Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

Look here fuzznuts.

I'm not going to put you on "IGNORE," but when I don't respond, just know I an actively ignoring you.

You are too ing stupid for me to waste my time with. I will respond from time to time, but just understand,m i will simply ignore your utter stupidity at time.

How the , can you be so stupid, as to link and article to defend your opposition against what I am saying. Then... When I quote the parts of the article that support my viewpoint, and blow away your, you say I am the idiot for linking the article?

IT WAS YOUR LINK I USED YOU PATHETIC RE !

My ing god...

Just how ing stupid are you?

Really...

Just how funking pathetic, stupid, or what ever your problem is?

[boutons_deux]

Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding


State Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who insisted on changing the “sea level rise” study in the General Assembly to one on “recurrent flooding,” said he wants to get political speech out of the mix altogether.

He said “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term” that conjures up animosities on the right. So why bring it into the equation?

“What people care about is the floodwater coming through their door,” Stolle said. “Let’s focus on that. Let’s study that. So that’s what I wanted us to call it.”



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...stal-flooding/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look here fuzznuts.

I'm not going to put you on "IGNORE," but when I don't respond, just know I an actively ignoring you.

You are too ing stupid for me to waste my time with. I will respond from time to time, but just understand,m i will simply ignore your utter stupidity at time.

How the , can you be so stupid, as to link and article to defend your opposition against what I am saying. Then... When I quote the parts of the article that support my viewpoint, and blow away your, you say I am the idiot for linking the article?

IT WAS YOUR LINK I USED YOU PATHETIC RE !

My ing god...

Just how ing stupid are you?

Really...

Just how funking pathetic, stupid, or what ever your problem is?

So you do not understand how partial derivatives work? MIT has a great set of lectures up about multivariable calculus on the subject.

I'll even help on the specific question you need to know the answer to:

"When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________."

And really Dr. Capacitor, you should never call anyone else stupid. All you did was quote stuff out of context and I am trying to get you to understand the context. I think I am doing a pretty decent job of illustrating how you are incapable of figuring it out.

[DarrinS]

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get it. FuzzNuts seems to be smart, yet he doesn't understand why his partial derivative angle is so stupid.

What do you think he's trying to get at?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I showed you the study that the 'Acquittal of CO2' was talking about and am trying to discuss why they held the solubility state as constant ie they did not differentiate it.

It's actually funny because when I posted it you acted as if it was some sort of revelation of what you have been saying when all it was was the study your shill was referencing. When you treated it as if it was some sort of epiphany it was clear that you were completely unfamiliar with the work and further you would not have the background to understand what they were doing.

You just cherrypicked quotes from what I posted without the context of the mathematical functions and operations that they were using just like your so called 'rocket scientist.'

That you claim that the "partial derivative angle is so stupid" just goes to show you have no basis to talk about anything. You have no idea of the mathematics that those scientists were using. You just had some random guy on the internet tell you something that you wanted to hear and you based your entire viewpoint on the subject on that. You did so without even an attempt at crosschecking or even checking it at all.

I am trying to do so for you but you cannot keep up. At this point, I am just doing it for the benefit of others who read this as to show that you deserve no credibility on any subject at any time.

[Wild Cobra]

OMG....

You are so delusional.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RG, all he is doing is latching onto something said by Glassman, the nonpeerreviewed, guy. Before the MIT report that I linked, THIS was the defining piece on ocean atmospheric exxchange modeling.

There is a blurb on p 132 says "the constants K1, K2, L .... are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."

That quote is what he is latching onto in making his claims that scientists do not consider them, That is clearly bull .

What he fails to acknowledge is that on step 5 and 6 of the same page, the equilibrium values divide out.

Look for yourself. pg 132.

Yes wow...

"The constants K1, K2, Lp, and x are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following."

LOL...

So they treat temperature as a constant...

LOL...

OK, this fifth link of Fuzzy's does address more of what I have been saying. However, it does not address the source and sink locations changes in temperature. As for claiming the very long cycle time for equilibrium, that is incorrect in one aspect. The primary sources and sinks are just that, and because of how they physically travel. The primary sinks do not ac ulate the ionic changes. They move the whole mass of the water, along with it's changes to the deep ocean. This is a very big fator in that these long times they speak of would be only for areas that do not travel like these areas do. this is why the North Atlantic is the primary sink. It takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere than any other location. Once the cold waters are moving downward in the Thermohaline circulation, there is no ac ulation, because these waters don't surface for hundreds of years later. The colder these waters become before their dive, the more CO2 they take with them. Just being warmer by a fraction of a degree changes their CO2 sinking ability by a notable amount. Same with the primary sourcing point in the tropical Pacific. Deep waters rise, saturated from the deep cold. the warmer the surface becomes, the more they release CO2 in the end result.

Show me where they address this in their study.

And...

LOL...

LOL...


Treating temperature as a constant...

LOL...

LOL...

What do partial differential mean? Seriously look it up. You obviously do not have the basis to comment on what they did. After you figure out what a partial differential is then go to their differentials, partial fractions and algebra and point out specifically where the error was in factoring out solubility in their equations. They said it was a function of temperature AND ph.

The better question is why are you talking about solubility states without considering ph.

Further as I knew you would, you are fixating on the 1958 paper. I showed you the 2003 MIT paper for modeling and they very clearly consider temperature in their transfer coefficient. I linked and quoted it for you.

What is clear is you are being a sophist piece of . You claim that it does not disagree with anything you say but it could not disagree more. they consider it and factor it very clearly. You are just too ignorant and dumb to understand.

Delusional huh?

[Wild Cobra]

You can look at individual aspects all you want, but at some time you have to look at how changes in temperature has an effect also.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh-huh..... God you're dumb.

the constants K1, K2, L .... are only functions of temperature and salinity and will be regarded as constants in the following.

When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh-huh..... God you're dumb.



When taking a partial derivative, you hold the variables not being differentiated as ________.

Listen NumbNuts.

I know what you are saying. I have been saying all along that all the articles you linked did not disagree with what I have been saying. I am trying to stop you from your lame way of wasting time. Unless you are going to tell us why your argument has merit, I'm not playing your silly ass game.

You lay out these articles, I say they have no merit, and the moment I say one even agrees with my argument, you try to place that on me as a ball and chain. Go yourself you ignorant fool. How in does that have any merit at all? I am not claiming the article. It is yours!

Temperature does affect solubility. It is a fact. Like I said, we can argue over how much an effect it has over CO2, but your attempt to dismiss it is absolutely moronic!

Until you have something reasonable to add, talk to the hand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never tried to dismiss it. You are the one claiming that we are. Thats what this argument is about: how you claim that climate scientists do not factor solubility into their models.

You apparently are too stupid to follow your own arguments.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, and UW papers all that indicate that they do.

I even brought into the discussion the paper Glassman, whom you get your ideas from, uses to justify said position. I gave the specific quote with context and have been trying to walk you through partial differentials so you can understand that them holding K as constant in a mathematical operation was not to mean that they considered the solubility static.

Its just a partial differential where other variables are considered constants within the operation and not to mean that they remained constant. Its just language that they use in describing the operation. They even say that K is a function of temperature AND alkalinity in the damn quote.

You just do not understand multivariable calculus. A function of x and y remains a function of x and y even after you hold y as a constant to do a partial differential of x. The math is obviously beyond your scope but it is what it is.

if f(x,y) = (ln x)*y then the partial derivative of x = y/x. The y is still variable after the differential.

I would also posit that if Glassman is indeed a rocket scientist either working on propulsion, gyroscope based guidance or the like then he is completely disingenuous in his writing. Those engineers use partial derivatives as a matter of course and he would have known better. Its little surprise he didn't put the work up for peer review.

You keep saying that this doesn't disagree with what you are saying but it disagrees with your bull about climate scientists not considering temperatures effect on K.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, UW and even where the MIoS do.

So do you agree that climate scientists do consider temperature effects on K?

Thats what all of those papers say. If you still answer no then all of those papers disagree with what you say.

[Wild Cobra]

I never tried to dismiss it. You are the one claiming that we are. Thats what this argument is about: how you claim that climate scientists do not factor solubility into their models.

I clarified that. are you too ing stupid to understand what I mean?

I will try to expalin it to your dumb ass again.

they do make claims of the effect for the "change in temperature" over the long term times. Since indistrialization, CO2 has incres=ased by about 30% or so. they atribute all the change to mankind. I have never seen the AGW crowd publish the numbers atributed to delta T.

You apparently are too stupid to follow your own arguments.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, and UW papers all that indicate that they do.

I even brought into the discussion the paper Glassman, whom you get your ideas from, uses to justify said position. I gave the specific quote with context and have been trying to walk you through partial differentials so you can understand that them holding K as constant in a mathematical operation was not to mean that they considered the solubility static.

Another clear indication of your stupidity.

Taking your assumption and applying it as fact.

I do not believe as I do because or Dr. Glassman's work. I already believed as i do befopre i ever knew of him.

Do you have any clue at all, hiow irritaing you are, eveer tiome you apply your stupid innacurate assumptions as fact?

Its just a partial differential where other variables are considered constants within the operation and not to mean that they remained constant. Its just language that they use in describing the operation. They even say that K is a function of temperature AND alkalinity in the damn quote.

You just do not understand multivariable calculus. A function of x and y remains a function of x and y even after you hold y as a constant to do a partial differential of x. The math is obviously beyond your scope but it is what it is.

if f(x,y) = (ln x)*y then the partial derivative of x = y/x. The y is still variable after the differential.

Bla bla bla.

I know what they are. Stop wasting my time thinking you are proving a point.

Please...

Show me where in any of your lnked articles, they show their assessment of how much CO2 is caused by ocean warming.

You keep saying that this doesn't disagree with what you are saying but it disagrees with your bull about climate scientists not considering temperatures effect on K.

I have shown you IPCC, NOAA, MIT, UH, UW and even where the MIoS do.

So do you agree that climate scientists do consider temperature effects on K?

Thats what all of those papers say. If you still answer no then all of those papers disagree with what you say.

I will say this again.

They do not show the effect to CO2 of their delta-temperature assessments of two or more distant times.

please...

Where do they say that?

From the start, if you had any intelligence, you should know that's what I was saying.

What is the change in CO2 due to the change in temperature?

Where do they show their assessment of that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have never seen them show the amount attributed to biomass either. Its in their functions though. Its funny too cause you just recently told me:

You can look at individual aspects all you want but at some time you have to look at how changes in temperature has an effect also.

I have shown you models that include temperature in them that are used with the data at any date. K is in the function. They also look at the reactions that take place in addition as is the circulation and windspeed and everything else. Solubility is a function of temperature AND ph amongst other things after all.

YOU CAN LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS ALL YOU WANT BUT AT SOME TIME YOU HAVE TO STOP DUMBING IT DOWN AND TRY TO SEE HOW ALL FACTORS INFLUENCE ALTOGETHER.

god you are dumb. You do not even understand the significance of your own arguments.

[Wild Cobra]

I have never seen them show the amount attributed to biomass either. Its in their functions though. Its funny too cause you just recently told me:



I have shown you models that include temperature in them that are used with the data at any date. K is in the function. They also look at the reactions that take place in addition as is the circulation and windspeed and everything else. Solubility is a function of temperature AND ph amongst other things after all.

YOU CAN LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS ALL YOU WANT BUT AT SOME TIME YOU HAVE TO STOP DUMBING IT DOWN AND TRY TO SEE HOW ALL FACTORS INFLUENCE ALTOGETHER.

god you are dumb. You do not even understand the significance of your own arguments.

LOL....

I don't discount that the others have effect.

I will ask one last time.

Where does the AGW crowd show how much CO2 is attributed to ocean warming?

[Yonivore]

So we're back to disputing whether or not the US and the world are getting warmer?

I think we're still disputing whether or not the US and the world are warming at the rate and for the reasons claimed by the AGCC crowd.

WOW. Why would they correct for the urban heat island affect? That makes no ing sense. That IS the temperature is those places.

Are "heat islands" global or local phenomena?

@ complaining about supposedly fudging numbers and then saying that the numbers should be fudged in the direction he wants. That is gold.

Pointing out when a scientific body quits "normalizing" temperatures in a consistent manner because it doesn't fit the model isn't complaining, it's questioning the legitimacy of the scientific analysis.

Did BEST find it was not warming and that it was all the urban heat island effect? Let me know. Maybe one of your blogs can fill you in.

Nice diversion. Is what I posted true or not?

1) Is this statement true, "Historically, five adjustments have been made [to the raw NOAA data that is the basis for graphing long-term temperature trends]; the only one that tended to reduce temperatures apparently has been eliminated?"

2) Is this statement true, "Not only does NOAA not correct for the well-recognized urban heat island effect, as I think it obviously should, it goes out of its way to re-introduce the heat island effect where better data are available!?"

[MannyIsGod]

My so called diversion answered your questions.

[MannyIsGod]

Its pretty obvious you know nothing about the statistical analysis of large temperature data sets so why act like you do, yoni?

[boutons_deux]

The Heat Is On: U.S. Temperature Rise Is Accelerating



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-accelerating/

[MannyIsGod]

Pointing out when a scientific body quits "normalizing" temperatures in a consistent manner because it doesn't fit the model isn't complaining, it's questioning the legitimacy of the scientific analysis

This specifically makes me laugh. The quotes are a wonderful touch. You have no idea what was meant by normalize so you put quotes around it to treat it as some made open AGW creation. Awesome.

[Yonivore]

This specifically makes me laugh. The quotes are a wonderful touch. You have no idea what was meant by normalize so you put quotes around it to treat it as some made open AGW creation. Awesome.

Glad to amuse, Manny.

I know what normalizing is; but, of course, that's not the question. Neither are my statistical skills at question.

The questions remain, "Have, as was alleged in the post above, those conducting the statistical analysis on global temperature, that tends to support the AGCC position, changed the way they normalize the temperatures used in their analysis and, if so, why and to what effect?"

So, put me some knowledge, Manny.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL....

I don't discount that the others have effect.

I will ask one last time.

Where does the AGW crowd show how much CO2 is attributed to ocean warming?

In their ocean CO2 ocean transfer models. I showed you the models. i showed you in the models where they accounted for K. Sorry they do not break it down the output by parts with a data column labeled K, so you can see it easily like your solubility chart but they do not do that for alkalinity or the like either. They do have gradient maps where they tell you what the surface temperatures are a that particular time and place.

If you need help with gradients here you go



That Weisz guy, from whose work the head that compiled your solubility chart pulled, created a formula that modeled that behavior. He was a climate scientist from the University of California San Diego.

His work was published in Nature HERE. thats a climate scientist quantifying it.

Your head whoever it was plugged in numbers into said formula and acted like he had something. I still find it hilarious that he posted the chart so stupid s such as your self could work with it rather than Weisz's formula.

Weisz's work has been cited by IPCC, MIT and the UH papers I linked you. So your chart that you use to make up numbers and make claims about how much CO2 the ocean should release comes from a formula that those other papers use in their formulas. Weisz was not some scientific outcast, dumbass.

3. Net sea–air CO2 flux

3.1. Computational method Net sea–air CO2 flux, F; can be estimated using: F ¼ k  a  ðDpCO2Þsea2air; where k is the CO2 gas transfer velocity, a is the solubility of CO2 in seawater (Weiss, 1974), and (DpCO2)sea–air is the sea–air pCO2 difference. The sea–air pCO2 difference is computedusing the mean monthly pCO2 values in surface waters obtainedin this study and the atmospheric pCO2 computedusing the zonal mean CO2 concentrations in the dry atmosphere for 1995 reportedby the GLOBALVIEW-CO2 (2000).

http://www.climate.columbia.edu/site...2Takahashi.pdf

p 1606 There is the NOAA CO2 flux model from 2002 where it clearly shows that Weiss formula is not only considered but cited. Its variable and they even tell you where they pull their empirical data from.

The climatological mean barometric pressure
(Pb) (Atlas of Surface Marine Data, 1994)
andequilibrium water vapor pressure (Pw) at
climatological surface water temperature and
salinity (WorldOcean Database, 1998) are used
for computing the atmospheric pCO2

I cannot spell it out any more clearly.

[MannyIsGod]

Glad to amuse, Manny.

I know what normalizing is; but, of course, that's not the question. Neither are my statistical skills at question.

The questions remain, "Have, as was alleged in the post above, those conducting the statistical analysis on global temperature, that tends to support the AGCC position, changed the way they normalize the temperatures used in their analysis and, if so, why and to what effect?"

So, put me some knowledge, Manny.

I pointed you to BEST. You said it was diversion because you're ignorant of what BEST actually is and what questions they answered.

If you want the answer as to why the methods were changed then consult the literature on every temperature (or really ANY large dataset) dataset. Why are there series of each of them? They develop new methods for making them more accurate. (this is exactly what BEST was an audit over)

You see not every square inch of the earth has a thermometer sitting within it. Some areas are sampled more than others. THAT is why we must use normalization and other statistical sampling methods to come up with a global temperature average. These methods change as scientists try new things and find things that are more accurate. The old you're now digging up was exactly why a study like BEST was done. The data is fully public as are the methods and the results are almost exactly the same as every temperature dataset shows.

Your has been addressed so man times its not funny. This is exactly like when you wondered why no one tried to use climate models to forecast the current climate with old data.

[MannyIsGod]

But they're manipulating the data!

[MannyIsGod]

In other news, the arctic is now being forecast to break the all time low in sea ice extent. Its already set record lows for the dates in the season.

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2012/june

But no, its not really warming.