Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change Dishonesty



Page 1 of 212>
Climate Change Dishonesty20-03-2017 20:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
If you look about for climate change forums you will discover that they are almost ALL pro-AGW and that they will not honestly discuss any other possibility. Many sites have forbidden "deniers" completely so that all they do is sit about and tell us how they just flew to Europe and attended meetings that proved beyond all doubt that we are all doomed. They took limo's to and from the airports and stayed in the most expensive energy intensive hotels possible.
20-03-2017 20:34
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
....you will discover that they are almost ALL pro-AGW....

Meanwhile:
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png?attachauth=ANoY7cqB1WvnPqmbpUNoB6YHNbGmNAdpW9pGD46PUR5o6jpk7d_PQCuLaXSaFXAbXuH2ytQQEwAQX2sKDQ5FmB9b2jkd9zXQx0kvtfobbDiQAgmcx3sanQAz452OklWeG9QnT8gNQGedr42xTjHIEcSf9DgKwcYICCUYJu4K5oEVaek0ssUcFzSvaLUKNNhbKAV5FJP95kAY93HpkLDoZED9WyhZAwBhTNlNsayPYdrazE8wfqw84ZLhryc8UcOAYhbxs66_aAilb8DYjllweb0f_zdEMOjDx1feB97CRRwRwKnqY%3D&attredirects=0QuotePB
March 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the average March 1, year sea ice VOLUME of the 1980's.
I repeat this science & "wake-me-up" continues to deny, lie & whine..... because it is, "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" & named very accurately.
Adding to:
New & old data is nice:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions.
//////
In addition:
1) Present to date Global sea ice extent is ~ 3 million square kilometers LESS than to date average from early 1980's.
2) It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
Edited on 20-03-2017 20:40
20-03-2017 21:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Wake wrote:
If you look about for climate change forums you will discover that they are almost ALL pro-AGW and that they will not honestly discuss any other possibility. Many sites have forbidden "deniers" completely so that all they do is sit about and tell us how they just flew to Europe and attended meetings that proved beyond all doubt that we are all doomed. They took limo's to and from the airports and stayed in the most expensive energy intensive hotels possible.

Yes, and there's absolutely no representation of the flat-Earth theory on geology forums either. It's a disgrace. Why are geologists so closed minded?
20-03-2017 22:54
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?
Edited on 20-03-2017 22:57
20-03-2017 23:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

I'm not sure who you mean by climate alarmists, but I see a lot of closed minded AGW deniers who, for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the obvious fact that increasing the concentration of IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to rise. This really is on a par with flat-Earthism.
21-03-2017 00:26
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

I'm not sure who you mean by climate alarmists, but I see a lot of closed minded AGW deniers who, for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the obvious fact that increasing the concentration of IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to rise. This really is on a par with flat-Earthism.



By climate alarmists I mean those who see an increase in CO2, see global temperatures rising, and learn about the greenhouse effect; then decide that the earth will be almost intolerable by the end of the century unless we all park our SUVs.

I'm not sure who you mean by AGW deniers but I know of no scientist who doesn't understand that CO2 warms the earth through the greenhouse effect. Most also know CO2's greenhouse effect cannot, by itself, cause harmful global temperatures. I think the amount and direction of the feedback which may or may not exacerbate global temperatures is a more timely question.
Edited on 21-03-2017 00:29
21-03-2017 02:38
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round.
21-03-2017 02:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.
21-03-2017 04:03
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(744)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not sure who you mean by climate alarmists,

That would be the people claiming 5 million humans are killed every year due to global warming.

but I see a lot of closed minded AGW deniers

The gig is over and our numbers are growing...get used to it.

who, for whatever reason,

Reason 1. CO2 is necessary to sustain all forms of life and 1% more won't kill anyone.
Reason 2. IF CO2 was responsible for rising temps, then the planet will be MORE hospitable to millions more than it will hurt.
Reason 3. We are in a natural warm period that started 12,000 years ago and are much colder than we should be compared to 4 other timely spikes in the last 400,000 years.
Reason 4. Given the warm period stated in reason 3, With the added CO2 we should be off the charts warm by now. When will it please warm up??!! I'm sure I will be told to "wait for it, the sinks aren't full yet. It'll take a few more decades. Temp lags CO2.
Reason 5. Uh Huh. That why the current short term warming started BEFORE CO2 increases.
Reason 6. All climate models have been incorrect in temp predictions.
Reason 7. All doomsday predictions have proven false.
Reason 8. Ridiculous claims from the alarmists side are obvious fear mongering....Worldwide Drought, famine, flooding.
Reason 9. Virtually every weather condition possible is blamed on global warming. It's like saying my house smells so nice because my feet stink so bad.
Reason 10. I could go on and on, but I'll stop at reason 10. This is just a funny ass video! Oh yea, this guy told me that CO2 was killing the planet, so why would I trust him.?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+clinton+fake+crying+at+funeral&&view=detail&mid=9ED4E4D5EA95C6003EDF9ED4E4D5EA95C6003EDF&rvsmid=9ED4E4D5EA95C6003EDF9ED4E4D5EA95C6003EDF&fsscr=0&FORM=VDMCNL

simply refuse to accept the obvious fact that increasing the concentration of IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to rise.

Fact? Oops. Forgot. Algore said the science was settled as flew off into the setting sun on his private jet.



Edited on 21-03-2017 04:03
21-03-2017 05:01
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: The gig is over and our numbers are......

Meanwhile:
March 1, 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the average March 1, year sea ice VOLUME of the 1980's.
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions.
//////
In addition:
1) Present to date Global sea ice extent is ~ 3 million square kilometers LESS than to date average from early 1980's.
2) It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
21-03-2017 12:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

Before that, a number of cultures (like the Hebrews who wrote the old testament texts) believed the Mesopotamian religious myth that the earth was flat disc with a dome over it.

It's also a myth that people believed the earth was flat at the time of Christopher Columbus. Look up the 'flat earth myth'

As for plate tectonics, it was accepted by scientists because of all the evidence.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that scientists have been investigating all the forcings and feedbacks for decades and even earlier. There is a wealth of research going back almost 200 years. It all has to make physical sense with ALL the evidence and observations as well as the earth's paleoclimate and the laws of physics.

Which is why scientists can confidently say that CO2 is the main driver of climate change since the pre-industrial era (and has been the biggest driver throughout the earth's history). This all works together in conjunction with orbital forcing from the Milankovich cycles changing NH insolation and initiating deglaciation, the carbon cycle, aerosols, albedo changes and water vapour feedback etc.

What is it that you insist climate scientists 'open their mind to' that they haven't researched already?

Seriously, it's like none of you climate science rejectors have ever read a textbook let alone all the IPCC WG1 reports on the scientific basis or any of the published literature. You yourself apparently don't even know what scientists have already researched, or know much about the evidence, or the laws of physics or how it all fits together with other fields of science other than climate science.

If you are truly interested in understanding the science, you'd be spending your time learning, not posting contrarian politically motivated scientifically uneducated posts on little forums like this. There are so many good educational science-based, evidence-based resources online.

As a good place to start, you could try Professor Spencer Weart's textbook published by Harvard University Press: "The Discovery of Global Warming" and the free online version on the American Institute of Physics website. It discusses the history of the science involved from the 18th century to 21st century and provides links to all the main research papers.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Why not 'open your mind' and read all the Working Group 1 reports on the scientific basis from the IPCC. All of the questions I've seen you ask have been answered/addressed in those reports, which strongly tells me you haven't read any of them.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml


Or at least read the science summaries on the websites of main science organizations like the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good overview of the science on it's website:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

If you don't want to read, there are plenty of university or science conference lectures available:

eg

Professor Richard Alley has some easy to understand lectures on earth's climate history from the the AGU 2009 conference and National Academies of Science 2015 symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2 -Natonal Academy of Science 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" American Geophysical Union conference 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&t=68s

Professor David Archer from University of Chicago has a whole series of University lectures on atmospheric physics available freely online:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

I've also read a lot of the 'contrarian' claims on blogs/tabloids/industry 'think tanks' for about 10 years now. I've spent time investigating and fact-checking the claims for myself by reading the literature, and invariably found the claims to be misrepresenting science, demonstrably false, pseudoscience nonsense, or just patently ridiculous evidence free conspiracy theories.

So who has the open minds? Do you think it's laypeople who refuse to actually learn about the science and go straight to mindlessly parroting nonsense from junkscience conspiracy blogs and tabloid media?

If you haven't even bothered to learn what the science is and what scientists have already researched or what all the evidence is, but you reject the science anyway or claim scientists don't have 'open minds', how can YOU claim to have an 'open mind'?
Edited on 21-03-2017 12:57
21-03-2017 15:09
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"frenziedmex" flopped:Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

Different generations of scientists eventually can be convinced about changing science ideas by other scientists. Politically & money-driven billionaires & flapping-jawed religionist anti-scientists, who have no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas ain't gonna convince scientists, when science determines the Universe functions differently from readings of latest stock market &/or 4000 year old archeologist texts.
Edited on 21-03-2017 15:15
21-03-2017 15:12
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.


My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?
21-03-2017 16:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.


My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?


Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history and geography too.

Greek sailors rarely left sight of land because they had no instruments to tell where they were. It wasn't until Hipparchus invented the astrolabe that sailors ventured further afield. Do you know nothing of the Mediterranean Sea?
Edited on 21-03-2017 17:13
21-03-2017 17:02
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.


My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?


Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history.


You get more stupid with every posting. Every day in every way you show that you haven't a clue about the world around you but want to be seen as some sort of expert.
21-03-2017 17:16
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.


My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?


Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history and geography too.

Greek sailors rarely left sight of land because they had no instruments to tell where they were. It wasn't until Hipparchus invented the astrolabe that sailors ventured further afield. Do you know nothing of the Mediterranean Sea?


You get more stupid with every posting. Every day in every way you show that you haven't a clue about the world around you but want to be seen as some sort of expert.

I'm no expert and have never claimed to be. It's just that you are so goddamned moronic, ridiculous and arrogantly ignorant, that anyone else looks like a freakin' MENSA genius compared to you.


What's funny, is that everything you accuse others of, is just you projecting your own flaws and behaviour.
Edited on 21-03-2017 17:22
21-03-2017 18:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.


So please tell us your 'expert' opinion on "when the earth was first determined to be round".

You've already shown you didn't know anything about ancient sailors before the invention of the astrolabe for navigation in the 2nd century BC


This pic below was the view of the ancient Hebrews (flat disc with a dome over it) and was fairly typical of the type of views many ancient cultures had until the Greeks around 600 BC first postulated the earth to be spherical. Although it wasn't until the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth- and he was pretty close too.



Edited on 21-03-2017 18:10
21-03-2017 19:41
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

[I didn't say geologists discovered or postulated round earth, I said they accepted it.]

Before that, a number of cultures (like the Hebrews who wrote the old testament texts) believed the Mesopotamian religious myth that the earth was flat disc with a dome over it.

It's also a myth that people believed the earth was flat at the time of Christopher Columbus. Look up the 'flat earth myth'

As for plate tectonics, it was accepted by scientists because of all the evidence.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that scientists have been investigating all the forcings and feedbacks for decades and even earlier. There is a wealth of research going back almost 200 years. It all has to make physical sense with ALL the evidence and observations as well as the earth's paleoclimate and the laws of physics.

Which is why scientists can confidently say that CO2 is the main driver of climate change since the pre-industrial era (and has been the biggest driver throughout the earth's history). This all works together in conjunction with orbital forcing from the Milankovich cycles changing NH insolation and initiating deglaciation, the carbon cycle, aerosols, albedo changes and water vapour feedback etc.

What is it that you insist climate scientists 'open their mind to' that they haven't researched already?

Seriously, it's like none of you climate science rejectors have ever read a textbook let alone all the IPCC WG1 reports on the scientific basis or any of the published literature. You yourself apparently don't even know what scientists have already researched, or know much about the evidence, or the laws of physics or how it all fits together with other fields of science other than climate science.

If you are truly interested in understanding the science, you'd be spending your time learning, not posting contrarian politically motivated scientifically uneducated posts on little forums like this. There are so many good educational science-based, evidence-based resources online.

As a good place to start, you could try Professor Spencer Weart's textbook published by Harvard University Press: "The Discovery of Global Warming" and the free online version on the American Institute of Physics website. It discusses the history of the science involved from the 18th century to 21st century and provides links to all the main research papers.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Why not 'open your mind' and read all the Working Group 1 reports on the scientific basis from the IPCC. All of the questions I've seen you ask have been answered/addressed in those reports, which strongly tells me you haven't read any of them.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml


Or at least read the science summaries on the websites of main science organizations like the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good overview of the science on it's website:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

If you don't want to read, there are plenty of university or science conference lectures available:

eg

Professor Richard Alley has some easy to understand lectures on earth's climate history from the the AGU 2009 conference and National Academies of Science 2015 symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2 -Natonal Academy of Science 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" American Geophysical Union conference 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&t=68s

Professor David Archer from University of Chicago has a whole series of University lectures on atmospheric physics available freely online:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

I've also read a lot of the 'contrarian' claims on blogs/tabloids/industry 'think tanks' for about 10 years now. I've spent time investigating and fact-checking the claims for myself by reading the literature, and invariably found the claims to be misrepresenting science, demonstrably false, pseudoscience nonsense, or just patently ridiculous evidence free conspiracy theories.

So who has the open minds? Do you think it's laypeople who refuse to actually learn about the science and go straight to mindlessly parroting nonsense from junkscience conspiracy blogs and tabloid media?

If you haven't even bothered to learn what the science is and what scientists have already researched or what all the evidence is, but you reject the science anyway or claim scientists don't have 'open minds', how can YOU claim to have an 'open mind'?


I want to say that I appreciate your enlightening me on the evidence of positive feedback. I can tell you how I became what you call a contrarian. It started with Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State submitting a peer reviewed paper that gave rise to the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC to show, among other things that there was no mideaval warm period nor little ice age and that temperatures have spiked since man-made CO2 began increasing. This paper was successfully contested by Steve McIntyre. However, it is not the fact that it was debunked that intrigued me, but the fact that Dr. Mann felt it was necessary to get rid of the mideaval warm period to make our present warming appear more ominous. These coupled with the climate-gate emails set me off on this "contrarian" course. Why cannot these scientists let the scientific cards fall as they may? The other factor in this scenario is that most climate research is funded by governments who are inclined to fund only research pointed in their political direction. Until the present administration, that direction has been towards high positive feedback. If you read the IPCCs mission statement you will see that they were set up to prove anthropological global warming, not to investigate all causes of climate change.

I am not necessarily a permanent contrarian, but it will more than a predominance of studies in one direction to convert me.
21-03-2017 19:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.


My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?


Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history and geography too.

Greek sailors rarely left sight of land because they had no instruments to tell where they were. It wasn't until Hipparchus invented the astrolabe that sailors ventured further afield. Do you know nothing of the Mediterranean Sea?


You get more stupid with every posting. Every day in every way you show that you haven't a clue about the world around you but want to be seen as some sort of expert.

I'm no expert and have never claimed to be. It's just that you are so goddamned moronic, ridiculous and arrogantly ignorant, that anyone else looks like a freakin' MENSA genius compared to you.


What's funny, is that everything you accuse others of, is just you projecting your own flaws and behaviour.


Well, doesn't that look great to you. I already qualify for Mensa but have never cared to be a member of an elitist group as you do. The minimum score is 132 and my Iq is 145.
Edited on 21-03-2017 19:47
21-03-2017 19:52
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Frescomexico wrote: I am not necessarily a permanent contrarian, but it will more than a predominance of studies in one direction to convert me.


This is what these True Believers do not understand. Give me actual scientific evidence above reproach and I would change sides in a moment. But instead I see science that isn't science and virtually ALL of the True Believers are like the four here - untrained people who do not even know how to read papers and properly understand them.

You and I are called the insulting term "denier" when it is they who deny science while flinging that word around like monkey's do their own scat.
21-03-2017 20:25
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.


So please tell us your 'expert' opinion on "when the earth was first determined to be round".

You've already shown you didn't know anything about ancient sailors before the invention of the astrolabe for navigation in the 2nd century BC


This pic below was the view of the ancient Hebrews (flat disc with a dome over it) and was fairly typical of the type of views many ancient cultures had until the Greeks around 600 BC first postulated the earth to be spherical. Although it wasn't until the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth- and he was pretty close too.




Is it your contention that the ancient Greeks didn't navigate to England and back? Or are you saying that sailing wasn't possible until the invention of the Astrolabe?

All of this would be well and fine unless you've EVER done any mountain climbing around the oceans. All you have to do is climb, say Mt. Tamalpais and you can watch the Farallon Islands rise up out of the ocean. You could have no other explanation.

This is the same as watching for destinations from the masthead.

You obviously have never been a sailor and so this probably seems like some sort of myth to you. But until you actually see it you know without a doubt that there was never any question about the shape of the Earth to a sailor.

The question is,with so little knowledge about these things why would you argue about them?
22-03-2017 01:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

[I didn't say geologists discovered or postulated round earth, I said they accepted it.]

Before that, a number of cultures (like the Hebrews who wrote the old testament texts) believed the Mesopotamian religious myth that the earth was flat disc with a dome over it.

It's also a myth that people believed the earth was flat at the time of Christopher Columbus. Look up the 'flat earth myth'

As for plate tectonics, it was accepted by scientists because of all the evidence.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that scientists have been investigating all the forcings and feedbacks for decades and even earlier. There is a wealth of research going back almost 200 years. It all has to make physical sense with ALL the evidence and observations as well as the earth's paleoclimate and the laws of physics.

Which is why scientists can confidently say that CO2 is the main driver of climate change since the pre-industrial era (and has been the biggest driver throughout the earth's history). This all works together in conjunction with orbital forcing from the Milankovich cycles changing NH insolation and initiating deglaciation, the carbon cycle, aerosols, albedo changes and water vapour feedback etc.

What is it that you insist climate scientists 'open their mind to' that they haven't researched already?

Seriously, it's like none of you climate science rejectors have ever read a textbook let alone all the IPCC WG1 reports on the scientific basis or any of the published literature. You yourself apparently don't even know what scientists have already researched, or know much about the evidence, or the laws of physics or how it all fits together with other fields of science other than climate science.

If you are truly interested in understanding the science, you'd be spending your time learning, not posting contrarian politically motivated scientifically uneducated posts on little forums like this. There are so many good educational science-based, evidence-based resources online.

As a good place to start, you could try Professor Spencer Weart's textbook published by Harvard University Press: "The Discovery of Global Warming" and the free online version on the American Institute of Physics website. It discusses the history of the science involved from the 18th century to 21st century and provides links to all the main research papers.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Why not 'open your mind' and read all the Working Group 1 reports on the scientific basis from the IPCC. All of the questions I've seen you ask have been answered/addressed in those reports, which strongly tells me you haven't read any of them.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml


Or at least read the science summaries on the websites of main science organizations like the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good overview of the science on it's website:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

If you don't want to read, there are plenty of university or science conference lectures available:

eg

Professor Richard Alley has some easy to understand lectures on earth's climate history from the the AGU 2009 conference and National Academies of Science 2015 symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2 -Natonal Academy of Science 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" American Geophysical Union conference 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&t=68s

Professor David Archer from University of Chicago has a whole series of University lectures on atmospheric physics available freely online:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

I've also read a lot of the 'contrarian' claims on blogs/tabloids/industry 'think tanks' for about 10 years now. I've spent time investigating and fact-checking the claims for myself by reading the literature, and invariably found the claims to be misrepresenting science, demonstrably false, pseudoscience nonsense, or just patently ridiculous evidence free conspiracy theories.

So who has the open minds? Do you think it's laypeople who refuse to actually learn about the science and go straight to mindlessly parroting nonsense from junkscience conspiracy blogs and tabloid media?

If you haven't even bothered to learn what the science is and what scientists have already researched or what all the evidence is, but you reject the science anyway or claim scientists don't have 'open minds', how can YOU claim to have an 'open mind'?


I want to say that I appreciate your enlightening me on the evidence of positive feedback. I can tell you how I became what you call a contrarian. It started with Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State submitting a peer reviewed paper that gave rise to the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC to show, among other things that there was no mideaval warm period nor little ice age and that temperatures have spiked since man-made CO2 began increasing. This paper was successfully contested by Steve McIntyre. However, it is not the fact that it was debunked that intrigued me, but the fact that Dr. Mann felt it was necessary to get rid of the mideaval warm period to make our present warming appear more ominous. These coupled with the climate-gate emails set me off on this "contrarian" course. Why cannot these scientists let the scientific cards fall as they may? The other factor in this scenario is that most climate research is funded by governments who are inclined to fund only research pointed in their political direction. Until the present administration, that direction has been towards high positive feedback. If you read the IPCCs mission statement you will see that they were set up to prove anthropological global warming, not to investigate all causes of climate change.

I am not necessarily a permanent contrarian, but it will more than a predominance of studies in one direction to convert me.


*sigh* It sounds like you only read conspiracy blogs/tabloid media etc and are extremely easy to dupe.

Mann and Bradley's original work wasn't 'successfully debunked' by McIntyre and McKittrick at all. Did you even know that McIntyre and McKittrick's paper was itself rebutted and it's obvious flaws exposed?

Did you know that there have been dozens of studies that have used different proxies and methods that all confirmed Mann and Bradley's work?

Did you know that so-called "climategate" turned out to be just a manufactured controversy based on dishonestly cherry-picking some phrases from emails and that half a dozen investigations showed no "faking of data" or wrongdoing by those scientists?

I shouldn't even have to point this out to you. If you wanted to know facts instead of evidence-free conspiracy claims, you would have done your own fact-checking and realised all those claims you just made are incorrect.

So I guess you just want to continue to believe what you want to believe - no matter if it's nonsense. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It's not up to people like me to try to convince you of the facts. That's up to you.
Edited on 22-03-2017 01:16
22-03-2017 01:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?


The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.


So please tell us your 'expert' opinion on "when the earth was first determined to be round".

You've already shown you didn't know anything about ancient sailors before the invention of the astrolabe for navigation in the 2nd century BC


This pic below was the view of the ancient Hebrews (flat disc with a dome over it) and was fairly typical of the type of views many ancient cultures had until the Greeks around 600 BC first postulated the earth to be spherical. Although it wasn't until the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth- and he was pretty close too.




Is it your contention that the ancient Greeks didn't navigate to England and back? Or are you saying that sailing wasn't possible until the invention of the Astrolabe?

All of this would be well and fine unless you've EVER done any mountain climbing around the oceans. All you have to do is climb, say Mt. Tamalpais and you can watch the Farallon Islands rise up out of the ocean. You could have no other explanation.

This is the same as watching for destinations from the masthead.

You obviously have never been a sailor and so this probably seems like some sort of myth to you. But until you actually see it you know without a doubt that there was never any question about the shape of the Earth to a sailor.

The question is,with so little knowledge about these things why would you argue about them?

What a dimwitted nitwit you are. You still haven't shown anything about "when the earth was first determined to be round" as you claim.

According to Strabo, Pytheas sailed to Great Britain in the 4th century BC- after the Greeks already postulated that the earth wasn't flat. For most of that journey he would have been within sight of land in the Mediterranean sea, passed through the straits of Gibraltar, sailed along the coasts of Portugal and France, then across to Great Britain. I said 'most' Greek sailors would have stayed within sight of land to know where they were, not 'all', After the astrolabe was invented in the 2nd century BC and could be used for navigation, sailors went a lot farther afield. They just didn't want to get lost.

It's amazing what ignorant people can convince themselves of- even despite all evidence to the contrary. Like you - with your ridiculous scientifically illiterate fact-free claims that the earth has been cooling for the last 20 years and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling.

Edited on 22-03-2017 02:07
22-03-2017 02:47
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?
22-03-2017 02:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP. They were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.

I've had enough for now of the rank ignorance and nutbaggery on this little haven for a tiny handful of nutty science deniers. It was fun to poke fun at that arrogant blithering moron Wake for awhile but he's incredibly tedious and boring and I have better things to do.
Edited on 22-03-2017 03:30
22-03-2017 03:36
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.


Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?
22-03-2017 10:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.


Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?


Yes, regional. I could show you papers that showed some intermittent decades of regional cooling periods in the southern hemisphere during various times during the purported time period of the LIA. I could also show you some papers with intermittent decades of warming in the Northern Hemisphere during that period and vice versa. The whole point is that the body of research shows that there wasn't a contiguous and contemporaneous period of centuries of global cooling during that period. There's not even clearly defined start and end dates to the LIA. There was certainly some periods of significant cooling in many regional areas of the Northern Hemisphere and some minor cooling at different times in some regional areas in the Southern Hemisphere.

All you have done is find a Science Daily news article by a journalist talking about one study of one peat bog proxy in South America.

I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to actually read the Chambers et al paper itself. The paper itself certainly doesn't make the exaggerated claims of the journalist who wrote that Science Daily article. It wasn't even measuring the proxy for temperature, it was measuring the wetness of the peat bog.

Here's the paper referred to by Science Daily journalist:

Chambers, F. M., Brain, S. A., Mauquoy, D., McCarroll, J., & Daley, T. (2014). The 'Little Ice Age'in the Southern Hemisphere in the context of the last 3000 years: Peat-based proxy-climate data from Tierra del Fuego. The Holocene, 24(12), 1649-1656.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683614551232

Here is the Conclusion directly from the paper:

"Proxy-climate data from a mire in Tierra del Fuego, Southern Argentina, using the techniques of plant macrofossil analysis and determination of peat humification, show that the main climate changes recorded during the past 3000 years were (1) at 2800 cal. BP and (2) during parts of the time period conventionally associated with the LIA. These changes manifest as vegetation changes and changes in peat humification, both indicative of changes in bog surface wetness; they present as significantly drier-than-normal interludes. Although there may well be a temperature component in the records, no temperature-change equivalent can at present be calculated from these data.

The 2800 cal. BP shift is sharp, short-lived and coincides with a claimed abrupt 'global' climate change attributed to a temporary decrease in solar activity during a 'Grand Solar Minimum'. That drier episode was interpreted by Chambers et al. (2007) as indicating a shift in the position of the moisture-bearing Westerlies. Subsequent short-lived climate shifts, of lesser magnitude, seemingly occurred at c. cal. ad 215–240 and 1000. Later, a more pronounced short-lived shift occurred at c. cal. ad A, while a twin-peak episode of more comparable magnitude to that of c. 2800 cal. BP lasted from c. cal. ad 1675 to 1770, coinciding with the most severe interludes of the LIA in Europe. A similar mechanism to the pronounced shift at c. 2800 cal. BP might be invoked to explain these shifts to dryness in the last millennium: namely, a change in the position of the Westerlies.

While the proximal cause of major changes in bog surface wetness may be shifts in the southerly jet stream, the data from this site suggest (1) that the LIA is recorded in Southern Argentina; (2) at its peak intensities, it is comparable in magnitude to the 2800 cal. BP climate perturbation; (3) the data support Moreno et al.'s (2014) claim of 'inter-hemispheric [temporal] symmetry'; (4) these data are not inconsistent with the long-standing interpretation of the more severe multi-decadal episodes within the LIA being associated with decreased solar activity; and (5) that it may be hypothesised that decreased solar activity caused an equatorward shift of the Westerlies, resulting in a drier mire surface at the Andorra bog in Tierra del Fuego at c. 2800 cal. BP (which while temporally coincident with a major change to wetness recorded in mires in northwest continental Europe is nevertheless an opposite response of the bog surface here) and again during the more intense phases of the LIA; this hypothesis remains to be tested at other sites."


What's even funnier is that the Chambers et al paper cites the Mann et al 1998 paper as one of the papers in "in which both the Medieval Climate Anomaly and LIA feature". Something you were so CERTAIN isn't true.

You really have zero idea of the entire body of research on this. You don't even seem to be aware of major multi proxy global studies like PAGES2K 2013, or Marcott et al 2013.

Maybe you should put in a bit of effort "opening your mind", doing some fact checking and reading from somewhere other than conspiracy blogs before shooting yourself in the foot thinking you've had a 'gotcha!' moment.
Edited on 22-03-2017 10:42
22-03-2017 10:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
From the multi-proxy global study from the PAGES2K project:

Ahmed, M., Anchukaitis, K. J., Asrat, A., Borgaonkar, H. P., Braida, M., Buckley, B. M., ... & Curran, M. A. (2013). Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nature Geoscience, 6(5), 339.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

Abstract:

"Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them.

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."

Edited on 22-03-2017 10:45
22-03-2017 15:01
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.


Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?


Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.
23-03-2017 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2017 22:41
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.


To watch the four horse's asses of the apocalypse flayling around without a though of their own is pretty rediculous. Surface defect doesn't even know what the definition of "calculus" is. He can only assume that it's what he's been doing in school.
23-03-2017 22:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.


To watch the four horse's asses of the apocalypse flailing around without a though of their own is pretty rediculous. Surface defect doesn't even know what the definition of "calculus" is. He can only assume that it's what he's been doing in school.
24-03-2017 02:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.


To watch the four horse's asses of the apocalypse flailing around without a though of their own is pretty rediculous. Surface defect doesn't even know what the definition of "calculus" is. He can only assume that it's what he's been doing in school.

You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.
24-03-2017 15:20
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.



Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.
24-03-2017 15:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.



Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting


Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.
24-03-2017 16:55
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.



Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting


Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.


This is even better - you aren't even smart enough to look it up in the Websters Dictionary. But as an ass you are even funnier where you would grab one of several definitions in order to PROVE your point. And then pretend that there is no other definition. But guess what? You've only proven yourself to be even more stupid that most people assumed from your postings.
24-03-2017 17:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1663)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.



Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting


Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.


This is even better - you aren't even smart enough to look it up in the Websters Dictionary. But as an ass you are even funnier where you would grab one of several definitions in order to PROVE your point. And then pretend that there is no other definition. But guess what? You've only proven yourself to be even more stupid that most people assumed from your postings.

You are being ridiculous. You are aware, I take it, that words have different meanings in different contexts? If I said that 123 is a 3-digit number, would you assume I meant digit as in finger? Of course not.

Similarly, calculus has a very definite meaning in maths and science: it means the branch of maths dealing with rates of change, i.e. differentiation and integration. Laypeople may use the term to mean "tricky maths", but nobody with an education would refer to a scientific paper as containing calculus if it didn't contain differential or integral equations.
24-03-2017 18:42
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.


Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?


Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Don't get drawn into a citation game, never show how you know you know something and instead go with gut feelings and if challenged just double down on your assertions. Never draw conclusions from what is observed in nature and commonly held to be true. Throw in some random unfounded insults about your opponents sexual preferences and then you will be valued member of the climate debate community.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-03-2017 21:28
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.


Don't get drawn into a citation game, never show how you know you know something and instead go with gut feelings and if challenged just double down on your assertions. Never draw conclusions from what is observed in nature and commonly held to be true. Throw in some random unfounded insults about your opponents sexual preferences and then you will be valued member of the climate debate community.


We understand that you children don't understand science so we don't pay the least attention to your attempts to play at it.
26-03-2017 21:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.



Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting


Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.


This is even better - you aren't even smart enough to look it up in the Websters Dictionary. But as an ass you are even funnier where you would grab one of several definitions in order to PROVE your point. And then pretend that there is no other definition. But guess what? You've only proven yourself to be even more stupid that most people assumed from your postings.

You are being ridiculous. You are aware, I take it, that words have different meanings in different contexts? If I said that 123 is a 3-digit number, would you assume I meant digit as in finger? Of course not.

Similarly, calculus has a very definite meaning in maths and science: it means the branch of maths dealing with rates of change, i.e. differentiation and integration. Laypeople may use the term to mean "tricky maths", but nobody with an education would refer to a scientific paper as containing calculus if it didn't contain differential or integral equations.


Obviously, one who has never studied the etymology of words.

There is no 'math' version of 'calculus'. It's ALL math. There is no 'science' version of 'calculus'. It is math, not science.

The word 'calculus' comes from the meaning 'to count' or 'to sum'. It's current meaning not only means a particular branch of mathematics dealing with smaller and smaller summations, but is also used to describe any fixed procedure in mathematics.

Yes...it has more than one meaning.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Climate Change Dishonesty:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact