer with their critics, but given their tactics, it's understandable why climatologists would react as they did.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries _and_reports

    Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]
    As far as the "hockey stick controversy" goes, the critiques by McKitrick and McIntyre were somewhat valid, but they did not measurably impact the conclusions. And for about the 10th time, that particular graph was a single temperature record. There are something like 15-20 independent temperature records now, and they all more or less agree with Mann's original one, despite 20+ years of further study. By your lack of mentioning these other independent temperature records, you clearly demonstrate you are at the very least intellectually dishonest, if not an outright liar.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey...econstructions

    Further reconstructions were published, using additional proxies and different methodology. Mann identifies Juckes et al. 2007 and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 for examples.[195] In July 2008 Huang, Pollack and Shen published a suite of borehole reconstructions covering 20,000 years. They showed warm episodes in the mid-Holocene and the Medieval period, a little ice age and 20th century warming reaching temperatures higher than Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures in any of the reconstructions: they described this finding as consistent with the IPCC AR4 conclusions.[196]In a paper published by PNAS on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues produced updated reconstructions of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[31] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study, at more than 1,200 proxy records. They used two complementary methods, both of which showed a similar "hockey stick" graph with recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years. Mann said, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."[197] In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down.[198] Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as the methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result.[199]
    The hockey stick graph was given further support by Kaufman et al. 2009 which reconstructed the climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years,[200] and a new method of analysis using Bayesian statistics developed by Martin Tingley and Peter Huybers.[201]
    You really should stop posting blatant misinformation.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 01-02-2018 at 08:32 AM.

  94. #194

    Default

    [QUOTE=Marcel Petrin;870468][quote=MrCompost.[/QUOTE]

    Don't respond to my posts with name calling, better yet, don't respond to my posts at all.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  95. #195
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,355

    Default

    Don't heap loads of BS on the board if you want to be taken seriously, as opposed to made fun of.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Don't respond to my posts with name calling, better yet, don't respond to my posts at all.
    Like we've explained to another Mr, over & over, pointing out your disingenuousness, intellectual dishonesty & falsehoods isn't "name calling".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #197
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;870495][QUOTE=Marcel Petrin;870468]
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost.[/QUOTE

    Don't respond to my posts with name calling, better yet, don't respond to my posts at all.
    Someone has to correct your misinformation,and I'm thankful that Marcel is willing to take the time to do so.

  98. #198
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,168

    Default

    [QUOTE=MrCombust;870495][QUOTE=Marcel Petrin;870468]
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCompost.[/QUOTE

    Don't respond to my posts with name calling, better yet, don't respond to my posts at all.
    yeah, the nerve... all of those "climate warming advocates" and their "liarblogs" calling you out.

    if you don't want your posts responded to, don't post them. this is an open forum, not a personal website.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  99. #199

    Default 100 hockey stick graphs without the blade

    This one's from Canada.
    The rest are from all over the world..............
    "The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . .So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?There were at least 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2016 demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
    As of the end of January, another 17 papers had already been published in 2017. 17 New (2017) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Is Not Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable
    Within the last month, another 14 papers have been published that continue to cast doubt on the popularized conception of an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/09/3....lLDexZ3t.dpbs

    Last edited by MrCombust; 01-02-2018 at 03:01 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  100. #200

    Default

    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •