Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Then bitch about the big players and stop the bullshit about plastic bags.
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
Then bitch about the big players and stop the bullshit about plastic bags.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you admit the vast majority of climate scientists who agree with the IPCC are correct.
That is a good start, let go of your delusions.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Nope. It's to make money. The grocery stores will make millions selling paper bags, along with their paper bag supplier. Most environmental scare tactics have nothing to do with caring about the environment, but are instead about profit.
PETA does the same.
There are true concerns, but not what they tell us. Their solutions won't solve anything but making people rich.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Deciphering...
"all that science and empirical data and peer reviewed research has no effect on my world view. I'll stick with with conspiracy theories and platitudes."
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Actually, I'm not...in the sense it forces me down the rabbit-hole more. In this case, digging up Hansen's 1981, and 1976 papers.
1D-Radiative/Convective Models... There's a reason those were given up on. The "fact" Hansen's slow-growth model (akin to model B in the 88 study) correlates well has nothing to do with its predictive ability.
It was a statistical fluke. Whether or not there are deeper insights to be had remains to be explored; however, on the surface, I don't see any avenues for exploration with that particular model. Looking at his original chart (which appears similar to an exponential growth curve with piecewise parameters), I can see how those enthusiasts at SkS derived their version.
I can equally derive a simple model from the temperature data and find it fits like a glove, too, without any other information, but it would do nothing in prediction. For now, I think exploring Salby's hypothesis (or the framework around it) is more useful.
And that's why I puked up that FLUX chart, which I happened to build in the same file as my GISStemp data
Thinking ahead, I am, yes...
At the end of the day, I don't want to just play the Carl and Dick game, as fun as it can be...
I want to open the fuckin' box!
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Keep self learning yourself.Actually, I'm not...in the sense it forces me down the rabbit-hole more. In this case, digging up Hansen's 1981, and 1976 papers.
1D-Radiative/Convective Models... There's a reason those were given up on. The "fact" Hansen's slow-growth model (akin to model B in the 88 study) correlates well has nothing to do with its predictive ability.
It was a statistical fluke. Whether or not there are deeper insights to be had remains to be explored; however, on the surface, I don't see any avenues for exploration with that particular model. Looking at his original chart (which appears similar to an exponential growth curve with piecewise parameters), I can see how those enthusiasts at SkS derived their version.
I can equally derive a simple model from the temperature data and find it fits like a glove, too, without any other information, but it would do nothing in prediction. For now, I think exploring Salby's hypothesis (or the framework around it) is more useful.
And that's why I puked up that FLUX chart, which I happened to build in the same file as my GISStemp data
Thinking ahead, I am, yes...
At the end of the day, I don't want to just play the Carl and Dick game, as fun as it can be...
I want to open the fuckin' box!
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Quit burying your head in these alarmist websites, you continue to regurgitate false information which makes you look like a complete fool, almost as bad as UncleBuck who can't read a graph but continues to post them.
Refute these facts and support your own claim while you're at it, I'll be waiting.
The northwest Passage was first successfully navigated by ship over 100 years ago.
And was repeated several times in the 1940s.
On to the most idiotic claim you've made so far, I'd love to see where you were told that the Northwest Passage became navicable year round. Did you hear this on Skeptical Science? LOL
Northwest Passage (1903–1906)
RV Belgica frozen in the ice, 1898
In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada's Northwest Passage between theAtlantic and Pacific oceans. With him were six men in a 45-ton fishing vessel, Gjøa.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
you're
read the argument before you explicate it, you won't come off as such a fucktard.
2009 was the first year ever that it was navigable year round
fucking dumbQuit burying your head in these alarmist websites, you continue to regurgitate false information which makes you look like a complete fool, almost as bad as UncleBuck who can't read a graph but continues to post them.
Refute these facts and support your own claim while you're at it, I'll be waiting.
The northwest Passage was first successfully navigated by ship over 100 years ago.
And was repeated several times in the 1940s.
On to the most idiotic claim you've made so far, I'd love to see where you were told that the Northwest Passage became navicable year round. Did you hear this on Skeptical Science? LOL
Northwest Passage (1903–1906)
RV Belgica frozen in the ice, 1898
In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada's Northwest Passage between theAtlantic and Pacific oceans. With him were six men in a 45-ton fishing vessel, Gjøa.
read the argument before you explicate it, you won't come off as such a fucktard.
2009 was the first year ever that it was navigable year round
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Then cite it, show us the proof the Northwest Passage was navigable year round.
Good luck capt gullible.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Here it is straight from NASA.
"Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim." http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octo...th-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VFad7lboY6U
Did you idiots think that after years upon years of alarmist predictions and $billions in government research grants that keep these loons with a lucrative job they's just throw their hands up and say, hey, sorry we were wrong all along.
"Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim." http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octo...th-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VFad7lboY6U
Did you idiots think that after years upon years of alarmist predictions and $billions in government research grants that keep these loons with a lucrative job they's just throw their hands up and say, hey, sorry we were wrong all along.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
want to cite your NASA claim?
want to tell us which denier websites you pulled all those falsified graphs from?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
let's talk about what NASA says.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You asked for proof, I provided the citation that NASA admits a stall (hiatus) in rising temperatures, do you now claim NASA falsified it's own data. LOL
You have no argument left, I'd call that a major implosion to your global warming religion.
We can still have some fun watching AC flounder around proving his claim that the Northwest Passage is navigable year round now.
You have no argument left, I'd call that a major implosion to your global warming religion.
We can still have some fun watching AC flounder around proving his claim that the Northwest Passage is navigable year round now.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're citing NASA?
i guess that means that you also believe their claim that human activities are causing rising global temps then.
if nto human activities, then what is causing CO2 to be higher than it has been in the past 800,000 years, beenthere?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
so you're citing NASA?
i guess that means that you also believe their claim that human activities are causing rising global temps then.
if nto human activities, then what is causing CO2 to be higher than it has been in the past 800,000 years, beenthere?
I guess that means I shut your ass up.
And no I'm not agreeing with NASA that human caused co2 is a major contributor to rising temperatures, that's a prediction, not observable data like the last 18 years of no warming despite much higher levels of co2.
The last time this much CO2 was in the Earth's atmosphere, man didn't exist. The oceans were up to 100 feet higher than today, and the average temperature was 11 degrees warmer than it is now.
So the real question is, what made the earth cool down and what made it warm up after the last cool down if humans weren't burring fossil fuels, would that be carbon taxes? LOL
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good job declaring victory.
then why do you keep citing NASA as an authority?
if it hasn't warmed in the last 18 years, then why was 2013 the 4th hottest year on record according to NASA?
if it hasn't warmed in the last 18 years, then why was this most recent decade the hottest ever on record, even hotter than the decade that preceded it (according to NASA)?
if it's not warming according to NASA, then why does NASA say it is warmer this decade than it was in the last one?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
keep getting owned by your own citations