The Loss of Confidence

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Loss of Confidence

The Loss of Confidence20-02-2018 21:10
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	For ALL of you out there that believe in man-made global warming it must come as somewhat of a shock that the rest of us are willing to admit that there may be some real climate change without man having anything to do with it. Mark Twain said: "people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." And this perfectly demonstrates those that believe in AGW. Paper after paper has been published and you are still telling each other that NASA and the IPCC are the perfect sources. If you look at the NASA reports of yearly temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg it looks pretty shocking. Especially from 1980 to the present. But if we look at the satellite data it is a different story altogether. [url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg [/url] With the 13 month rolling average shown by the red line there is no temperature change over the 39 year period that NASA has been telling us exactly the opposite. On my 40 year rolling average the temperature has actually fallen. And this isn't a particularly long period to average since climate change occurs over millennia. What sort of scientists has the IPCC been using? Unfortunately not very good ones. More likely those that follow orders. https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf As for carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on the atmosphere retaining heat? Wrong again: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ This paper explains that CO2 absorbs and emits almost no heat energy. For those that don't understand how heat energy can be sensed from space: http://www.xylenepower.com/Emissivity.htm http://www.instesre.org/Solar/SimpleGreenhouseModel.html Scientists as a whole immediately were suspicious of everything about man-made global warming the instant someone started saying "97% of all scientists agree" which turned out to be "we make up our numbers as we go along" because of course virtually NO scientist believed in man-made global warming. There was no data to even analyze let alone make claims such as the "hockey-stick curve that Dr. Michael Mann defined in order to make himself unjustly famous. He has several lawsuits that he filed again scientists in both Canada and America for "character assassination" that are about to reconvene after several years of Dr. Mann stalling these cases when much to his dismay the scientists he was suing didn't roll over and play dead. And yet to this very day we have teenagers filing "discussions" here in which they make the same false claims and disappear never to reappear since they don't know anything they are talking about and consequently run away rather than either explain their science or try to learn the true story. We have over 30,000 of the finest scientists in the US and world signing the "Oregon Petition" which denies AGW. More than 9,000 of them are PhD's and at least three Nobel laureates. But we will see some freaky teenager from Idaho telling us that they don't know what they're talking about. Great Britain seems to be turning out a lot of those claiming that global warming is real while Europe as a whole has been freezing for years and normally warm weather is categorized by them as proof of global warming. On this group we have several posters that again without the slightest credentials and without any scientific wherewithal will claim AGW to be real and "deniers" to be criminals. litebrain just told us that other day that 3 weeks of warm weather in the low Arctic was proof of global warming. Are you going to get it or not?
20-02-2018 22:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: For ALL of you out there that believe in man-made global warming it must come as somewhat of a shock that the rest of us are willing to admit that there may be some real climate change without man having anything to do with it. Mark Twain said: "people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." And this perfectly demonstrates those that believe in AGW. Paper after paper has been published and you are still telling each other that NASA and the IPCC are the perfect sources. If you look at the NASA reports of yearly temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg it looks pretty shocking. Especially from 1980 to the present. The most shocking thing about it is that the bad math they use to claim a global temperature value. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: But if we look at the satellite data it is a different story altogether. [url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg [/url] With the 13 month rolling average shown by the red line there is no temperature change over the 39 year period that NASA has been telling us exactly the opposite. Nope. Satellites can't measure temperature at all. They measure light. They depend on the Stefan-Boltzmann law to get any idea of temperature. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Wake wrote: On my 40 year rolling average the temperature has actually fallen. And this isn't a particularly long period to average since climate change occurs over millennia. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. There is no such thing as a climate 'change'. Climate is weather 'over a long time'. That time is unspecified. There is no way to describe a delta. Climates can be different, but it is not possible to describe a 'change' with them. Wake wrote: What sort of scientists has the IPCC been using? Unfortunately not very good ones. More likely those that follow orders. https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf Still an excellent piece of material. Wake wrote: As for carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on the atmosphere retaining heat? Wrong again: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ This paper explains that CO2 absorbs and emits almost no heat energy. CO2 absorbs heat just like any other gas in the atmosphere, with the slight addition of using radiance to absorb that heat. CO2 emits heat (in the form of radiance) just the same as any other gas in the atmosphere. Most radiant heat flowing away from Earth is from the surface itself. It is the hottest and the densest. Wake wrote: For those that don't understand how heat energy can be sensed from space: ...deleted Holy Links... Heat is not energy. It is the FLOW of thermal energy. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Frequency is not a term in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. [quote]Wake wrote: Scientists as a whole immediately were suspicious of everything about man-made global warming the instant someone started saying "97% of all scientists agree" which turned out to be "we make up our numbers as we go along" because of course virtually NO scientist believed in man-made global warming. There was no data to even analyze let alone make claims such as the "hockey-stick curve that Dr. Michael Mann defined in order to make himself unjustly famous. There is still no data today. Wake wrote: He has several lawsuits that he filed again scientists in both Canada and America for "character assassination" that are about to reconvene after several years of Dr. Mann stalling these cases when much to his dismay the scientists he was suing didn't roll over and play dead. Yup. I think that in general the Church of Global Warming doesn't realize how much the public will not roll over and play dead when they attack the public. Wake wrote: And yet to this very day we have teenagers filing "discussions" here in which they make the same false claims and disappear never to reappear since they don't know anything they are talking about and consequently run away rather than either explain their science or try to learn the true story. We have over 30,000 of the finest scientists in the US and world signing the "Oregon Petition" which denies AGW. More than 9,000 of them are PhD's and at least three Nobel laureates. But we will see some freaky teenager from Idaho telling us that they don't know what they're talking about. True. These scientists that have signed this petition are no longer beholden to government funding. They can say and sign what they want now. Wake wrote: Great Britain seems to be turning out a lot of those claiming that global warming is real while Europe as a whole has been freezing for years and normally warm weather is categorized by them as proof of global warming. Not just the UK, but everywhere in Europe has been turning out these people. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Europe. You're just seeing the usual propaganda of the 'hottest' and 'coldest' years ever coming from the Church of Global Warming. Wake wrote: On this group we have several posters that again without the slightest credentials and without any scientific wherewithal will claim AGW to be real and "deniers" to be criminals. litebrain just told us that other day that 3 weeks of warm weather in the low Arctic was proof of global warming. I think everyone here (with a couple of exceptions) understands litebeer's problems and his habit of quoting random numbers as some kind of statistic or data. Wake wrote: Are you going to get it or not? You are asking fundamentalist believers in the Church of Global Warming if they are ever going to get it??? Dream on, dude. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-02-2018 00:52
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Talking to you is like talking to a dead body. There's no use in saying anything to you because you don't understand it.

Join the debate The Loss of Confidence:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Covid-19 loss	2	21-04-2020 09:59
NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss	10	04-04-2020 23:16
Is there an equation available for black body irradiated heat loss vs. font?	0	23-06-2018 10:01
Ice Loss	35	28-09-2017 21:48
Leaf loss from Irma	4	20-09-2017 22:27