Reply With Quote
Point to the other point in time that the temperature changed 2 degrees in less than 400 years.
Manny...
We have had, if I recall correctly, 3 previous times where nature warming was +2C relative to today.
Good or bad, it's natural. The alarmists try to make us think it's going to be +6 or more in the future.
Point to the other point in time that the temperature changed 2 degrees in less than 400 years.
I see you are setting a goalpost. I'm referring to the last 11 kyrs, or so, since we came out of the ice age.
Point to the other point in time that the temperature changed 2 degrees in less than 400 years.
so tell us when in the last 11K years that the temperature change so fast in so short a time, like in the last 150 years of coal and oil burning, and huge increase in populations that burn wood to heat and cook.
LOL...
Limiting yourself to fossil fuels as a cause.
I showed this before:
Interesting that there's still so much uncertainty in "settled science" -- and any article that points this out is automatically tagged "denial" by by the confirmation bias spambot, designed the "objective" folks at skepticalscience
It's all settled in their head.
Who exactly is the confirmation bias spambot? Boutox?
And Darrin that certainly is rich coming from you seeing how often you post links you are given that you clearly have not read.
And WC you should never criticize anyone for having something set in their head. Your refrain the entire time has been the same. You never deviate from your refrain. It's to the point where I have called you out on your line of argument before you even make it because you have nothing else.
That's how you live your life. You have your box and if something doesn't fit into it you just suppose, guess or otherwise wishful think what you want into existence. When something seems to confirm your belief then you grandstand on it like nothing else. That's just how you roll.
Fuzzy, you don't get it.
I am not making any unsupported numeric claims, backed by closed session peer reviews.
Where are the open peer reviews to convince the skeptics they are right?
You are the one living in a box, believing anything the people with agendas have.
So says the guy that referenced the 'warming drives CO2' 'rocket scientist' site for years.
There is not open peer review for a reason. If you go back to school and become an expert in anything then you can take part in it. Until then you can continue to change parts.
So let's be clear though. You are saying that they are lying. You are saying that the thousands of papers and the thousands of scientists are lying?
Warming does change the absorption ratio. I'm sorry you don't understand.
There's nothing like picking who reviews the scientific literature and keeping them secret so you can accept or reject it by agenda. That's why I insist there needs to be the same type of reviewing done like the medical community does. Open instead of anonymous (closed.)
Yes and no Fuzzy.
There is an agenda that has reached the universities. They are teaching the science wrong.
Consider this. If the science was correct, why are there still so many "skeptics" after all these years?
All I want, is for the skeptics to be part of the review process, in an open format. Then all involved has there reputation on the line. Nobody has anything to lose by lying, or allowing bad science, when it's a closed review process.
WC understands but the thousands of scientists and the US National Academy are wrong.
You don't even understand the math much less the science as a whole. Just more wishful thinking in place of facts.
I will let the future be my judge Fuzzy. It hasn't let me down yet. Years ago I was speaking of solar and soot having a larger impact than accounted for, and CO2 not being as strong of a greenhouse gas that the Charlatans claim. So far, I have been batting 1.000.
The solar findings happened in 2003 when the satellite went live. You weren't even around here back then. There was a study that said that soot was undervalued. You get a cookie.
You are conveniently forgetting about all your other attempts. Solar burps, warming denial, warming drives CO2, the heat is coming from the ocean and all of the other nonsense you have spouted over the years.
How about looking at everything I said about solar, and put it together.
TIM is just one small aspect.
What do you mean by solar burps?
I don't deny warming. I deny that mankind is responsible for the majority of the warming.
Why can't you get that strait?
You have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. You take the things you can trist out of context, and you run with it. Are you Cosmored?
I have clearly stated that if we added no CO2 to the atmosphere, that the natural global warming would have increased CO2 in the atmosphere anyway. The mechanism to do so is that as the surface of the ocean warms, it holds loss CO2 and other carbon forms. You obviously don't understand the impact of the carbon cycle, when the the temperature changes the CO2 equilibrium between the air and sea.
If you do understand, then you are purposely misrepresenting what is happening, and what I mean.
Some heat comes from the ocean. This is indirect solar heat for the most part. The ocean does not originate this heat, it is simply a moving storage mechanism.
You used to deny warming.
You said that warming drives CO2 not the other way around ie exclusionary.
You said that the warming was attributable to deep ocean currents.
You are not exactly hard to fathom. You have a difficult time with more intricate analysis so you stay with the low level science. Regale us some more on partial pressures.
Liar.
I have never said there was no warming. My position has not changed. I have always maintained that AGW is weaker than the alarmists claim.
I have said that warming increases CO2 more than CO2 indices warming. Both happen.
No, here is another place where you cannot get facts strait, or purposely recall the facts incorrectly.
Again, the ocean is a storage. Absorbing and releasing heat. The deep currents circulate this and there is also an associated lag.
You probably understand partial pressures as well as those who try to correlate deep navy air mix experiments with NASA using 3 PSI oxygen.
I'm not here to teach you or answer your endless questions. You cannot show us where you say I'm wrong, so you resort to making believe you are a teacher and I am a student.
In your dreams.
Again you are not relating any new information. It's not that I don't understand the processes. It's the grandstanding you do on them that I am talking about. RG talked about this grandstanding in his 'Why I Think' thread. You are nothing novel nor creative. You regurgitate and do a poor job of it.
After poo pooing the amount of warming as insignificant you moved to your current strategy of looking for any other cause than CO2. You are clearly sophist for the stance 'it's not CO2.' Solar, soot, volcanoes, the ocean or anything else the Koch/Exxon lobby puts out and you grandstand on it. You choose them all and when one gets some love you have your hands and scream 'look at me, look at me.'
That nad you conspiracy because a small minority opinion is not granted the same voice as the vast majority. You don't even point to unfairly rejected articles. You just claim a conspiracy that is lying to us.
Wow...
Once again, you used a lot of words to prove you are an idiot, that you don't understand my points.
You simply prove once again you cannot follow a topic that has multiple causes and effects.
My strategy is not as you assume. I simply bring light to the areas not talked about in the agenda driven pseudoscience climate community.
The movement of the ocean matters.
Soot matters.
Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making up, to see what sticks.
Solar... Very big deal. The alarmists only deal with "direct" atmospheric forcing changes, and they don't account for changes that the ocean and earth absorbs, which is radiated back up, as a greater input for the greenhouse effect. They are counting indirect solar changes as greenhouse gas forcing changes. Why can't you true believers see that?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-01-2013 at 02:19 AM.
It is amusing how you group thousands of scientists that are part of the consensus and make claims as to what they include in their models and what they do not. They have only known about the issue for a decade but none have them have considered it? Quite the contrary. For example:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf
This is just as asinine as your assumption that the scientists do not consider ocean currents when Penn State and Washington had been studying it for over 50 years. You are completely clueless to the science. That particular discussion is what got you all butthurt about linearity because you couldn't understand what the PDE's were trying to say. That you still say it after having your nose rubbed in it is pretty sad. It just goes to how deep your mind is already set.
Nobody buys your bull .
You are mocked by virtue of who you are.Wild Cobra's posts are almost always full of hilarity; the only time they are not is when he tries to be funny.
Today's top items on "reality" drop:
Under "Spread Truth" (lol at the end of this URL)
"What deniers of climate change must deny" http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/arch...ml?partner=RSS
Under "Destroy Denial"
"Government's climate watchdog launches astonishing attack on the Mail on Sunday... for revealing global warming science is wrong"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nce-wrong.html
LOL...
This part started me laughing:
Since when have the alarmist been that? Destroying data comes to mind.Real science is open, transparent and honest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
