nationalgeographic on climate change

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.

Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.

The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

spot wrote:
This post on another thread was in a response to an implication that there was no evidence that climate change is allready affecting things I think if people want to discuss it it deserves its own thread.

Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.

All this is happening, those who can read will notice Antarctic sea ice is not mentioned however if you want to ignore where the ice is obseved to be melting and talk about Antarctic sea ice that for some reason please familiarize yourself with;
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm the arguments in this link.

Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.

I haven't counted them myself Bill Fraser did so if you want to accuse someone of lying its him not me but knowing what little I know about Adélie penguins it seems probable.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2462/climate-change-may-shrink-adelie-penguin-range-by-end-of-century/

The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

All this seems true from what I know.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Pine bark beetles are well studied and the effects are well known.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bark-beetles-aided-by-climate-change-are-devastating-us-pine-forests/2011/11/08/gIQA0B0CWO_story.html?utm_term=.123b8c48a69a

I think my post stands up to scrutiny.

spot wrote:
Chinstrap, Gentoo, Adelie its all the same. A species that has been around since long before civilization is being supplanted by another no big deal.

I don't expect you to understand, you think ignorance is a virtue. Other people however can look stuff up.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:
Chinstrap, Gentoo, Adelie its all the same. A species that has been around since long before civilization is being supplanted by another no big deal.

Typical defeatist response. You'd blame yourself for the extinction of the dinosaur if you could....or do you? 2 Penguins species doing better and much better and one is not. Spot has his panties in a bunch.

I don't expect you to understand, you think ignorance is a virtue. Other people however can look stuff up.

I do not think ignorance is a virtue. What I find amazing is that even with my lack of a high school education, I can see right through the "science" lies. It is unbelievable how the "smartest" people are so stupid.

Its getting warmer because of us so blaming us seems logical.

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

Spot said,
I did not make the claims

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/

Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: ....even with my lack of a high school education, I can see right through the "science" lies.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/

Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.

Also the interior heat from the Earth is so slight compared to the input from the Sun that is effectively non-existent.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/

Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

spot wrote:

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.

Frescomexico wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
The things I linked are already happening

I think the problem is dumbing down the answer so you can understand it.

You told me that the Peaks of the Andes are above the stratosphere, rember If I made such an idiotic claim I would give up.

No you wouldn't. You've spent your entire time on this board making the most idiotic claims possible and you have only doubled down. To make some sort of insane claim that "climate change" has reduced the numbers of one species of penguin couldn't be more idiotic.

What makes you think that it wasn't anything more than a disease?

You have invented ignorance and it hasn't stopped you from posting every 20 seconds.

I did not make the claims, you can read about the methodology if you wish, you seem to have time on your hands.

Are we arguing about whether climate change changes things? Get a life! Let's get back to something more productive to talk about.

You can hardly call normal conditions a change. So arguing whether or not there is "climate change" and not simply normal weather variations is stretching definitions to their breaking point.

We know that there is a millennial warm period and that we have had two within written history and we are reasonably sure that there was a third in the Greek ascendancy. They come and go.

The pretense that the others were natural and only this one is effected by man is completely out of control.

This gets back to the basic question:

Just what IS 'global warming'?

Is it the surface to about anywhere from 8 feet to 30000 feet? Is it the 'top' of the atmosphere, which has no definable 'top'? Is it the oceans? How deep? Does it include the material underground? How deep? What dates are involved? Why does past 'warming' predict the future?

I think one of the basic problems is that all of the heat that our planet is releasing through geological processes has not been accounted for. Also what impact does ozone depletion have on warming ? About a 1/3 of the way down it says Ozone and Climate: Antarctic and does associate ozone depletion with warming as well as more sea ice. It's possible it might help promote upwelling in the Antarctic.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/executivesummary/

Ozone is not 'depleting'. It decomposes and is rebuilt continuously. As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we will have ozone.

CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. The chlorine in them is extremely reactive. It will react with something else before any damage to ozone is done.

Ozone production requires an energy source (the Sun). You get a hole at the South Pole in July because it's WINTER there. No Sun. It's always been there.

First you say that CFC's are inert. Then you say that the chlorine in them is extremely reactive and will react with something else. So is it reactive or inert?

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.

Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.

This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.

Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.

This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.

I am not addressing it to you, rather any third party that may be reading this,

Tim accuses me of being a fascist, Tim wants to lock scientists up for reporting what their instruments tell them if its contrary what he thinks is going on based his fantasy maths based on half arsed guesses.

Tim wants proof that the effects of global warming will be bad, I can't 'prove' what will happen in the future, I can show what people project;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim wants a mechanism I have explained the mechanism in simple terms, I have offered to privately go through it in as much detail as he requires. They teach the mechanism to secondary school kids. You would think he could look it up himself though.

http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

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

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Spot has chosen to PM me with asupposed responce to my 4 questions here it is;

You challenged me with four questions, since in the public forum there is a lot of grandstanding and playing to the gallery I will attempt to address them privately

You ask; Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;

1 Be scary; Scary is a weird word to use, concerning would be a more adult and accurate word, Do you want an adult conversation?

2&3 To answer those questions I would refer you to the extensive literature written on the subject. To explain the sum of human knowledge on the subject to you just for your benefit is not an appealing prospect, perhaps we could go through it together in a scheduled Skype session and I could see where you are having problems. you don't seem the sort that would shoot someone for having a differing opinion unlike some on this board, however explaining everything will take a while so I would have to be sure you were actually interested in learning.

4; Your question contains prior assumptions that are false. I think going through the basics of what flood prevention entails in another Skype session is in order.

Thanks for your time.

So 5 ways of dodging the questions, by not putting them out in public and then not answering any of them.

How weak must you know your arguments to be when you cannot put a single one out there with any credibility at all. The "there are loads of good reasons, I just can't think of one right now school" comes to town again.

I explained why I PMed you instead of answering your questions publicly.

I will attempt again

1, Not a question but a semantic statement and childish.

2, Have a mechanism of how it would happen actually explained by the poster.

We burn fossil fuels that makes CO2, CO2 gas traps heat, that makes the world warmer.

3. Backed by some sort of science

Yes

4, Be more expensive to cope with than the cost of that local council's spending on traffic lights over the same period.

The question makes prior assumptions that are false so it behooves the questioner to do more research to see if his claims are true or not.

Spot, you are a facist in trying to restrict my use of language.

Can anybody please post something that will happen due to increased temperatures from increased CO2 as a result of expected human activity that will;1 Be scary.

This is generally the way english works. The above is the whole sentence to think about. I will use whatever words i think work best. Screw you prat.

The mechanism needs to be explained in enough detail that we can actually understand what you are talking about and I am not at all wanting you to explain why the temperature will rise but the effects of that that could be bad.

With mechanism.

With supporting science. Like a paper.

Which is suficently costly to avoid that it would cost more than a trivial amount of money to cope with.

Your, and every body else's inability to answer this is such a clear demonstration of why the whole thing is drivel.

I am not addressing it to you, rather any third party that may be reading this,

Tim accuses me of being a fascist, Tim wants to lock scientists up for reporting what their instruments tell them if its contrary what he thinks is going on based his fantasy maths based on half arsed guesses.

Tim wants proof that the effects of global warming will be bad, I can't 'prove' what will happen in the future, I can show what people project;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim wants a mechanism I have explained the mechanism in simple terms, I have offered to privately go through it in as much detail as he requires. They teach the mechanism to secondary school kids. You would think he could look it up himself though.

http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

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

Of course anything that I bring up will be dismissed by Tim for 'reasons'

Tim states that the cost of dealing with climate change will be trivial, he offers no supporting evidence. He is of course wrong.

spot wrote:
I provided links.

spot wrote:
I provided links.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I provided links.

Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I provided links.

Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.

This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.

Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.

Wake wrote:
This is a very good analysis. ...

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I provided links.

Science doesn't use consensus.

Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:

The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.

The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.

We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:

Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.

The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.

Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.

People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.

Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.

You see it common in government and finance too.

This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.

Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.

Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.

It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.

Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.

Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.

The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.

You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.