Remember me
▼ Content

Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming15-05-2020 18:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
I am often told there is no evidence for global warming so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence. I have more if you want them.

You might quibble with a few of these (if you do, I expect to see a scientific reference to support your claims) but the sheer bulk of the evidence is overwhelming.

EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

1. CO2 passing 416 ppm for the first time in 30 million years
(https://files.secure.website/wscfus/9167827/4542986/co2-400-m-years-400-ppm-20-m.png)

2. The increase in CO2 matched by the drop in O2 means the additional CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels (C + O2 = CO2)
(http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-3.jpg)

3. The isotopic mixture in atmospheric CO2 changing, showing link to fossil fuels burning (https://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/c13_mlo_spo.jpg)

4. Oceans acidification due to absorbing some of the excess atmospheric CO2, showing oceans still absorbing more CO2 than they release:
(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg)

5. Some parts of the world greening due to extra CO2, but other parts browning
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg)

6. The rise in CH4 from melting permafrost and increase agricultural/energy industry emission.
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4_trend_all_gl.png)

7. 2019 the second warmest year on record despite it being ENSO neutral (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

8. Every decade since 1950's has been warmer than the last
(https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-change-decade-averages)

9. 2020 so far is on pace to overtake 2019 as the second warmest on record
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/apr/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202004.png)

10. January 2020 was the warmest January on record

11. All 6 of the last 6 years have been in the top 6 hottest years on record.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

12. The 18 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 20 years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

13. Last month that had a global temperature average below its 20th Century average was over 35 years ago.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/12/1880-2019)

14. Polar Amplification: High latitudes warming faster than equatorial regions, so not the result of changes in the solar input to the Earth.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification#/media/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09.png)

15. The surface warming faster (0.20C/decade) than the lower troposphere (alt. 4km) according to UAH (run by two climate skeptics) at a rate of about 0.15C/decade, showing the sun is not involved
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

16. The lower troposphere warming faster the mid troposphere (alt. 7km) (ditto) at a rate
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913) , showing the sun is not involved.

17. The stratosphere (alt. 17 km) cooling (ditto) – a unique signature of AGW – at a rate of about -0.4C/decade
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

18. The top 700 meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.4C in the last 50 years
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif)

19. Nights are warming faster than days
(https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml)

20. Winters warming faster than summers
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

21. Solar activity has been steadily declining since 1957 while global temperatures have soared.
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

22. From 1993 to 2016 the Greenland icecap (i.e., land ice) has lost 286 Billion tons of ice per year (a billion tons of ice is a cubic kilometer) – NASA GRACE Mission
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879)

23. Over the same period The Antarctic Ice Cap has lost 127 billion tons of ice per year – GRACE
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/)

24. The northern hemisphere is losing about 4% of its sea ice every decade, measured from 1981 – present.
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-arctic-is-experiencing-its-most-unprecedented-transition-in-history-heres-why)

25. Over the same time Antarctic sea ice has grown by 0.8% per decade but has lost 18% of its sea ice in the last 6 years.
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

26. Overall sea ice is declining at a rate of about 1.4% per decade.
( https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

27. Glaciers all over the world are retreating and/or collapsing (getting thinner)
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)

28. Snow cover has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 decades
( https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/snow-cover-on-the-decline-in-north-america)

29. Snow melt is getting earlier each year
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/snomelt.html)

30. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and land ice melt
(https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

31. Bleaching damaging most corals around the world due mainly to higher water temperatures and ocean acidification
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_28_16_GBR_CoralSeaTemp_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

32. Algae blooms becoming more common as water temperatures rise and greater pollution is leading to larger dead spots in the oceans and lakes
(https://kenoraonline.com/local/algae-blooms-increasing)

33. Extreme weather events associated with more atmospheric energy (i.e., temperature) are on the rise
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/MunichReDisasterFrequency.png)

34. Milder winters allowing some pests to thrive – killing billions of trees in the West (the dead wood provides yet more fuel for fires)
(https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spruce-beetle-graph.jpg)

35. More and bigger forest fires due to widespread drought in some areas
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/6_23_16_Report_LargeWildfires_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

36. Warmer air temperature allows more water content so when it does rain you get a deluge and flooding (see fig 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248)

37. Planting zones moving poleward
(https://blogs.massaudubon.org/yourgreatoutdoors/recommendations-for-planting-have-changed/)

38. Animal migrations earlier and further north and higher
(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/)

39. Tropical diseases spreading to temperate areas
(https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-change-and-vector-borne-disease)

40. Permafrost melting
(https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/11/in-pictures-russian-weather-station-on-the-edge-of-melting-permafrost/)

41. Reduced snowfall in marginal areas like the UK
(See fig1 in https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/)

42. Increased rate of species extinction especially fast among amphibians
(https://www.dawn.com/news/1478046)

If you want more detail please read the relevant sections of https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
15-05-2020 19:43
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2548)
It's our first inter-glacial period, which we can measure, observe, and record. The past is speculation, as is the future. Consensus, doesn't necessarily make it factual, and true. There is a consensus, among literally billions of people, that God exists. Guess it depends on your faith and who, or what, you wish to worship.

Personally, I like a warm climate. That was one of the main reasons I moved to Florida. Hurricanes haven't been more severe, or frequent, more the opposite. Lived here since 1986... They have changed how the measure wind speed. They also started naming sub-tropical storms. Still have trouble using all 22 names. Very flat, low elevation, and we still haven't flooded from the alarming rising sea levels... Beaches are still about the same, except maybe more women in bikinis, who shouldn't. Some might not be actually be women either...

Polar bear and penguin populations growing, and doing fine. Although, many of the polar bears have gotten lazy, instead of hunting, they seem to prefer the easy meals they get from knocking over Eskimo trash cans, or foraging landfills. Less labor intensive, probably don't have to go swimming in the icy water either.

More CO2, makes plants grow faster, strong, more productive. Seems like more food is a good thing.

I have more faith in nature, it's been doing a fine job of supporting life, longer than we, as a species, has walked on our hind legs. We can be smart, trust nature, and adapt to the changes, as we always have, and survived quite well. Fighting nature, has never turned out well, or been successful. Ever notice, most humans aren't covered in thick fur? It's because we are adapted, and ready for a warmer climate. It's our first inter-glacial, so how do climatologist know when we hit peak warming/thawing, from the Great Ice Age? how does anyone know, what 'normal' should be. I ain't missing the ice and snow. Been enjoying some mild winters these past few years. Wish you cult people would leave this alone. Solar and wind farms are ugly, inefficient, and take up a lot of prime farm land. And quit trying to steal my money, and my SUV.
15-05-2020 20:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote: I am often told there is no evidence for global warming

Exactly, because you cannot have evidence for something that isn't well defined. You must begin with an unambiguous falsifiable definition for anything to be able to be classified as "evidence" for it.

So, lay it on me. I am standing by for your unambiguous, falsifiable definition.

DRKTS wrote: ... so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence.

Nope. I just told you that you must first start with an unambiguous, falsifiable definition. At the moment you are putting the cart before the horse.

We need an unambiguous, falsifiable definition first.
----------------





[notes:
"1. CO2 passing 416 ppm for the first time in 30 million years " This is a purely fabricated datum that has nothing to do with increasing temperature.

"2.The increase in CO2 matched by the drop in O2 means the additional CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels (C + O2 = CO2)" There are no measurements of global atmospheric CO2 or of O2, molecules don't have metadata tags explaining their orogin, fossils don't burn and nothing in this relates to temperature.

"3. The isotopic mixture in atmospheric CO2 changing, showing link to fossil fuels burning" CO2 has no "isotopic mixture" and this has nothing to do with temperature.

"4. Oceans acidification due to absorbing some of the excess atmospheric CO2, showing oceans still absorbing more CO2 than they release" The ocean has never acidified. Nobody knows the ocean's average alkalinity. The ocean releases all CO2 that it absorbs. This point has nothing to do with temperature.

"5. Some parts of the world greening due to extra CO2, but other parts browning" This has nothing to do with temperature.

"6. The rise in CH4 from melting permafrost and increase agricultural/energy industry emission." Molecules do not have metadata tags for their origin. Conclusion is completely unsupported. Has nothing to do with temperature.

"7. 2019 the second warmest year on record despite it being ENSO neutral "
What temperature was 2019?

"8. Every decade since 1950's has been warmer than the last"
What were those years' specific temperatures?

" 9.2020 so far is on pace to overtake 2019 as the second warmest on record" How does a year like 2020 "overtake" a temperature?

"10. January 2020 was the warmest January on record"
What temperature was January 2020?

"11. All 6 of the last 6 years have been in the top 6 hottest years on record. "
What were their temperatures?

"12. The 18 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 20 years "
I have to make a gullibility trophy. You are the recipient of this year's award. What were the temperatures of those 18 years?

"13. Last month that had a global temperature average below its 20th Century average was over 35 years ago. " What are the months' 20th Century average temperatures?

"14. Polar Amplification: High latitudes warming faster than equatorial regions, so not the result of changes in the solar input to the Earth. " This is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, on its face and the claim of "warming" is totally unsubstantiated.

"15. The surface warming faster (0.20C/decade) than the lower troposphere (alt. 4km) " This is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, on its face and the claim of "warming" is totally unsubstantiated.

"16. The lower troposphere warming faster the mid troposphere (alt. 7km) (ditto)" This is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, on its face and the claim of "warming" is totally unsubstantiated.

"17. The stratosphere (alt. 17 km) cooling (ditto) – a unique signature of AGW – at a rate of about -0.4C/decade" This was presumably measured via all those millions upon millions of evenly distributed thermometers floating in the stratosphere ... or maybe "the SATELLITES are doing it."

"18. The top 700 meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.4C in the last 50 years" There's only one ocean and nobody knows its average temperature or whether it has changed.

"19. Nights are warming faster than days" What?

"20. Winters warming faster than summers" ¿Qué?

"21. Solar activity has been steadily declining since 1957 while global temperatures have soared." I'll buy possible declining solar activity; it might explain why things SEEM to be getting cooler, but your claim of increasing temperatures, whie being patently absurd on its face is totally unsupported.

"22. From 1993 to 2016 the Greenland icecap (i.e., land ice) has lost 286 Billion tons of ice per year " Nope. Greenland continues to gain net ice mass through surface accumulation of meters per year. Anyone who has actually worked in Greenland can tell you that.

"23. Over the same period The Antarctic Ice Cap has lost 127 billion tons of ice per year." Antarctica is gaining net ice mass every year per surface accumulation of meters per year.

"24. The northern hemisphere is losing about 4% of its sea ice every decade, measured from 1981 – present. " Every year, Antarctica gains lots of sea ice in the winter and then loses it in the summer, and this has never changed. The total amount fluctuates from year to year but there has been no steady long-term decrease.

"25. Over the same time Antarctic sea ice has grown by 0.8% per decade but has lost 18% of its sea ice in the last 6 years. " Pure fabrication. There are no valid datasets corroborating this.

"26. Overall sea ice is declining at a rate of about 1.4% per decade." Nope. There are no valid datasets corroborating this.

"27. Glaciers all over the world are retreating and/or collapsing (getting thinner)" ... while others are growing and/or being born. The overall net balance remains at zero as far as anyone can tell.

"28. Snow cover has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 decades" while snow cover in other places has been steadily increasing over that same time. The net balance is zero as far as anyone can tell.

"29. Snow melt is getting earlier each year" Stupid comment for the gullible. Snow melt is always occurring somewhere in the world.

"30. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and land ice melt" Sea levels are not rising tp any perceptible extent. There are things that any adult can do to convince oneself that there is no discernible sea level rise

"31. Bleaching damaging most corals around the world due mainly to higher water temperatures and ocean acidification" The ocean has never acidified, there is no bleach being generated in the ocean, corals regain their algae after ejecting them and their colors return.

"32. Algae blooms becoming more common as water temperatures rise and greater pollution is leading to larger dead spots in the oceans and lakes" There are no valid datasets supporting the contention that the ocean's average temperature is somehow rising. Yes, pollution can spur algae growth but that has nothing to do with temperature.

"33. Extreme weather events associated with more atmospheric energy (i.e., temperature) are on the rise" Nope.

"34. Milder winters allowing some pests to thrive – killing billions of trees in the West (the dead wood provides yet more fuel for fires)" While that might very well a natural result of a mild winter, there are no valid datasets that support any sort of forecast for milder future winters.

"35. More and bigger forest fires due to widespread drought in some areas" This has nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with government mismanagement of land resources. The more Marxist the government, the more mismanaged the land resources are.

"36. Warmer air temperature allows more water content so when it does rain you get a deluge and flooding " Now all you need is to somehow show "warmer temperatures."

"37. Planting zones moving poleward " ... with planting zones that have to be continually moved equatorward.

"38. Animal migrations earlier and further north and higher" with animal migrations that are later and further south and lower.

"39. Tropical diseases spreading to temperate areas" because diseases spread. That's what they do.

"40. Permafrost melting" with permafrost forming.

"41. Reduced snowfall in marginal areas like the UK" to balance out the increased precipitation in other places, keeping the net balance at zero.

"42. Increased rate of species extinction especially fast among amphibians" Nobody is tracking all species because it's not possible, and certainly no one is able to track new species as they come into existence.



[*FIND-STANDARDLISTFORTHEGULLIBLE]
.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-05-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
DRKTS wrote:
I am often told there is no evidence for global warming so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence. I have more if you want them.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science and mathematics. Define 'global warming'. Mantras 20c...22a.
DRKTS wrote:
You might quibble with a few of these (if you do, I expect to see a scientific reference to support your claims) but the sheer bulk of the evidence is overwhelming.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Mantras 20c...10 (science<->religion)...39i...
DRKTS wrote:
EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

1. CO2 passing 416 ppm for the first time in 30 million years
(https://files.secure.website/wscfus/9167827/4542986/co2-400-m-years-400-ppm-20-m.png)
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. We don't have enough stations, and the Mauna Loa data has been shown to be cooked. It's useless.
DRKTS wrote:
2. The increase in CO2 matched by the drop in O2 means the additional CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels (C + O2 = CO2)
(http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-3.jpg)
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of either CO2 or O2.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Mantras 20r4...25g...25c...25d...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
3. The isotopic mixture in atmospheric CO2 changing, showing link to fossil fuels burning (https://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/c13_mlo_spo.jpg)
Same mantras as 2)
DRKTS wrote:
4. Oceans acidification due to absorbing some of the excess atmospheric CO2, showing oceans still absorbing more CO2 than they release:
(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg)
Learn at least a little chemistry, dude. Mantras 20r1...20r5...20r6... Acid-base chemistry doesn't work that way. Go learn about pH, how it's calculated, what it means, and learn about equilibrium in reactions, and the effects of partial pressures. In particular, learn what a buffering agent is. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Mantra 10a.
DRKTS wrote:
5. Some parts of the world greening due to extra CO2, but other parts browning
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg)

Pictures are worth a thousand bogus words...particularly cherry picked images like these. Mantra 20p.
DRKTS wrote:
6. The rise in CH4 from melting permafrost and increase agricultural/energy industry emission.
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4_trend_all_gl.png)

The permafrost isn't melting. Learn what permafrost is. NOAA is making shit up again. Mantra 25g...4a...4d...
DRKTS wrote:
7. 2019 the second warmest year on record despite it being ENSO neutral (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, it's oceans, or it's lands. There are not anywhere near enough thermometers. ENSO does not change the temperature of the ocean. Mantras 20a1...5a...5d...20p...25g...25c...25d...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
8. Every decade since 1950's has been warmer than the last
(https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-change-decade-averages)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
9. 2020 so far is on pace to overtake 2019 as the second warmest on record
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/apr/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202004.png)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
10. January 2020 was the warmest January on record
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
11. All 6 of the last 6 years have been in the top 6 hottest years on record.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
12. The 18 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 20 years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
DRKTS wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
13. Last month that had a global temperature average below its 20th Century average was over 35 years ago.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Base rate fallacy. Mantra 25a...25g.
DRKTS wrote:
14. Polar Amplification: High latitudes warming faster than equatorial regions, so not the result of changes in the solar input to the Earth.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification#/media ...deleted Holy Link...

Buzzword fallacy. the poles don't amplify anything. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the poles. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the equator. Stop believing the crap at Wikipedia. Mantras 25g...22 (polar amplification)...22 (equatorial regions)...4a...
DRKTS wrote:
15. The surface warming faster (0.20C/decade) than the lower troposphere (alt. 4km) according to UAH (run by two climate skeptics) at a rate of about 0.15C/decade, showing the sun is not involved
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to measure either global surface temperature nor global troposphere temperatures. Mantras 20a2...25g...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
16. The lower troposphere warming faster the mid troposphere (alt. 7km) (ditto) at a rate
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913) , showing the sun is not involved.
DRKTS wrote:

It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system.
17. The stratosphere (alt. 17 km) cooling (ditto) – a unique signature of AGW – at a rate of about -0.4C/decade
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

It is not possible to measure the global stratosphere temperature.
DRKTS wrote:
18. The top 700 meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.4C in the last 50 years
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the top 700 meters of the oceans.
DRKTS wrote:
19. Nights are warming faster than days
(https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml)

Nights don't generally warm. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a1...20a2...
DRKTS wrote:
20. Winters warming faster than summers
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

Winter generally doesn't warm. The orbit of Earth has not changed. See the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's laws as well as Kepler's laws. Mantras 20a1...20u...
DRKTS wrote:
21. Solar activity has been steadily declining since 1957 while global temperatures have soared.
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are lying about solar activity too. It has not declined. It cycles every 11 years. Mantra 25g...25l...
DRKTS wrote:
22. From 1993 to 2016 the Greenland icecap (i.e., land ice) has lost 286 Billion tons of ice per year (a billion tons of ice is a cubic kilometer) – NASA GRACE Mission
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879)

It is not possible to measure the global snow and ice on Earth. NASA can't do it either, not even with the GRACE satellites. GRACE cannot measure depth of ice, or submerged ice. Mantras 25g...25k...
DRKTS wrote:
23. Over the same period The Antarctic Ice Cap has lost 127 billion tons of ice per year – GRACE
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/)

Lie. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice at Antarctica. The winter ice extent (surface area covered by ice, not the volume) reached a record maximum in 2014, the highest ever recorded.
DRKTS wrote:
24. The northern hemisphere is losing about 4% of its sea ice every decade, measured from 1981 – present.
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-arctic-is-experiencing-its-most-unprecedented-transition-in-history-heres-why)

Lie. Winter ice extent at the north pole is increase too. PBS is simply continuing the lie. Mantra 25g...4b...
DRKTS wrote:
25. Over the same time Antarctic sea ice has grown by 0.8% per decade but has lost 18% of its sea ice in the last 6 years.
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

Base rate fallacy. You are comparing against the year Antarctica had it's record maximum winter ice extent. You are also conflating units. Surface area is not volume. Mantras 25g...25l...
DRKTS wrote:
26. Overall sea ice is declining at a rate of about 1.4% per decade.
( https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

It is not possible to measure the global total snow and ice on Earth. Mantra 25g...225c...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
27. Glaciers all over the world are retreating and/or collapsing (getting thinner)
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)

Glaciers all over the world are also advancing and expanding (getting thicker). No one is measuring all the glaciers in the world. Mantras 25g...cherry picking fallacy...
DRKTS wrote:
28. Snow cover has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 decades
( https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/snow-cover-on-the-decline-in-north-america)

It has been increasing too. Happens every season. Base rate fallacy. Mantras 25a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
29. Snow melt is getting earlier each year
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/snomelt.html)

Lie. There is no national snow melt date. Mantras 25j...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
30. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and land ice melt
(https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

Not possible. Land ice came from the sea. It is not possible to measure the level of the oceans. There is no valid reference point. Mantras 25a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
31. Bleaching damaging most corals around the world due mainly to higher water temperatures and ocean acidification
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_28_16_GBR_CoralSeaTemp_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

No one is throwing bleach into the coral. Acid is not bleach. Go learn at least some basic chemistry. Mantras 20r1...20r5...20r6...10a...
DRKTS wrote:
32. Algae blooms becoming more common as water temperatures rise and greater pollution is leading to larger dead spots in the oceans and lakes
(https://kenoraonline.com/local/algae-blooms-increasing)

Algae tends to grow in colder temperatures, not warmer. That's why the tropical seas are so clear. Define 'pollution'. Define 'dead spot'. How can a region where something grows, like algae be a 'dead spot'??? It is not possible to measure the global content of algae. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. Mantras 25g...25c...26e...25f...
DRKTS wrote:
33. Extreme weather events associated with more atmospheric energy (i.e., temperature) are on the rise
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/MunichReDisasterFrequency.png)

Define 'extreme weather event'. Define 'atmospheric energy'. The atmosphere is mass, not energy. Buzzword fallacies. Mantras 10...25g...25a...22 (extreme weather)...22 (atmospheric energy)...
DRKTS wrote:
34. Milder winters allowing some pests to thrive – killing billions of trees in the West (the dead wood provides yet more fuel for fires)
(https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spruce-beetle-graph.jpg)

We have more trees than ever in the United States, thanks to the fine people at places like Weyerhauser. Define 'milder winter'. The SOTC needs to start clearing the brush and vegetation down like they used to. Otherwise huge wildfire is inevitable. Usually it's grasslands in the SOTC, but it often gets into the trees as well. Even worse, the failure to remove old logs and snags like they used to (and convert them to useful lumber) allows those fires to step up into the canopy of the trees.
DRKTS wrote:
35. More and bigger forest fires due to widespread drought in some areas
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/6_23_16_Report_LargeWildfires_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

The SOTC has fires because of extra water, allowing grass to grow more, which they don't remove. When these grasses dry out in the summer, you get wildfire. It is because of extra water that these grasses can grow in the first place. Trees need water as well. The 'drought' in the SOTC is purely fictional. They do not manage their water supplies, and have removed or failed to maintain their reservoirs. Ranchers and farmers in the SOTC have had enough. They are moving out, if they can find some fool willing to buy their land. All up and down the Imperial valley are dead orchards, ranches devoid of cattle, and even abandoned properties. A direct result of the government there not maintaining their reservoir system. Mantras 21...22 (drought)...
DRKTS wrote:
36. Warmer air temperature allows more water content so when it does rain you get a deluge and flooding (see fig 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248)

It doesn't rain unless the air is cooled, dumbass. Mantra 20r5...20a1...
DRKTS wrote:
37. Planting zones moving poleward
(https://blogs.massaudubon.org/yourgreatoutdoors/recommendations-for-planting-have-changed/)

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes). They are only sensitive to available water, soil acidity and content, and available light. Planting zones haven't moved. They are still based on these factors, as always. We have better seeds too. They can be planted where normally conditions are poor. Thanks to places like Monsanto. You really should go visit a farm some time. Get out in the country. Mantra 25g...22a...
DRKTS wrote:
38. Animal migrations earlier and further north and higher
(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/)

Yes. Birds and other animals move north or into higher ground during the summer. They do the reverse in winter. Define 'climate change'. Mantra 22b.

DRKTS wrote:
39. Tropical diseases spreading to temperate areas
(https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-change-and-vector-borne-disease)
DRKTS wrote:

Define 'tropical disease'. Define 'climate change'. Mantras 22(tropical disease)...22b.
40. Permafrost melting
(https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/11/in-pictures-russian-weather-station-on-the-edge-of-melting-permafrost/)

You already said this. The permafrost is not melting.
DRKTS wrote:
41. Reduced snowfall in marginal areas like the UK
(See fig1 in https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/)

You consider the UK 'marginal'? I bet folks living in the UK might take exception to that. Mantra 22 (marginal)...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
42. Increased rate of species extinction especially fast among amphibians
(https://www.dawn.com/news/1478046)

You should see the bumper crop of frogs in a local swamp around here. What a racket! My brother is currently putting up with alligator mating season. They get everywhere!
Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
If you want more detail please read the relevant sections of https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The IPCC is lying. It is not data. It is manufactured bullshit. They have not yet even defined what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually is. They deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Mantras 25g...4f...39i...39m...39b...20a1...20a2...20b...33a...33b...22a...22b...22c...


No arguments presented. Invalid proofs. Use of random numbers as 'data'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-05-2020 00:33
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's our first inter-glacial period, which we can measure, observe, and record. The past is speculation, as is the future. Consensus, doesn't necessarily make it factual, and true. There is a consensus, among literally billions of people, that God exists. Guess it depends on your faith and who, or what, you wish to worship.


It is not the first interglacial we can measure, we have evidence from ice cores, tree rings, stalagmites, corals, bore holes, peat bogs, and sediments.

The past is a matter of (imperfect) record, only the future is pure speculation - according to quantum mechanics.

Never mentioned the word "consensus" - the reason for a consensus in science is that the evidence becomes overwhelming, not the other way round.

It has nothing to do with worship, its to do with facts and their logical and physically consistent interpretation.

Personally, I like a warm climate. That was one of the main reasons I moved to Florida. Hurricanes haven't been more severe, or frequent, more the opposite. Lived here since 1986... https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/observed-relationship-between-sea-surface-temperatures-and-hurricane-power-north-atlantic-ocean/index.html They also started naming sub-tropical storms. Still have trouble using all 22 names. Very flat, low elevation, and we still haven't flooded from the alarming rising sea levels... Beaches are still about the same, except maybe more women in bikinis, who shouldn't. Some might not be actually be women either...


Hurricanes may have grown less frequent but stronger on average (https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/observed-relationship-between-sea-surface-temperatures-and-hurricane-power-north-atlantic-ocean/index.html)

Reference please on measurement of wind speed please.

Polar bear and penguin populations growing, and doing fine. Although, many of the polar bears have gotten lazy, instead of hunting, they seem to prefer the easy meals they get from knocking over Eskimo trash cans, or foraging landfills. Less labor intensive, probably don't have to go swimming in the icy water either.


Reference please on polar bear and penguin populations

More CO2, makes plants grow faster, strong, more productive. Seems like more food is a good thing.


Under controlled conditions of high soil moisture and plentiful nutrients SOME plants do better in high CO2 conditions INITIALLY. They usually adapt. However that does not mean more food.

I have more faith in nature, it's been doing a fine job of supporting life, longer than we, as a species, has walked on our hind legs. We can be smart, trust nature, and adapt to the changes, as we always have, and survived quite well. Fighting nature, has never turned out well, or been successful. Ever notice, most humans aren't covered in thick fur? It's because we are adapted, and ready for a warmer climate. It's our first inter-glacial, so how do climatologist know when we hit peak warming/thawing, from the Great Ice Age? how does anyone know, what 'normal' should be. I ain't missing the ice and snow. Been enjoying some mild winters these past few years. Wish you cult people would leave this alone. Solar and wind farms are ugly, inefficient, and take up a lot of prime farm land. And quit trying to steal my money, and my SUV.


The climate is currently as warm as anytime during our evolution so we don't know if we can adapt to warmer conditions. More people die of hot weather ailments than cold weather ones.

How do climatologists know that when we hit the peak of warming after the last great ice age? They measured it from the parameters that caused the warming (the earth's orbit, the Sun, atmospheric composition, etc.)

You mean solar farms are uglier than open cast coal mines and oil shale excavations or miles of oil well pumps smelling of rotten eggs? I dont think so.

The only ones trying to steal your money are the oilc and coal companies while making you breathe in their pollution.
16-05-2020 00:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote: I am often told there is no evidence for global warming

Exactly, because you cannot have evidence for something that isn't well defined. You must begin with an unambiguous falsifiable definition for anything to be able to be classified as "evidence" for it.

So, lay it on me. I am standing by for your unambiguous, falsifiable definition.

DRKTS wrote: ... so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence.

Nope. I just told you that you must first start with an unambiguous, falsifiable definition. At the moment you are putting the cart before the horse.

We need an unambiguous, falsifiable definition first.

A definition of what? Global warming? You got to be kidding if you think that is not defined.
16-05-2020 00:41
James___
★★★★★
(3287)
DRKTS wrote:
I am often told there is no evidence for global warming so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence. I have more if you want them.

You might quibble with a few of these (if you do, I expect to see a scientific reference to support your claims) but the sheer bulk of the evidence is overwhelming.

EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

1. CO2 passing 416 ppm for the first time in 30 million years
(https://files.secure.website/wscfus/9167827/4542986/co2-400-m-years-400-ppm-20-m.png)

2. The increase in CO2 matched by the drop in O2 means the additional CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels (C + O2 = CO2)
(http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-3.jpg)

3. The isotopic mixture in atmospheric CO2 changing, showing link to fossil fuels burning (https://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/c13_mlo_spo.jpg)

4. Oceans acidification due to absorbing some of the excess atmospheric CO2, showing oceans still absorbing more CO2 than they release:
(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg)

5. Some parts of the world greening due to extra CO2, but other parts browning
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg)

6. The rise in CH4 from melting permafrost and increase agricultural/energy industry emission.
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4_trend_all_gl.png)

7. 2019 the second warmest year on record despite it being ENSO neutral (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

8. Every decade since 1950's has been warmer than the last
(https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-change-decade-averages)

9. 2020 so far is on pace to overtake 2019 as the second warmest on record
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/apr/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202004.png)

10. January 2020 was the warmest January on record

11. All 6 of the last 6 years have been in the top 6 hottest years on record.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

12. The 18 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 20 years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)

13. Last month that had a global temperature average below its 20th Century average was over 35 years ago.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/12/1880-2019)

14. Polar Amplification: High latitudes warming faster than equatorial regions, so not the result of changes in the solar input to the Earth.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification#/media/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09.png)

15. The surface warming faster (0.20C/decade) than the lower troposphere (alt. 4km) according to UAH (run by two climate skeptics) at a rate of about 0.15C/decade, showing the sun is not involved
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

16. The lower troposphere warming faster the mid troposphere (alt. 7km) (ditto) at a rate
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913) , showing the sun is not involved.

17. The stratosphere (alt. 17 km) cooling (ditto) – a unique signature of AGW – at a rate of about -0.4C/decade
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

18. The top 700 meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.4C in the last 50 years
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif)

19. Nights are warming faster than days
(https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml)

20. Winters warming faster than summers
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

21. Solar activity has been steadily declining since 1957 while global temperatures have soared.
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

22. From 1993 to 2016 the Greenland icecap (i.e., land ice) has lost 286 Billion tons of ice per year (a billion tons of ice is a cubic kilometer) – NASA GRACE Mission
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879)

23. Over the same period The Antarctic Ice Cap has lost 127 billion tons of ice per year – GRACE
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/)

24. The northern hemisphere is losing about 4% of its sea ice every decade, measured from 1981 – present.
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-arctic-is-experiencing-its-most-unprecedented-transition-in-history-heres-why)

25. Over the same time Antarctic sea ice has grown by 0.8% per decade but has lost 18% of its sea ice in the last 6 years.
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

26. Overall sea ice is declining at a rate of about 1.4% per decade.
( https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

27. Glaciers all over the world are retreating and/or collapsing (getting thinner)
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)

28. Snow cover has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 decades
( https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/snow-cover-on-the-decline-in-north-america)

29. Snow melt is getting earlier each year
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/snomelt.html)

30. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and land ice melt
(https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

31. Bleaching damaging most corals around the world due mainly to higher water temperatures and ocean acidification
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_28_16_GBR_CoralSeaTemp_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

32. Algae blooms becoming more common as water temperatures rise and greater pollution is leading to larger dead spots in the oceans and lakes
(https://kenoraonline.com/local/algae-blooms-increasing)

33. Extreme weather events associated with more atmospheric energy (i.e., temperature) are on the rise
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/MunichReDisasterFrequency.png)

34. Milder winters allowing some pests to thrive – killing billions of trees in the West (the dead wood provides yet more fuel for fires)
(https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spruce-beetle-graph.jpg)

35. More and bigger forest fires due to widespread drought in some areas
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/6_23_16_Report_LargeWildfires_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

36. Warmer air temperature allows more water content so when it does rain you get a deluge and flooding (see fig 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248)

37. Planting zones moving poleward
(https://blogs.massaudubon.org/yourgreatoutdoors/recommendations-for-planting-have-changed/)

38. Animal migrations earlier and further north and higher
(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/)

39. Tropical diseases spreading to temperate areas
(https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-change-and-vector-borne-disease)

40. Permafrost melting
(https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/11/in-pictures-russian-weather-station-on-the-edge-of-melting-permafrost/)

41. Reduced snowfall in marginal areas like the UK
(See fig1 in https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/)

42. Increased rate of species extinction especially fast among amphibians
(https://www.dawn.com/news/1478046)

If you want more detail please read the relevant sections of https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/



The basic issue is that tmiddles took over this forum because he doesn't like I was a man, into the what? or gay mother fücker (aka gmf). There is evidence of AGW but the IPCC has hurt this debate by gerrymandering data.
tmiddles likes to waste other people's time by engaging people who have no interest in discussing climate change. It is a waste of time to discuss something when people have no interest in understanding the subject content.
Covid 19 aka coronavirus is a basic example. Shut down the economy for 2 months or wear a mask and keep space between people? People prefer the economy being shut down. Why?
In some societies, requiring the government to mandate socialist values is against a free market economy and capitalism. Yet they're not complaining about not being able to go to a movie, right? They can't go to the local watering hole and have a beer. Just not a problem. Practising preventive measures is.
I'm not sure any society can survive this level of ignorance and it's not just in the US. It's global.
16-05-2020 01:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's our first inter-glacial period, which we can measure, observe, and record. The past is speculation, as is the future. Consensus, doesn't necessarily make it factual, and true. There is a consensus, among literally billions of people, that God exists. Guess it depends on your faith and who, or what, you wish to worship.


It is not the first interglacial we can measure, we have evidence from ice cores, tree rings, stalagmites, corals, bore holes, peat bogs, and sediments.

Science does not use proxies. Direct measurements only. Ice cores, tree rings, etc. do not indicate temperature, humidity, or any other factor was the cause. Mantra 20d...20p...
DRKTS wrote:
The past is a matter of (imperfect) record, only the future is pure speculation

You are speculating both.
DRKTS wrote:
- according to quantum mechanics.

Buzzword fallacy. Quantum mechanics does not discuss the past or the future. Mantras 25g...20p...10 (quantum mechanics<->time)...
DRKTS wrote:
Never mentioned the word "consensus" - the reason for a consensus in science is that the evidence becomes overwhelming, not the other way round.

Consensus is not used in science. Supporting evidence is not used in science either. Science is not data. Mantras 20c...20j...20l...20p...
DRKTS wrote:
It has nothing to do with worship, its to do with facts and their logical and physically consistent interpretation.

A 'fact' is not a proof or a Universal Truth. Mantra 10c. Science isn't logic. Interpretation isn't science or any physical phenomena. Interpretation of proxy data is not consistent either.
Mantras 10c...10d...
DRKTS wrote:
Hurricanes may have grown less frequent but stronger on average (https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/observed-relationship-between-sea-surface-temperatures-and-hurricane-power-north-atlantic-ocean/index.html)

Lie. See the data at the National Hurricane Center. It is not possible to measure the surface of the oceans. Mantras 25g...25c...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
Reference please on measurement of wind speed please.

Hurricanes have many wind speeds. These speeds also change with time. Mantra 25j...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
Polar bear and penguin populations growing, and doing fine. Although, many of the polar bears have gotten lazy, instead of hunting, they seem to prefer the easy meals they get from knocking over Eskimo trash cans, or foraging landfills. Less labor intensive, probably don't have to go swimming in the icy water either.


Reference please on polar bear and penguin populations

Department of natural resources of the State of Alaska. Dept of Soil and Sea, Canada. Various research bases around Antarctica.

However, you are attempting to force a negative proof. YOU are the one that has to show your claims are valid. YOU are the one that says these are disappearing. You cannot use opinions as a proof. You must show, among other things: the raw data, the people that collected it, when it was collected, where it was collected from, and how biasing influences were removed from the raw data. You cannot use cooked data.
Mantras 4d...4a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
More CO2, makes plants grow faster, strong, more productive. Seems like more food is a good thing.


Under controlled conditions of high soil moisture and plentiful nutrients SOME plants do better in high CO2 conditions INITIALLY.

Nope. They love it. That's why many nurseries and farmers add CO2 to their greenhouses.
DRKTS wrote:
They usually adapt.

Nope. They continue to benefit from the additional CO2.
DRKTS wrote:
However that does not mean more food.

It actually does. Some of these greenhouses grow hydroponic lettuce. That's more food. It's a better yield.
DRKTS wrote:
The climate is currently as warm as anytime

Climate has no temperature. It is a subjective word. There is no quantity associated with it. Mantra 22b. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25c... There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates.
DRKTS wrote:
during our evolution

How do you know? Were you there?
DRKTS wrote:
so we don't know if we can adapt to warmer conditions.

Man survives quite well in anything from polar to scorching deserts to tropical rainforests. We undergo daily temperature variations of upwards to 50 deg F. We undergo seasonal temperature differences of 100 deg F. We're still here.
DRKTS wrote:
More people die of hot weather ailments than cold weather ones.

Another bogus lie. Go stand out in the cold in Siberia without clothes or shelter and see how long you live. Strike that. Go stand out on the cold wet shores near Astoria, OR without a coat or shelter and see how long you survive it. Damn near killed Lewis and Clark, and they had coats and tents.
DRKTS wrote:
How do climatologists

Climate scientists deny science and mathematics.
DRKTS wrote:
know that when we hit the peak of warming after the last great ice age?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25g...25c...
DRKTS wrote:
They measured it from the parameters that caused the warming (the earth's orbit, the Sun, atmospheric composition, etc.)

Composition does not change temperature. Earth's orbit has not changed. The Sun has been remarkably stable for a star of this size. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
You mean solar farms are uglier than open cast coal mines and oil shale excavations or miles of oil well pumps smelling of rotten eggs? I dont think so.

Beauty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder.
Solar farms are inefficient and expensive. It is the most expensive form of energy available. The amount produced is piddle power.
Most coal mines are closed, not open pit mines. Open pit mines produce fuel that has far more BTU than anything a similar sized solar plant can produce.

Oil shale is not excavated. It is fractured. This is called 'fracking' and allows us to drill wells into it and collect the oil.

Rotten egg gas (sulfur dioxide) only occurs at sour wells. Most wells produce sweet crude oil and has little or no sulfur component. Sulfur dioxide has an industrial use, once extracted from any sour oil that comes in.

DRKTS wrote:
The only ones trying to steal your money are the oilc and coal companies while making you breathe in their pollution.

Oil and gas companies sell a product. People buy that product. That's not theft. That is capitalism and markets in action.

Define 'pollution'.
Mantra 22f.

You are just quoting scripture from the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming (which stems from the Church of Green).

You are denying science and mathematics. You make outlandish claims based on opinions of others in your religion. You confuse markets with theft. This comes from the Church of Karl Marx (where the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming stem from).

You're a commie. You have revealed yourself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-05-2020 01:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
DRKTS wrote:
A definition of what? Global warming? You got to be kidding if you think that is not defined.

Mantra 22a...37e...39a...

Define 'global warming'. You cannot point to anyone else. Define it yourself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 16-05-2020 01:30
16-05-2020 01:37
James___
★★★★★
(3287)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's our first inter-glacial period, which we can measure, observe, and record. The past is speculation, as is the future. Consensus, doesn't necessarily make it factual, and true. There is a consensus, among literally billions of people, that God exists. Guess it depends on your faith and who, or what, you wish to worship.


It is not the first interglacial we can measure, we have evidence from ice cores, tree rings, stalagmites, corals, bore holes, peat bogs, and sediments.

Science does not use proxies. Direct measurements only. Ice cores, tree rings, etc. do not indicate temperature, humidity, or any other factor was the cause. Mantra 20d...20p...
DRKTS wrote:
The past is a matter of (imperfect) record, only the future is pure speculation

You are speculating both.
DRKTS wrote:
- according to quantum mechanics.

Buzzword fallacy. Quantum mechanics does not discuss the past or the future. Mantras 25g...20p...10 (quantum mechanics<->time)...
DRKTS wrote:
Never mentioned the word "consensus" - the reason for a consensus in science is that the evidence becomes overwhelming, not the other way round.

Consensus is not used in science. Supporting evidence is not used in science either. Science is not data. Mantras 20c...20j...20l...20p...
DRKTS wrote:
It has nothing to do with worship, its to do with facts and their logical and physically consistent interpretation.

A 'fact' is not a proof or a Universal Truth. Mantra 10c. Science isn't logic. Interpretation isn't science or any physical phenomena. Interpretation of proxy data is not consistent either.
Mantras 10c...10d...
DRKTS wrote:
Hurricanes may have grown less frequent but stronger on average (https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/observed-relationship-between-sea-surface-temperatures-and-hurricane-power-north-atlantic-ocean/index.html)

Lie. See the data at the National Hurricane Center. It is not possible to measure the surface of the oceans. Mantras 25g...25c...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
Reference please on measurement of wind speed please.

Hurricanes have many wind speeds. These speeds also change with time. Mantra 25j...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
Polar bear and penguin populations growing, and doing fine. Although, many of the polar bears have gotten lazy, instead of hunting, they seem to prefer the easy meals they get from knocking over Eskimo trash cans, or foraging landfills. Less labor intensive, probably don't have to go swimming in the icy water either.


Reference please on polar bear and penguin populations

Department of natural resources of the State of Alaska. Dept of Soil and Sea, Canada. Various research bases around Antarctica.

However, you are attempting to force a negative proof. YOU are the one that has to show your claims are valid. YOU are the one that says these are disappearing. You cannot use opinions as a proof. You must show, among other things: the raw data, the people that collected it, when it was collected, where it was collected from, and how biasing influences were removed from the raw data. You cannot use cooked data.
Mantras 4d...4a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
More CO2, makes plants grow faster, strong, more productive. Seems like more food is a good thing.


Under controlled conditions of high soil moisture and plentiful nutrients SOME plants do better in high CO2 conditions INITIALLY.

Nope. They love it. That's why many nurseries and farmers add CO2 to their greenhouses.
DRKTS wrote:
They usually adapt.

Nope. They continue to benefit from the additional CO2.
DRKTS wrote:
However that does not mean more food.

It actually does. Some of these greenhouses grow hydroponic lettuce. That's more food. It's a better yield.
DRKTS wrote:
The climate is currently as warm as anytime

Climate has no temperature. It is a subjective word. There is no quantity associated with it. Mantra 22b. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25c... There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates.
DRKTS wrote:
during our evolution

How do you know? Were you there?
DRKTS wrote:
so we don't know if we can adapt to warmer conditions.

Man survives quite well in anything from polar to scorching deserts to tropical rainforests. We undergo daily temperature variations of upwards to 50 deg F. We undergo seasonal temperature differences of 100 deg F. We're still here.
DRKTS wrote:
More people die of hot weather ailments than cold weather ones.

Another bogus lie. Go stand out in the cold in Siberia without clothes or shelter and see how long you live. Strike that. Go stand out on the cold wet shores near Astoria, OR without a coat or shelter and see how long you survive it. Damn near killed Lewis and Clark, and they had coats and tents.
DRKTS wrote:
How do climatologists

Climate scientists deny science and mathematics.
DRKTS wrote:
know that when we hit the peak of warming after the last great ice age?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25g...25c...
DRKTS wrote:
They measured it from the parameters that caused the warming (the earth's orbit, the Sun, atmospheric composition, etc.)

Composition does not change temperature. Earth's orbit has not changed. The Sun has been remarkably stable for a star of this size. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
You mean solar farms are uglier than open cast coal mines and oil shale excavations or miles of oil well pumps smelling of rotten eggs? I dont think so.

Beauty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder.
Solar farms are inefficient and expensive. It is the most expensive form of energy available. The amount produced is piddle power.
Most coal mines are closed, not open pit mines. Open pit mines produce fuel that has far more BTU than anything a similar sized solar plant can produce.

Oil shale is not excavated. It is fractured. This is called 'fracking' and allows us to drill wells into it and collect the oil.

Rotten egg gas (sulfur dioxide) only occurs at sour wells. Most wells produce sweet crude oil and has little or no sulfur component. Sulfur dioxide has an industrial use, once extracted from any sour oil that comes in.

DRKTS wrote:
The only ones trying to steal your money are the oilc and coal companies while making you breathe in their pollution.

Oil and gas companies sell a product. People buy that product. That's not theft. That is capitalism and markets in action.

Define 'pollution'.
Mantra 22f.

You are just quoting scripture from the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming (which stems from the Church of Green).

You are denying science and mathematics. You make outlandish claims based on opinions of others in your religion. You confuse markets with theft. This comes from the Church of Karl Marx (where the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming stem from).

You're a commie. You have revealed yourself.



Did your mother have any kids that lived? I'm asking for a friend
16-05-2020 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote: It is not the first interglacial we can measure, we have evidence from ice cores, tree rings, stalagmites, corals, bore holes, peat bogs, and sediments.

I hope you realize that ice cores are unreliable sources of a very small range of historical information for that one specific point on the surface of the earth. It sounds like you are gullibly buying into bogus conclusions of accurate historical information about the planet. That would take a special kind of stupid.

There is nothing for us to measure. We cannot travel back in time to measure anything. What you have is your misguided faith in "proxy data" which is neither valid nor accepted in science.

So the correct answer is "No, we don't have any evidence" ... and we cannot anyway since Global Warming is an empty, undefined term. It's nothing more than a religious concept in Global Warming dogma and carries no meaning beyond that. You cannot have "evidence" of something that doesn't exist for which to have evidence. If you do, the technical word for that is "hoax."

DRKTS wrote: ... only the future is pure speculation - according to quantum mechanics.

Within the domain of science, the future is predictable and calculable. You've got to love those falsifiable science models.

DRKTS wrote: the reason for a consensus in science is that the evidence becomes overwhelming, not the other way round.

Science ignores supporting evidence. The falsifiable model already exists.

DRKTS wrote: It has nothing to do with worship, its to do with facts and their logical and physically consistent interpretation.

Thank you. "Interpretation" implies subjectivity, which has no place in science, only in religion, which pressures and bullies everyone into regurgitating the proscribed "consistent interpretation." It's all about obligating obedient, unquestioning worship. Religion, it's how it works.

DRKTS wrote: The climate is currently as warm as anytime during our evolution so we don't know if we can adapt to warmer conditions.

I know you believe this but why should any reasonable, rational adult?

DRKTS wrote: More people die of hot weather ailments than cold weather ones.

Statistically, humans prefer to live where it is warm (i.e. where one is far more likely to suffer from heat) and prefer to avoid the cold (where one is far more likely to suffer from cold). Are you aware that the vast bulk of people living in Canada live close to the southern border with the US, not the Arctic Circle side of the country? Do you know why? It's not because there's no space up north.

DRKTS wrote: How do climatologists know ...

Climatologists don't know anything. They are nothing more than scientifically illiterate political activists who go around convincing gullible people like yourself to believe their "interpretation" of bogus proxy measures. As long as there are people like you who continue to fall for it, there will continue to be scam artists who peddle Climate bullchit for a living. The law of supply and demand.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-05-2020 02:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote:A definition of what? Global warming? You got to be kidding if you think that is not defined.

Thank you for confirming the religious nature of your faith.

Christian: A definition of "God"? You must be joking! He is well defined.
Muslim: A definition of "Allah"? You must be joking! He is well defined.
Socialist: Define our revolution? You must be joking! It is well defined.
Climate WACKO: Define the global climate? Surely you jest! It is well defined.
DRKTS: Define what? Global Warming? You must be joking! It is well defined.


Until you provide an unambiguous, falsifiable, externally consistent defintion of Global Warming, you're just preaching your religious dogma. Should we just call you "Padre"?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-05-2020 03:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
Welcome DRKTS.Based on my models you will probably stop posting on this forum in less than 2 weeks because IBDM and ITN are mean as cats poo.They are also correct if that matters.I have been involved in this Climate debate as I wished to find the truth and I will list my personal discoveries.
.No human on the planet can point a finger at the sea level and say to me it was here now its here
.Satallites have no magic power to measure temperature or sea level
.CO2 is good.In North America it can get over 800ppm in Autumn so what.Next spring it gets sucked up again
.Pollution is bad and was recognised in the early 70s and dealt with massively so stop beating yourself up its not your fault I recycle and do my bit because I choose to
.Your references are NASA who are not to be trusted check there childrens page on Satallites and tell me you believe that nonsense about measuring to the centre of the Earth
.I have been banned from SkS as I questioned their methodolgy the forum is for believers to share data and feel warm and fuzzy.
I know the IPCC fudge their data as I started the page on Nils-Axel Mörner who was appointed chair in 1988 at the formation of the IPCC to research sea levels and he and his team of 13 came back with the Northern Hemisphere is gaining a millimetre a year and the southern hemisphere nothing at all and the board would not accept it so he resigned and they found someone to put up the data that they needed.The IPCC board freely admit they appoint who they wish on their website.Why are 5000 scientist who care not randomly drafted and have 50 do the report.I doubt it will be the same as the ones being released now
Again welcome aboard you have breathed life in to a faded forum.Regards Duncan from west Australia
16-05-2020 05:24
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
I am often told there is no evidence for global warming so let's deal with that once and for all, here are SOME of the more obvious pieces of evidence. I have more if you want them.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science and mathematics. Define 'global warming'. Mantras 20c...22a.
DRKTS wrote:
You might quibble with a few of these (if you do, I expect to see a scientific reference to support your claims) but the sheer bulk of the evidence is overwhelming.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Mantras 20c...10 (science<->religion)...39i...
DRKTS wrote:
EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

1. CO2 passing 416 ppm for the first time in 30 million years
(https://files.secure.website/wscfus/9167827/4542986/co2-400-m-years-400-ppm-20-m.png)
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. We don't have enough stations, and the Mauna Loa data has been shown to be cooked. It's useless.
DRKTS wrote:
2. The increase in CO2 matched by the drop in O2 means the additional CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels (C + O2 = CO2)
(http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-3.jpg)
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of either CO2 or O2.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Mantras 20r4...25g...25c...25d...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
3. The isotopic mixture in atmospheric CO2 changing, showing link to fossil fuels burning (https://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/c13_mlo_spo.jpg)
Same mantras as 2)
DRKTS wrote:
4. Oceans acidification due to absorbing some of the excess atmospheric CO2, showing oceans still absorbing more CO2 than they release:
(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.jpg)
Learn at least a little chemistry, dude. Mantras 20r1...20r5...20r6... Acid-base chemistry doesn't work that way. Go learn about pH, how it's calculated, what it means, and learn about equilibrium in reactions, and the effects of partial pressures. In particular, learn what a buffering agent is. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Mantra 10a.
DRKTS wrote:
5. Some parts of the world greening due to extra CO2, but other parts browning
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg)

Pictures are worth a thousand bogus words...particularly cherry picked images like these. Mantra 20p.
DRKTS wrote:
6. The rise in CH4 from melting permafrost and increase agricultural/energy industry emission.
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4_trend_all_gl.png)

The permafrost isn't melting. Learn what permafrost is. NOAA is making shit up again. Mantra 25g...4a...4d...
DRKTS wrote:
7. 2019 the second warmest year on record despite it being ENSO neutral (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, it's oceans, or it's lands. There are not anywhere near enough thermometers. ENSO does not change the temperature of the ocean. Mantras 20a1...5a...5d...20p...25g...25c...25d...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
8. Every decade since 1950's has been warmer than the last
(https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-change-decade-averages)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
9. 2020 so far is on pace to overtake 2019 as the second warmest on record
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2020/apr/global-land-ocean-anomalies-202001-202004.png)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
10. January 2020 was the warmest January on record
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
11. All 6 of the last 6 years have been in the top 6 hottest years on record.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
12. The 18 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 20 years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2019)
DRKTS wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
13. Last month that had a global temperature average below its 20th Century average was over 35 years ago.
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/12/1880-2019)
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Base rate fallacy. Mantra 25a...25g.
DRKTS wrote:
14. Polar Amplification: High latitudes warming faster than equatorial regions, so not the result of changes in the solar input to the Earth.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification#/media ...deleted Holy Link...

Buzzword fallacy. the poles don't amplify anything. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the poles. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the equator. Stop believing the crap at Wikipedia. Mantras 25g...22 (polar amplification)...22 (equatorial regions)...4a...
DRKTS wrote:
15. The surface warming faster (0.20C/decade) than the lower troposphere (alt. 4km) according to UAH (run by two climate skeptics) at a rate of about 0.15C/decade, showing the sun is not involved
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to measure either global surface temperature nor global troposphere temperatures. Mantras 20a2...25g...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
16. The lower troposphere warming faster the mid troposphere (alt. 7km) (ditto) at a rate
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913) , showing the sun is not involved.
DRKTS wrote:

It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system.
17. The stratosphere (alt. 17 km) cooling (ditto) – a unique signature of AGW – at a rate of about -0.4C/decade
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201913)

It is not possible to measure the global stratosphere temperature.
DRKTS wrote:
18. The top 700 meters of the oceans have warmed by about 0.4C in the last 50 years
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evidence_of_global_warming_-_time_series_of_seasonal_(red_dots)_and_annual_average_(black_line)_of_global_upper_ocean_heat_content_for_the_0-700m_layer_between_1955-2008.gif)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the top 700 meters of the oceans.
DRKTS wrote:
19. Nights are warming faster than days
(https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml)

Nights don't generally warm. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a1...20a2...
DRKTS wrote:
20. Winters warming faster than summers
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

Winter generally doesn't warm. The orbit of Earth has not changed. See the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's laws as well as Kepler's laws. Mantras 20a1...20u...
DRKTS wrote:
21. Solar activity has been steadily declining since 1957 while global temperatures have soared.
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=474)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are lying about solar activity too. It has not declined. It cycles every 11 years. Mantra 25g...25l...
DRKTS wrote:
22. From 1993 to 2016 the Greenland icecap (i.e., land ice) has lost 286 Billion tons of ice per year (a billion tons of ice is a cubic kilometer) – NASA GRACE Mission
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30879)

It is not possible to measure the global snow and ice on Earth. NASA can't do it either, not even with the GRACE satellites. GRACE cannot measure depth of ice, or submerged ice. Mantras 25g...25k...
DRKTS wrote:
23. Over the same period The Antarctic Ice Cap has lost 127 billion tons of ice per year – GRACE
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/)

Lie. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice at Antarctica. The winter ice extent (surface area covered by ice, not the volume) reached a record maximum in 2014, the highest ever recorded.
DRKTS wrote:
24. The northern hemisphere is losing about 4% of its sea ice every decade, measured from 1981 – present.
(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-arctic-is-experiencing-its-most-unprecedented-transition-in-history-heres-why)

Lie. Winter ice extent at the north pole is increase too. PBS is simply continuing the lie. Mantra 25g...4b...
DRKTS wrote:
25. Over the same time Antarctic sea ice has grown by 0.8% per decade but has lost 18% of its sea ice in the last 6 years.
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

Base rate fallacy. You are comparing against the year Antarctica had it's record maximum winter ice extent. You are also conflating units. Surface area is not volume. Mantras 25g...25l...
DRKTS wrote:
26. Overall sea ice is declining at a rate of about 1.4% per decade.
( https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif)

It is not possible to measure the global total snow and ice on Earth. Mantra 25g...225c...25e...
DRKTS wrote:
27. Glaciers all over the world are retreating and/or collapsing (getting thinner)
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)

Glaciers all over the world are also advancing and expanding (getting thicker). No one is measuring all the glaciers in the world. Mantras 25g...cherry picking fallacy...
DRKTS wrote:
28. Snow cover has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 decades
( https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/snow-cover-on-the-decline-in-north-america)

It has been increasing too. Happens every season. Base rate fallacy. Mantras 25a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
29. Snow melt is getting earlier each year
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/snomelt.html)

Lie. There is no national snow melt date. Mantras 25j...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
30. Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and land ice melt
(https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

Not possible. Land ice came from the sea. It is not possible to measure the level of the oceans. There is no valid reference point. Mantras 25a...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
31. Bleaching damaging most corals around the world due mainly to higher water temperatures and ocean acidification
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/4_28_16_GBR_CoralSeaTemp_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

No one is throwing bleach into the coral. Acid is not bleach. Go learn at least some basic chemistry. Mantras 20r1...20r5...20r6...10a...
DRKTS wrote:
32. Algae blooms becoming more common as water temperatures rise and greater pollution is leading to larger dead spots in the oceans and lakes
(https://kenoraonline.com/local/algae-blooms-increasing)

Algae tends to grow in colder temperatures, not warmer. That's why the tropical seas are so clear. Define 'pollution'. Define 'dead spot'. How can a region where something grows, like algae be a 'dead spot'??? It is not possible to measure the global content of algae. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. Mantras 25g...25c...26e...25f...
DRKTS wrote:
33. Extreme weather events associated with more atmospheric energy (i.e., temperature) are on the rise
(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/MunichReDisasterFrequency.png)

Define 'extreme weather event'. Define 'atmospheric energy'. The atmosphere is mass, not energy. Buzzword fallacies. Mantras 10...25g...25a...22 (extreme weather)...22 (atmospheric energy)...
DRKTS wrote:
34. Milder winters allowing some pests to thrive – killing billions of trees in the West (the dead wood provides yet more fuel for fires)
(https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/spruce-beetle-graph.jpg)

We have more trees than ever in the United States, thanks to the fine people at places like Weyerhauser. Define 'milder winter'. The SOTC needs to start clearing the brush and vegetation down like they used to. Otherwise huge wildfire is inevitable. Usually it's grasslands in the SOTC, but it often gets into the trees as well. Even worse, the failure to remove old logs and snags like they used to (and convert them to useful lumber) allows those fires to step up into the canopy of the trees.
DRKTS wrote:
35. More and bigger forest fires due to widespread drought in some areas
(https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/6_23_16_Report_LargeWildfires_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg)

The SOTC has fires because of extra water, allowing grass to grow more, which they don't remove. When these grasses dry out in the summer, you get wildfire. It is because of extra water that these grasses can grow in the first place. Trees need water as well. The 'drought' in the SOTC is purely fictional. They do not manage their water supplies, and have removed or failed to maintain their reservoirs. Ranchers and farmers in the SOTC have had enough. They are moving out, if they can find some fool willing to buy their land. All up and down the Imperial valley are dead orchards, ranches devoid of cattle, and even abandoned properties. A direct result of the government there not maintaining their reservoir system. Mantras 21...22 (drought)...
DRKTS wrote:
36. Warmer air temperature allows more water content so when it does rain you get a deluge and flooding (see fig 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248)

It doesn't rain unless the air is cooled, dumbass. Mantra 20r5...20a1...
DRKTS wrote:
37. Planting zones moving poleward
(https://blogs.massaudubon.org/yourgreatoutdoors/recommendations-for-planting-have-changed/)

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes). They are only sensitive to available water, soil acidity and content, and available light. Planting zones haven't moved. They are still based on these factors, as always. We have better seeds too. They can be planted where normally conditions are poor. Thanks to places like Monsanto. You really should go visit a farm some time. Get out in the country. Mantra 25g...22a...
DRKTS wrote:
38. Animal migrations earlier and further north and higher
(https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/)

Yes. Birds and other animals move north or into higher ground during the summer. They do the reverse in winter. Define 'climate change'. Mantra 22b.

DRKTS wrote:
39. Tropical diseases spreading to temperate areas
(https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-change-and-vector-borne-disease)
DRKTS wrote:

Define 'tropical disease'. Define 'climate change'. Mantras 22(tropical disease)...22b.
40. Permafrost melting
(https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/11/in-pictures-russian-weather-station-on-the-edge-of-melting-permafrost/)

You already said this. The permafrost is not melting.
DRKTS wrote:
41. Reduced snowfall in marginal areas like the UK
(See fig1 in https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/)

You consider the UK 'marginal'? I bet folks living in the UK might take exception to that. Mantra 22 (marginal)...25g...
DRKTS wrote:
42. Increased rate of species extinction especially fast among amphibians
(https://www.dawn.com/news/1478046)

You should see the bumper crop of frogs in a local swamp around here. What a racket! My brother is currently putting up with alligator mating season. They get everywhere!
Mantra 25g.
DRKTS wrote:
If you want more detail please read the relevant sections of https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The IPCC is lying. It is not data. It is manufactured bullshit. They have not yet even defined what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually is. They deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Mantras 25g...4f...39i...39m...39b...20a1...20a2...20b...33a...33b...22a...22b...22c...


No arguments presented. Invalid proofs. Use of random numbers as 'data'.


A load of unsupported assertions - which are demonstrably wrong. Pick your best argument and let's discuss.
16-05-2020 05:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
Welcome DRKTS.Based on my models you will probably stop posting on this forum in less than 2 weeks because IBDM and ITN are mean as cats poo.They are also correct if that matters.I have been involved in this Climate debate as I wished to find the truth and I will list my personal discoveries.


I find them amusing in how wrong they are about so many things. They need the education.

.No human on the planet can point a finger at the sea level and say to me it was here now its here


Just ask some folks here in Baltimore. When I first moved here in the 1980s the inner harbor never flooded, it does now at every king tide. Ask those in Miamai or Jakarta or Bangladesh. There's a whole bunch of humans that can point.

.Satallites have no magic power to measure temperature or sea level
.CO2 is good.In North America it can get over 800ppm in Autumn so what.Next spring it gets sucked up again


800 ppm - reference please

.Pollution is bad and was recognised in the early 70s and dealt with massively so stop beating yourself up its not your fault I recycle and do my bit because I choose to


The was one type of pollution - SO2 - there are lots of others.

.Your references are NASA who are not to be trusted check there childrens page on Satallites and tell me you believe that nonsense about measuring to the centre of the Earth


it is easy to measure wrt the gravitational center of the Earth using satellites. Their orbits depends on it. See Theory of Orbits by Milani (sp?)

I know the IPCC fudge their data as I started the page on Nils-Axel Mörner who was appointed chair in 1988 at the formation of the IPCC to research sea levels and he and his team of 13 came back with the Northern Hemisphere is gaining a millimetre a year and the southern hemisphere nothing at all and the board would not accept it so he resigned and they found someone to put up the data that they needed.The IPCC board freely admit they appoint who they wish on their website.Why are 5000 scientist who care not randomly drafted and have 50 do the report.I doubt it will be the same as the ones being released now
Again welcome aboard you have breathed life in to a faded forum.Regards Duncan from west Australia


You know nothing of the sort - you accuse without proof. The main reason is that the IPCC does not collect, analyze, or model climate data. They merely review what has been published

Morner - is that the guy that believes he can find gemstones using a dowsing rod? The one that was challenged to participate in a scientific experiment to test that and ran away? That Morner? LoL!

He also believes that the Grand solar minimum is imminent! - delusional!

The IPCC board (if there is such a thing) does not appoint people to the IPCC, national governments, leading professional scientific societies and academies, and universities send representatives. I know because several of my solar colleagues have been appointed to the IPCC.
16-05-2020 06:56
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
You discredit Nils-Axel Mörner yet have faith in the others.Bangladesh is on a tidal estuary and is being washed away anyhoo you have cherry picked a few spots.One thing I have learned is if a person has faith/believes we are all doomed it is unlikely they will change their mind regardless.I like the we are all O.K. theory and do not wish to do anything till I see some actual proof.Pretty lines on a piece of paper do not work for me.I feel for people swallowing this dogma and are worrying them selfs over it.It is just not true.Be honest with us are you visiting from SkS to check us out and tell your buddies how nuts we are for not accepting without proof.Live your life and stop worrying about it
16-05-2020 08:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote: Pick your best argument and let's discuss.

Now this is a sensible approach. Well done. However, I prefer to let you choose your best argument. I'll get the ball rolling with my question concerning your faith:

Why should any rational person believe in Global Warming?

I hope you have something better than the 42 Global Warming prayers you recited in a previous post. Religious dogma doesn't carry any weight with me. Science denial doesn't go far with me either. I don't buy numbers that you fabricate, or that someone else fabricated and handed to you.

Oh, and I don't want links; I will not look at them. Just give me your arguments along with the science that supports them. If you are going to give me conclusions that you expect me to adopt then you also need to provide the valid datasets (raw data, margin of error, etc.) so I can scrutinize your findings.

Other than that, I'm eager to hear what you have to say.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-05-2020 14:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
James___ wrote:
The basic issue is that tmiddles took over this forum because he doesn't like I was a man, into the what? or gay mother fücker (aka gmf). There is evidence of AGW but the IPCC has hurt this debate by gerrymandering data.
tmiddles likes to waste other people's time by engaging people who have no interest in discussing climate change. It is a waste of time to discuss something when people have no interest in understanding the subject content.
Covid 19 aka coronavirus is a basic example. Shut down the economy for 2 months or wear a mask and keep space between people? People prefer the economy being shut down. Why?
In some societies, requiring the government to mandate socialist values is against a free market economy and capitalism. Yet they're not complaining about not being able to go to a movie, right? They can't go to the local watering hole and have a beer. Just not a problem. Practising preventive measures is.
I'm not sure any society can survive this level of ignorance and it's not just in the US. It's global.


What does "gerrymandering data" mean? I think you have the wrong verb.

The IPCC does not collect, analyze, model, or publish climate data. They merely review what has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. So your premise is completely wrong. Thus the rest of your argument crumbles.

What has this got to do with Covid19 and politics? These are observations reported from every corner of the Earth by people of all political persuasions.

Trying to derail the discussion by trying to make it "us" vs "them" is a diversion by those who are fresh out of scientific counter arguments. It is designed to stop people thinking rationally based on the facts and make them act tribally. It is the last resort of the desperate.

The signs of global warming are everywhere to be seen if you only look with an open mind. That is why there is such a vitriolic reaction when new confirming data appears every month.
16-05-2020 14:20
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
You discredit Nils-Axel Mörner yet have faith in the others.Bangladesh is on a tidal estuary and is being washed away anyhoo you have cherry picked a few spots.One thing I have learned is if a person has faith/believes we are all doomed it is unlikely they will change their mind regardless.I like the we are all O.K. theory and do not wish to do anything till I see some actual proof.Pretty lines on a piece of paper do not work for me.I feel for people swallowing this dogma and are worrying them selfs over it.It is just not true.Be honest with us are you visiting from SkS to check us out and tell your buddies how nuts we are for not accepting without proof.Live your life and stop worrying about it


Can someone please tell me what SkS is?

"Pretty lines on paper" is what is technically referred to in science as data. If those 42 points are not "proof" what would you consider would be enough proof to change your mind?

It seems it is you that has a faith built on sand and wants to bury your head in that sand in the hope that the facts will go away.
16-05-2020 14:26
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: Pick your best argument and let's discuss.

Now this is a sensible approach. Well done. However, I prefer to let you choose your best argument. I'll get the ball rolling with my question concerning your faith:

Why should any rational person believe in Global Warming?

I hope you have something better than the 42 Global Warming prayers you recited in a previous post. Religious dogma doesn't carry any weight with me. Science denial doesn't go far with me either. I don't buy numbers that you fabricate, or that someone else fabricated and handed to you.

Oh, and I don't want links; I will not look at them. Just give me your arguments along with the science that supports them. If you are going to give me conclusions that you expect me to adopt then you also need to provide the valid datasets (raw data, margin of error, etc.) so I can scrutinize your findings.

Other than that, I'm eager to hear what you have to say.


.


I see, you don't have any scientific counter arguments. Not a surprise judging from your previous posts.

You question the data I posted without being able to provide a single real counter. That is what is known as an unsupported assertion, which can safely be disregarded in any debate.

You refuse to look at the links I provided because if you do you would be drawn into a factual argument which you know you are destined to lose.

It seems I have you on your back foot.
16-05-2020 15:22
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
you want to know something.


okay.



i will tell you something.



ma you have some strength. nothing else.



GESTA. LUDONUM.


each and every home.


the holy land. macbeth.

this debate is closed.



RAGNAR.



GOTH CONTROL OF NATIONS HELPS EVERYONE.


that african colony pay its taxes well.

and runs its driers well.


that is control.



DOUBLE PEAK TEMPERATURES IS WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR PLATE.


AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
16-05-2020 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
DRKTS wrote:
...deleted Mantras 12...5...
Just ask some folks here in Baltimore. When I first moved here in the 1980s the inner harbor never flooded, it does now at every king tide. ...deleted Mantras 4e...25g...36c...22 (pollution)...sulfur dioxide is not a pollutant...

Baltimore should start dredging their harbor again. This isn't rising seas. It's a river delta silting up. Seas aren't rising.
DRKTS wrote:
it is easy to measure wrt the gravitational center of the Earth using satellites. Their orbits depends on it. See Theory of Orbits by Milani (sp?)

It is not easy to measure the gravitational center of the Earth using satellites. A satellite cannot magickally measure it. They don't even know where they are. Math error: reference to self as reference to all.
DRKTS wrote:
You know nothing of the sort - you accuse without proof. The main reason is that the IPCC does not collect, analyze, or model climate data. They merely review what has been published

Actually, they do. They make shit up just like everyone else concerning temperatures, sea levels, global CO2 content, etc.
DRKTS wrote:
...deleted Mantras 5...13...4f...39a...

You can't use random numbers as proofs. You can't compare random numbers vs random numbers as proofs.

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers.
* It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content of the Earth. We don't have enough stations, and Mauna Loa as been caught using cooked data.
* It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. River deltas silting up is not sea level rise.
* The polar ice caps are not melting. They have actually been getting somewhat larger over the past few years at both poles.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-05-2020 02:16
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
I came in to this forum completely open minded and looking for the evidence.At the moment there is a big cloud of woodsmoke over the city as all the prescribed burning off is happening at the moment.After what happened last fire season here and in the East the green loonies did not get in the way this time.It is good to look after the planet however have a good look at the size of it with one of NASA photos and tell me human activity can change anything.Your evidence it is happening is all based on theory.By the way IBDM I am an English white lord who lives in West Australia and if we do warm up I am going to invade Scotland again.I have been there and that wind of the Atlantic will make your bones feel cold.Lets get a bus full of keen warmazombies and take them for a swim of Wick in February.If we can Terra form at will can I have shallow seas and warm tropical forests please.Do you think my 7mm Rem Mag will drop a T-rex or do I need a 50 cal
17-05-2020 04:04
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
https://www.theclimategroup.org


a good initiative.



read some tangibility before you come on here to yap like a loser baby.


NYC.


AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
Edited on 17-05-2020 04:37
17-05-2020 08:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
duncan61 wrote: By the way IBDM I am an English white lord who lives in West Australia

But are you a white NATIONLIST lord, hmmm? Is that why you want to invade Scotland and kill all the brown climate refugees?

duncan61 wrote: Your evidence it is happening is all based on theory.

duncan, it is not based on any theory any more than a political campaign is based on a theory.

It is Marxism. There is no theory. It's all political propaganda disguising the pure hatred and intolerance of capitalsim and of dissenting views.

.
Attached image:

17-05-2020 09:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
DRKTS wrote: I see, you don't have any scientific counter arguments.

I see that you are new at this.

Remember this rule: He who makes the affirmative argument bears the full responsibility to support it. It is nobody else's responsibility to somehow prove that your argument is FALSE. You must show that it is TRUE.

I am making no claim. You are the one who is preaching Global Warming ... but rather than admit that your beliefs are simply a matter of your faith, you are making the bold claim that your religion is actually "thettttttled thienth." Now you need to back that up.

Only in religion do you get to claim "Yeah, well you can't prove my religion false!" When you point to insufficient counterarguments you are admitting to the religious nature of your beliefs.

So, thus far you have FAILED to explain why any rational person should believe the WACKY religious dogma you preach.

That's where we stand.

DRKTS wrote: You question the data I posted

Surely you must agree that it takes a special kind of stupid to mistake opinions and conclusions for data, yes?

Oh, by the way, I checked again and you have not presented any data whatsoever. None. Do you even know what data is/are? (hint: shake your head). You are in a sad state. I feel bad for you.

DRKTS wrote: You refuse to look at the links I provided because if you do you would be drawn into a factual argument which you know you are destined to lose.

Nope. I refuse to look at your links because my time is not yours to waste. If you cannot post in your own words what you are even claiming, then why are we wasting our time?

Shall we just admit that you cannot even express what you believe and move on?

It seems I have you on your back foot. While you are regaining your posture, think about how you intend to answer my question:

Why should any rational person believe your WACKY religious dogma?

.
Attached image:

17-05-2020 10:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone
17-05-2020 10:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
I was born May 1961 and this was happening

In November 1961, thalidomide was taken off the market due to massive pressure from the press and public. Experts estimate that the drug thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany.

yeah the Experts sure got that one right.
17-05-2020 10:37
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(636)
I need a good laugh I am going to go to all your links
17-05-2020 11:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
start with an unambiguous, falsifiable definition. At the moment you are putting the cart before the horse.
We need an unambiguous, falsifiable definition first....Within the domain of science, the future is predictable and calculable. You've got to love those falsifiable science models.
I do want to love them! Can you provide what you would consider to be a good example?

Into the Night wrote:Science does not use supporting evidence....Science does not use proxies. Direct measurements only....Consensus is not used in science....Science is not data....Science isn't logic. Interpretation isn't science or any physical phenomena....You are denying science
Kinda need to know what "science" is according to you ITN if your claim it's being denied is to be understood. Now that was all a whole lot of what science isn't.

How about an example, a real example of what science is.

And before you say RQAA I'll remind you that you have never told DRKTS what science is. (you never told me either but I'm just upping the RQAA ante).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-05-2020 12:05
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
real labour brakes here now that we have inequality arguments coming in.

YOUR CONTRACT BABY YOUR CONTRACT IS NON-ARGUABLE

YOU ARE A PIECE OF CHARGING EQUIPMENT THAT NEEDS TO REST


AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
17-05-2020 12:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You've got to love those falsifiable science models.
I do want to love them! Can you provide what you would consider to be a good example?

Sure, this is one of my favorites. It is actually a collection of related models that arguably has done more to shape our world than anything else.



tmiddles wrote: Kinda need to know what "science" is according to you ITN if your claim it's being denied is to be understood.

I'm wondering which is greater, the number of elementary particles in the universe or the number of times this question has been answered.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Note each word in that definition. They all have meaning. Don't be omitting any of them.

By the way, you could have easily told DRKTS what science is.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-05-2020 12:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sure, this is one of my favorites. It is actually a collection of related models that arguably has done more to shape our world than anything else.

Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You see then we can compare and contrast how those people did that thing with how some other jokers are getting it all wrong.

How about the development of electrical power generation? In fact let's focus it: The "Dynamo" the generator itself. How about that as a "good example" of "Science"? done right?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Kinda need to know what "science" is according to you ITN if your claim it's being denied is to be understood.

I'm wondering which is greater, the number of elementary particles in the universe or the number of times this question has been answered.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.
Since as you've described it Science is not something which would be "done" in solving a problem then why would ITN continually complain that problem solving is "not science"?

Would you like to call it "technology"?

And the reason I ask is that an example, one involving human activity, has never been provided.

You said earlier that there is a "shape our world" thing happening. That means that understanding/knowledge/data is being used/applied in some fashion. Decisions are being made.

Give an example.

The Covid-19 and Global Warming issues are examples of humans struggling mightily to make decisions and figure things out.
17-05-2020 12:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote: Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You are posting on the internet.

tmiddles wrote: How about the development of electrical power generation? In fact let's focus it: The "Dynamo" the generator itself. How about that as a "good example" of "Science"? done right?

That is technology, not science.

Technology is the implementation of science to control nature.

tmiddles wrote: Since as you've described it Science is not something which would be "done" in solving a problem then why would ITN continually complain that problem solving is "not science"?

You are effectively misusing words in order to successfully babble incoherently.

Yes, once again, you are confusing science with technology.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-05-2020 13:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
IBdaMann wrote:
Technology is the implementation of science to control nature.
So the Covid-19 activity/effort for example is "technology" in IBDese not "Science" I got that right?

Is that your definition too ITN?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You are posting on the internet.
OK so the microprocessor is a good example of __________ shaping our world? (would that be "science" or "technology" for you guys?, I seriously don't care which word).
Edited on 17-05-2020 13:12
17-05-2020 13:23
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Outstanding! So "shape our world" how is it employed in doing that? Let's have an example of something actually happening.

You are posting on the internet.
OK so the microprocessor is a good example of __________ shaping our world? (would that be "science" or "technology" for you guys?, I seriously don't care which word).[/quote]

Its an example of engineering, the application of scientific principles to every day life to create new technologies.
17-05-2020 13:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
DRKTS wrote:...engineering, the application of scientific principles to every day life to create new technologies.
Well they don't have to be new. And I think for the purposes of all discussion here it should be acknowledged that not everyone earns an A+ on the work they do.

Someone can have really terrible/lame/ineffective technology or engineering.

But if someone wants to call the Paris Accords a work of engineering I have no problem with that.
17-05-2020 13:41
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
Hi DRKTS.SkS is a forum called Skeptical science that I came across when looking for forums on climate change and its only my opinion but it seems to be the Headquarters for people who believe this AGW/CC stuff.If you post material agreeing to the problem it gets debated and everyone gets a little more scared.If you ask a few questions like I did like where is the sea going up you will get all the fact sheets/data but if you question the data you get moderated and blocked like I did.I can feel your frustration that we are not accepting your view but imagine my frustration if you all send us back to the dark ages for no good reason like it seems you want to.Do not inflict your insanity on me.leave it alone


Thanks for the clarification on SKS. I am familiar with them because they have some good graphics but I did not know you can post comments there. I checked it out and its true. However I note lots of questions, negative comments and counter arguments there. In some cases heated even debate debate. So I am not sure why they blocked you but it does not seem to be for simply asking questions about the data.

I am not inflicting "my insanity" on your or anyone else. I am providing information (data and observations) to fuel a debate. The insanity I see is people denying the facts and introducing red herrings (e.g., redefining words, misquoting people, making up strawman arguments, and introducing religion or politics) rather than discussing the interpretation of the data with an open mind (see some of the posts above).
17-05-2020 17:16
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2548)
There is sociology, which leads to social engineering, and ultimately socialism. Global socialism is the goal, since everybody has to be involved. Prior attempts always failed, because not enough people were getting 'free-stuff', right?
17-05-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13495)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
start with an unambiguous, falsifiable definition. At the moment you are putting the cart before the horse.
We need an unambiguous, falsifiable definition first....Within the domain of science, the future is predictable and calculable. You've got to love those falsifiable science models.
I do want to love them! Can you provide what you would consider to be a good example?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws. The 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Science does not use supporting evidence....Science does not use proxies. Direct measurements only....Consensus is not used in science....Science is not data....Science isn't logic. Interpretation isn't science or any physical phenomena....You are denying science
Kinda need to know what "science" is according to you ITN if your claim it's being denied is to be understood. Now that was all a whole lot of what science isn't.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
How about an example, a real example of what science is.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
And before you say RQAA I'll remind you that you have never told DRKTS what science is. (you never told me either but I'm just upping the RQAA ante).

Lie. RQAA.

Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...20q...20r...20u...20v...20x...29...39n...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?4813-05-2020 22:35
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact