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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you really this stupid?

I had a hunch that (1) I could find a statement from a climate scientist that was slightly critical of the science, (2) I could alter the words slightly and post it as my own thought, and (3) that you would reflexively pounce on it because I posted it.

You didn't disappoint.

So you are going to go with the "I was just trolling" as your excuse? Because at this point you have lost the argument and just sound petulant. "I meant to to lose the argument because I didn't know wtf i was talking about in the first place" is what that reads like.

[SnakeBoy]

If current trends continue, in the next few years, we will have to admit that something is fundamentally wrong with climate models. A 20 year pause in warming doesn't occur in any of the simulations.

Real climate scientists have already acknowledged that fact.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-906721.html

That won't shake the alarmist's from their dogma though.

[SnakeBoy]

Of course the trend doesn't mean much when you stop staring at the tree directly in front of you.

[SnakeBoy]

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 5 guests)
SnakeBoy, FuzzyLumpkins, boutons_deux

lol Fuzzy and Boo googling a response for the last 15 minutes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And of course we should fixate on these particular core measurements to the most varying climate region on Earth.

I will say that it is so adorable that the both of you get the same mailer. Yoni swooped right in on the same brain with Storch. Sophists looking for a nut.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol Fuzzy and Boo googling a response for the last 15 minutes.

I went to go feed my cat and put in an order for 50% off Papa John's. You?

[SnakeBoy]

I went to go feed my cat and put in an order for 50% off Papa John's. You?

I was busy sobbing uncontrollably thinking of the bleak future of mankind.

[Wild Cobra]

WC has backtracked. He now admits there is such a thing as AGW, even goes so far (hilariously, again) to claim no one denies it. Now he's just bickering over the extent, when he used to blame the sun and soot.

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...

[Wild Cobra]

OK, this implies two things:
1. you have read the original study and have the ability to understand the science - is this true or have you just read about it?
2. you have read the vast majority of the other studies to be able to say that this is the first and can prove the definitive bit - and I remain EXTREMELY skeptical of this.

BTW 10 years? Really?

I understand just fine what it is saying. Their results are that CO2 only producing 2/3rds the direct forcing as previously thought.

As for other studies, I have read hundreds over the years, and have a subscription to Nature Climate Change.

This topis is not new at all for me like it obviously is for you.

[Wild Cobra]

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders


Koch funded

Yep. Look at the three groups who funded more than Koch...


Totals:
Anonymous Foundation ($500,000) - seems to be some global group.
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($375,000) - Bowes in a rich capitalist. Probably funding things that pay off more, like carbon trading...
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($250,000) - Gordon Getty is a large contributor to Nancy Pelosi, Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, and John Kerry.
U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 ($188,587) - Presidential directed political interests...
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) - educational donations of several types.
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) - We know how liberal he is!
Energy Foundation ($50,000) - Avid supporter of alternate energy
The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($40,000) - arts and education donations
private individuals, totaling $14,500

Koch's donations are just under 9% of these totals.

[Wild Cobra]

Berkly Earth does not claim anthropogenic warning is primary, but it, like other groups asking for funding, seem to be calling for such funds to prove so:

Is it time now to end global warming skepticism?

In its first phase, Berkeley Earth addressed the concern: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, genization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no, but they were questions worthy of investigation.

Berkeley Earth has now found that the best explanation for the warming seen over the past 250 years is human greenhouse gas emissions. While this does not prove that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, it does set the bar for alternative explanations.

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of satellite data, tree ring and proxy data, or climate model accuracy. Scientists at Berkeley Earth remain skeptical of many elements of "climate change" - including attribution of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events to global warming.

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...

Yes, the relationship is logarithmic. Something the believers of the liars just don't seem to understand.

It is based on the data I have gathered, and comparing it against other people's assessments. I like to use other people's work against them. Here is a chart Al Gore uses:



Here is one I flipped upside-down from RealClimate dot org:



This chart takes is a calculation (by the alarmists) that shows CO2 levels to trap about 33.5% (66.5% transmission) of the IR radiation it is capable of capturing at the current level being tested. It shows It shows about 36.3% at two times the CO2 and about 40.4% at 4X. I used this to show a doubling of CO2 cannot increase temperatures by 3 C. If Using the doubling equals 3 C increase theory, I would have to believe that 100% of the 32 C greenhouse effect is by carbon dioxide, and being done by CO2 trapping 33.5% of the heat it is capable of. The 36.3% would represent a 34.67 C greenhouse effect. Short of the 3 C, but hard to get accuracy reading a digitized chart. Even Al Gore shows a doubling of CO2 to be only 1 C. The original graph is found here:





Here is the first article that prompted me to be a "Denier:"

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Yep, then the truth is not on there side, they lie. Here is an interesting article I just found:

Watts Up With That?

Parts of the article:








CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2 as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere 750 Gt
Oceans – surface 1,000 Gt
Oceans – intermediate / deep 38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus) 2,200 Gt

There is a whole bunch more of you comparing the ocean to a soda fizzing and that the causation was warming causes CO2. What is up with you ers lying about what you have claimed?

[Wild Cobra]

There is a whole bunch more of you comparing the ocean to a soda fizzing and that the causation was warming causes CO2. What is up with you ers lying about what you have claimed?

Please show me where I said the ocean "fizzes."

You are a complete moron, so I don't expect you to understand.

I also never said warming is the causation for current CO2 levels. Another complete lack of understanding on your part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please show me where I said the ocean "fizzes."

You are a complete moron, so I don't expect you to understand.

I also never said warming is the causation for current CO2 levels. Another complete lack of understanding on your part.

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...da#post5458330

[Wild Cobra]

My reference to a soda going flat has been thoroughly explained time and again. I never refereed to the ocean as "fizzing." only that a soda fizzes because it loses CO2 as it warms, and the ocean losses CO2 equilibrium as it warms as well.

My words there were about CO2 levels being almost as low as before are after equalization. The ocean already absorbs maybe half of the extra CO2 we emit. My claim is the oceans would absorb even more CO2 that we emit if it wasn't warming. This has been more thoroughly explained by me. Your ability to cherry pick is amazing. I have a high school buddy whose parents probably still owns a large cherry orchard. Need a job?

You really don't see the nuances, do you?

As long as you continue to jump with insults based on your ignorance and bias, you will always be one of the jesters of these forums.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still say the sun and soot do cause more forcing. Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing. I have always maintained, and still do, that forcing changes from CO2 are less than forcing changed from these other two components.

Careful..

Your confirmation bias is showing...

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing.

CO2 does not drive temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

Your statement is incorrect in that I never said CO2 does not cause forcing.

CO2 does not drive temperature.

LOL...

Nothing wrong with what I said.

Temperature changes CO2 levels more than CO2 levels change temperature. Temperature drives CO2 levels in the long term equilibrium, but CO2 still has forcing as a greenhouse gas.

You really fail to follow what I say, don't you.

Solar is the driving force of the earths temperatures. CO2 is a feedback mechanism for radiative forcing that starts from the sun.

My God, your ignorance has you thinking you are a genius!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Nothing wrong with what I said.

Temperature changes CO2 levels more than CO2 levels change temperature. Temperature drives CO2 levels in the long term equilibrium, but CO2 still has forcing as a greenhouse gas.

You really fail to follow what I say, don't you.

Solar is the driving force of the earths temperatures. CO2 is a feedback mechanism for radiative forcing that starts from the sun.

My God, your ignorance has you thinking you are a genius!

You are responding to quotes of yourself, dolt. Everything in that post was from you.

[Nero5]

I understand just fine what it is saying. Their results are that CO2 only producing 2/3rds the direct forcing as previously thought.

As for other studies, I have read hundreds over the years, and have a subscription to Nature Climate Change.

This topis is not new at all for me like it obviously is for you.

You know for once you have surprised me, from all of your previous posts I would never have guessed you were literate enough for such a journal.

[Wild Cobra]

You are responding to quotes of yourself, dolt. Everything in that post was from you.

But I constantly have to point out how you misconstrue them, you idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

You know for once you have surprised me, from all of your previous posts I would never have guessed you were literate enough for such a journal.

Have anything intelligent to say, or are you a Fuzzy II???

[DarrinS]

ISIS may have roots in climate change.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...climate-change


STFU

[Wild Cobra]

ISIS may have roots in climate change.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...climate-change


STFU

The warmers should rejoice over this news. If the fossil fuel warming is causing problems for the producers, their logic would be that maybe they will stop pulling it from the ground and selling it.

I can hear their happiness now!

[RandomGuy]

It's not bad per se, but it would be like using tape on the ground to designate a smoking area.

???

You will have to elaborate. I do not have enough information to determine whether I should accept your argument or not.

[RandomGuy]

He still cannot justify his numbers. He is passing off the aggregate average of forcing measurements over 250 years that IPCC lists with a +/-10% degree of error and is trying to pass it off as the exact number they use in their current models. It's been pointed out to him yet he continues to repeat the same with the same ty numbers.

I'll need to take a look at it. I suspect ferreting out the bad logic will require spending more time than I currently have.