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

[TeyshaBlue]

Chances: Better than zero on either.

[MannyIsGod]

Who is WC?

[Wild Cobra]

I just want to point out that WC made that same argument about a year or so ago. He was shown the studies that take into account the information regarding solar output from 2003-4 then. He left and called me a bully. His typical bull .

So is he stupid or is he intentionally trying to mislead people do you think?

LOL...

You are an idiot. I'm not making the argument you say was disproved you lying piece of .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You are an idiot. I'm not making the argument you say was disproved you lying piece of .

You did this last time, and then I asked 'what band from the solar input are they not considering?' I went and found a study from NASA showing you how they did consider what you claim then you went onto the 'You don't understand' routine. Then when I went onto point out how you had repeatedly demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding concepts in the past, you called me a bully and left. We can do it again if you want though.

Explain your argument please if I have unfairly characterized your previous statement. What are scientists not considering?

[Wild Cobra]

Explain your argument please if I have unfairly characterized your previous statement. What are scientists not considering?

I explained my argument. You are too stupid to understand it.

Take any study that claims a sensitivity value, and follow how they said they determined it. After you do that, we can talk. Till then, you are just being an ignorant troll.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I explained my argument. You are too stupid to understand it.

Take any study that claims a sensitivity value, and follow how they said they determined it. After you do that, we can talk. Till then, you are just being an ignorant troll.

So I am supposed to make your argument for you and I am stupid. Nice.

I will help your dumb ass but I am not looking the up for you.

First, link the study showing the effect not considered then link the study that does not consider this pivotal fact.

No one is going to take your word for it, WC. Whether you think it untrue or unfair people around here don't trust your veracity. Links trump that. Now make your argument.

[Wild Cobra]

If I pick a study, and trace the studies it's based on, you will accuse me of cherry picking.

Therefore, pick your own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I pick a study, and trace the studies it's based on, you will accuse me of cherry picking.

Therefore, pick your own.

How about you let me be my own judge. I am not the only one who reads this either. Perhaps someone else will be convinced by it even if I am not.

Sounds like you lack conviction in your arguments. Why should anyone else buy it then?

[Wild Cobra]

How about you let me be my own judge. I am not the only one who reads this either. Perhaps someone else will be convinced by it even if I am not.

Sounds like you lack conviction in your arguments. Why should anyone else buy it then?

LOL...

You have not comprehended my point at all, have you?

I'm not claiming there is any study to support my contention.

I am claiming that no studies support the CO2 sensitivity in nature.

Please find one to prove me wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You have not comprehended my point at all, have you?

I'm not claiming there is any study to support my contention.

I am claiming that no studies support the CO2 sensitivity in nature.

Please find one to prove me wrong.

No you are saying that they do not consider the entire band of input in their sensitivity predictions.

So that is your final answer though: 'No study supports CO2 sensitivity.'

The thing is that whenever I push for links from you and Darrin you pull this coy technique when its because you are embarrassed as to your sources. You ashamed of the link where you got this idea from?

[Wild Cobra]

No you are saying that they do not consider the entire band of input in their sensitivity predictions.

So that is your final answer though: 'No study supports CO2 sensitivity.'

The thing is that whenever I push for links from you and Darrin you pull this coy technique when its because you are embarrassed as to your sources. You ashamed of the link where you got this idea from?

Again, since you are too stupid to comprehend the first several times...

Take ANY study... ANY! I repeat... ANY STUDY that gives a value for sensitivity. Check the notes for where this is sourced. Find the source study, and you will find it is lacking facts we know today.

They use correlation without factoring the 1900 to 1950 solar increases.

Prove me wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, since you are too stupid to comprehend the first several times...

Take ANY study... ANY! I repeat... ANY STUDY that gives a value for sensitivity. Check the notes for where this is sourced. Find the source study, and you will find it is lacking facts we know today.

They use correlation without factoring the 1900 to 1950 solar increases.

Prove me wrong.

It's not my job to prove you wrong, dip . You haven't convinced me and i know trying to convince you is a waste of time. I am content to sit here and indicate that you have yet to provide a single link in all this and I think most people would agree with me you are not a reliable source on your own.

If you want to make your argumetn then fine but in the meantime I will just remind you to this point you are only full of .

[Wild Cobra]

It's not my job to prove you wrong, dip . You haven't convinced me and i know trying to convince you is a waste of time. I am content to sit here and indicate that you have yet to provide a single link in all this and I think most people would agree with me you are not a reliable source on your own.

If you want to make your argumetn then fine but in the meantime I will just remind you to this point you are only full of .

You don't get it.

The sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is a farce. There are no proper studies.

Believe as you wish. Live in ignorance.

I have traced several studies to the CO2 sensitivity question. There are none that are any good. They should all be canned, and all the research using them as a foundation as well. The root studies have not been updated with solar offsets, or any since. They rely on the inaccurate understanding of the 70's before we had satellites monitoring IR and solar in place.

The information is obsolete and wrong.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. I want you to see for yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't get it.

The sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is a farce. There are no proper studies.

Believe as you wish. Live in ignorance.

I have traced several studies to the CO2 sensitivity question. There are none that are any good. They should all be canned, and all the research using them as a foundation as well. The root studies have not been updated with solar offsets, or any since. They rely on the inaccurate understanding of the 70's before we had satellites monitoring IR and solar in place.

The information is obsolete and wrong.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. I want you to see for yourself.

This is from NASA. Please explain how science doesn't consider the satellite data.

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/featur...e_observations

[Wild Cobra]

This is from NASA. Please explain how science doesn't consider the satellite data.

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/featur...e_observations

I didn't say that.

I said the previous papers determining sensitivity were done before satellite measurements. Sensitivity values are not updated since with known solar changes of the period they used.

That paper doesn't give CO2 sensitivity, i.e. how many degrees of change there is to a doubling of CO2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say that.

I said the previous papers determining sensitivity were done before satellite measurements. Sensitivity values are not updated since with known solar changes of the period they used.

That paper doesn't give CO2 sensitivity, i.e. how many degrees of change there is to a doubling of CO2.

So you cannot do it as I suspected.

[Wild Cobra]

So you cannot do it as I suspected.

I cannot show you something that does not exist. That's why I'm asking you to show me it exists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I cannot show you something that does not exist. That's why I'm asking you to show me it exists.

The Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is archiving and distributing all AIRS and ACOS data, and will be the source of upcoming releases of CO2 data from OCO-2. All of these data records are searchable by various criteria (temporal, spatial, event), via the Mirador search engine (http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/), and are available online for free download by FTP, and also with more advanced methods such as OPeNDAP (Open-source Project for a Network Data Access Protocol).

While it is easy to acquire, open, and read AIRS and ACOS data files, caution needs to be exercised when analyzing and interpreting these data, as is always the case with sensors working in different spectral bands and utilizing different technologies (Fig. 2 and Table 1). AIRS and TANSO-FTS are two very different instruments, with different sensitivities to various parts of the atmospheric column resulting from their spectral differences. In contrast to TANSO-FTS (the ACOS retrievals), AIRS CO2 retrievals utilize the 15 mm region of the spectrum (Fig. 2), where strong absorption does not allow the retrieval of information from surface layers. Moreover, because ACOS algorithms use reflected sunlight, these CO2 measurements (and those from the OCO-2) are all obtained during daytime only, while the AIRS measurements are derived from both daytime and nighttime observations.

This is the link to the data that you are saying they don't use that comes from the people with the satellites. This particular article has been cited over 800 times in other published science articles and hasn't even been up a year. It even talks about the experiments in the 1950s where they cooked a 24m square room and measured gas properties. I think you are too dumb to make your own argument.

I just want to say your entire coy, I know something you don't but play my game routine is ing creepy. Scientologists act like that.

[Wild Cobra]

I am talking about CO2 sensitivity. Not CO2 levels or radiative forcing from CO2.

Can you say sensitivity...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am talking about CO2 sensitivity. Not CO2 levels or radiative forcing from CO2.

Can you say sensitivity...

The two are not mutually exclusive. You think satellites measure "CO2 sensitivity" and you are wrong. That is a derivation climate scientists use and this notion that they as a whole ignore the satellite data in being empirical is fun I guess but I just showed you where it was cited over 800 times in less than a year.

Who do think is citing NASA's satellite CO2 dataset at that rate?

[Wild Cobra]

I have repeatedly argued "sensitivity" as not being properly determined in papers. Are you really stupid enough to think otherwise?

I never said satellites mesured sensitivity.

Post#/quote please.

I only mentioned satellites for a time reference for what some people,consider more accurate measurements. In the case of solar, they are, and we didn't have satellites up there seeing the 1900 to 1950 changes in TSI. However, we know TSI increased, and the papers from the 70's didn't have the data of the sun to account for the solar variable.

You reliably, completely fail to understand the points I make.

I feel stupid for taking you off of IGNORE.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have repeatedly argued "sensitivity" as not being properly determined in papers. Are you really stupid enough to think otherwise?

I never said satellites mesured sensitivity.

Post#/quote please.

I only mentioned satellites for a time reference for what some people,consider more accurate measurements. In the case of solar, they are, and we didn't have satellites up there seeing the 1900 to 1950 changes in TSI. However, we know TSI increased, and the papers from the 70's didn't have the data of the sun to account for the solar variable.

You reliably, completely fail to understand the points I make.

I feel stupid for taking you off of IGNORE.

Please give us your derivation for climate CO2 sensitivity. Pretty please.

And if you want to present the 'more accurate' data then by all means present it. I have only been asking for it since the beginning. People can see what scientists use. I showed it. Now show us what you have that is better.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

The fact that they didn't account for solar and used temperature changes vs. CO2 changes is why sensitivity numbers are wrong.

If you're man enough, take any study the gives a sensitivity value, and trace the referenced studies until you find the root study and see how they arrived at the number.

[MannyIsGod]