Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
has anyone but a leftist EVER cited "conservapedia" as evidence of anything?

no...

another red herring

why not throw in some "prisonplanet" or some 9/11Toof websites as well?

hell if thats how ya wanna play i can drag up a shitload of wacky far out lefty blogs and websites that will make you cringe.

i reckon i got a floppy disc round here with an archive of "Liberalism Ascendant", which was the Proto-Blog of Steve Kangas, and some emails we exchanged back in the day.
http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990314suicide1.asp

yep, a vehement anti-gun super-leftist who went to philly with a pistol a bottle of jack daniels and a copy of Mein Kampf and tried to assassinate Richard Mellon Scaife but instead punched his own ticket in a toilet stall...
 

DonAlejandroVega

Well-Known Member
"......a pistol a bottle of jack daniels and a copy of Mein Kampf."

shoot.......a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff

slim-pickens-drstrangelove-5.jpg
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
listen to the sound of all those crickets.

dont worry though, bucky and pada will be back in a few days, making the same tired claims as if this never happened.
 

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
tonnes - cut this shit out
honour - cut this shit out
tumour - cut this shit out
centres - cut this shit out
connexion - cut this shit out

and...........im........sick.............of.........elipse...........................................................abuse.

Also, I'm pistol whipping the next person who says hard mode.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tonnes - cut this shit out
honour - cut this shit out
tumour - cut this shit out
centres - cut this shit out
connexion - cut this shit out

and...........im........sick.............of.........elipse...........................................................abuse.

Also, I'm pistol whipping the next person who says hard mode.
tonnes: representing the Metric Ton which is 10% bigger than an US/Imperial Short Ton
a Tonne (metric) is also the same as a Long Ton

i could go all tldr and explain it but...

heres how that shit works:

a "Tun" is a wine cask. it was in fact a standard of measurement for a ship's cargo capacity, combining volume and weight together in one convenient package.
a "Tun" was standardized (by the french of course...) as a barrel which can contain 2000 pounds of wine, this is how we got the Imperial Short Ton (net weight), and the Long Ton (gross weight)
when the metric system was devised, the weight of a full Tun cask was used as the Metric unit "Tonne" so they wouldnt have to do all that fucking math, and so sailors and merchants would stop complaining about fucked up irrational measurments and shit

extra U's and shit:
it's proper spelling. we cant all twatter post and l33tSp34k our way through life

so, the use of the specific Tonne measure is so we dont have to do the math to convert the metric ton to the short ton of common american useage, nobody will fuck up and use the wrong measurment, and nobody will become confused.

1 kg = ~2.2 lb
1 tonne - 1000 kg
1 short ton = 2000 lbs
1 long ton = 2200 lb = 1 metric tonne

when an american says "ton" they invariably mean the Short Ton, when a euro/canuck/whatevs says "ton" they invariably mean the metric tonne and long ton

if you wanna do the maths, go for it. but thats living your life on Hard Mode

Edit: this post was prepared on Hard Mode: no looking shit up, not even google or wiki, just pure brain juice
 
Last edited:

kinetic

Well-Known Member
If you take the time to actually read it once, I will applaud you.
I gave that paper to potholer54 (some might recognize that name) and asked him to read it; he never did ("TL : DR"), but at least he was honest with me. It was he who actually led me to the rebuttal paper, which for him was evidence enough to deny it (he didn't read that either).
I learned a few things from that discussion with him...


That aside, don't be surprised if it starts getting mind-numbing. I've read it several times over the years, and I still don't comprehend everything the paper says. Then again, I haven't read it in about a year. ;)
There is alot over my head mathematically. However, the paper seems to be disproving that the greenhouse effect actually exists. That is a big red flag, in 1990 at the Mauna Loa Observatory wich measured carbon dioxide levels at 380 parts per million which is an increase from 315ppm in 1958 when tests were initiated. Also air bubbles trapped in Greenlands ice sheet indicate a ppm of 270 at preindustrial times.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Does "hard mode" have a universally accepted meaning beyond the video gaming realm?

Almost forgot..............
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
has anyone but a leftist EVER cited "conservapedia" as evidence of anything?
lmfao! So that's awesome, you're essentially saying conservapedia is bullshit... except it's saying exactly the same bullshit you've been saying the entire thread, for example;

"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human pollution of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide."

"Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."

"The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998." < = word for word

"The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers, when the more scientific atmospheric temperature do not show such an increase."

"Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age." < = word for word

"Global cooling, a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout Earth's geological history. The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria."

"Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "greenhouse gases" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see IPCC). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years."

"Predictions made by climate models publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money."

"In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.

"Former vice president Al Gore, won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying"

http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming


You and the other deniers have argued every single point made and that's a direct copy/paste from the front page of conservapedias take on global warming

So it would seem you cite conservapedia

Try the novice mode next time
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
tonnes - cut this shit out
honour - cut this shit out
tumour - cut this shit out
centres - cut this shit out
connexion - cut this shit out

and...........im........sick.............of.........elipse...........................................................abuse.

Also, I'm pistol whipping the next person who says hard mode.
If you are not in soft moude, you are in hard moude.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
There is alot over my head mathematically. However, the paper seems to be disproving that the greenhouse effect actually exists. That is a big red flag, in 1990 at the Mauna Loa Observatory wich measured carbon dioxide levels at 380 parts per million which is an increase from 315ppm in 1958 when tests were initiated. Also air bubbles trapped in Greenlands ice sheet indicate a ppm of 270 at preindustrial times.
nobody would argue that the "greenhouse effect" is fake

however, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, which, even in high concentrations doesnt trap or hold nearly as much heat as most others

in the past, greenhouse gasses have been MUCH MUCH higher (all without human influence) and Much Much lower (again, without human influence)

CO2 is not only produced in large quantities naturally (the "baseline" is enormous, dwarfing "anthropogenic" CO2) but it is also readily removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, absorption into the oceans and use by many critters to make their exo and endo skeletons

warming of the oceans releases large amounts of CO2, and since human produced CO2 is being blamed for the warming of the oceans, the CO2 released also becomes part of "Human Produced" CO2, which (allegedly) increases the warming.... and so on and so on and so on, in an endless circlejerk of assumptions.

the primary assumption that "Man Made CO2 causes Global Warming" remains unproved, and vague on "How Much" of the observed global warming is attributed to CO2, as well as "How Much" of that CO2 is really man made.

considering that we have been on a fairly steady global warming trend (real thing, not a slogan) since the retreat of the glaciers 11-12000 years ago, the warming is NOT all attributable to human influence.
the ASSUMPTION that fossil fuel consumption and the resultant release of CO2 could cause warming is logical, but it does not explain previous warming, or previous abnormally high CO2 levels during cold periods



even if we limit or observations to the Holocene Epoch (the current warm period, ~11000 yeas ago to present) there are still unexplained periods where it was much warmer, and much cooler than it is now, despite a dearth of human influence




as we see here:


~8000 years ago co2 levels spiked MUCH higher than they are now (regardless of the crudely doodled red line on the far left) and yet, 8000 years ago there was no industry to speak of, and the human population was likely just a few million total, in scattered small groups around the globe

as to the the crudely doodled inexplicably thick, deliberately bright red line on the far left:

it represents the "south pole air flask" measurements:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flaskspo.html

which are collected by guys riding snow cats and helicopters in an area with ZERO photosynthesis and ZERO sequestration of CO2, if they look a little deeper i bet they will discover that the south pole is also heavily polluted with engine oil, scope mouthwash, axe body spray and human flatus.

they are sampling in a bell jar, by entering the bell jar every two weeks, contaminating it with their equipment and their own persons, and acting surprised that the contamination seems to be increasing year after year.

i bet the snow and ice round the air flask isnt very clean either. is that a sign of global conatmination?
move a mile or two in any direction and i bet the snow looks pretty good.

sure, CO2 is increasing worldwide, but it has increased worldwide before, without human influence.
placing huge import on ONE measure which seems highly vulnerable to contamination, even to a lowly hillbilly farmboy sounds like a pretty poor way to make big decisions.

especially when that SINGLE data set is used to cover other data with a huge thick brightly coloured line, laid out in broad childlike strokes, which appear to move beyond the "present" and into the FUTURE!

this air flask can sample air that hasnt even been collected yet? ohh my. thats some gooood science!
 

kinetic

Well-Known Member
Kynes, taken from the paper submitted last night by your fellow skeptic
"Is there a Fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?"
"The aim of this paper is to give an affirmative negative answer to the question"
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
lmfao! So that's awesome, you're essentially saying conservapedia is bullshit... except it's saying exactly the same bullshit you've been saying the entire thread, for example;

"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human pollution of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide."

"Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."

"The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998." < = word for word

"The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers, when the more scientific atmospheric temperature do not show such an increase."

"Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age." < = word for word

"Global cooling, a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout Earth's geological history. The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria."

"Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "greenhouse gases" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see IPCC). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years."

"Predictions made by climate models publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money."

"In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.

"Former vice president Al Gore, won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying"

http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming


You and the other deniers have argued every single point made and that's a direct copy/paste from the front page of conservapedias take on global warming

So it would seem you cite conservapedia

Try the novice mode next time
so, after demolishing you assertions, supporting my own with ACTUAL SOURCES, and ripping giant holes in your impenetrable magic cloak of Wiki-Wisdom, now you resort to using OTHER PEOPLE'S arguments to show how wrong i am??

since i have never used conservapedia to source anything, not even to demonstrate how retarded conservapedia is, how can you claim i am somehow vulnerable to your refutation of their mad claims?

is that really how you think arguments work?

perhaps i should demand you defend the outright lies distortions and pure grade a BULLSHIT that Troofers use?
maybe i can impeach your every argument by dragging up some shit i think i remember some other lefty saying 20 years ago.

you really do suck at this.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Kynes, taken from the paper submitted last night by your fellow skeptic
"Is there a Fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?"
"The aim of this paper is to give an affirmative negative answer to the question"
meh, thats not "is the greenhouse effect bullshit?" but rather "are we seeing it?"

many climatologists say we are NOT seeing "greenhouse warming" based on the slow warming in the higher troposphere, where (according to the theory) the warming should be fastest.
this was asserted in the great global warming swindle:

the presenter asserts that the lack of this upper troposphere warming indicates the warming we are experinecing is NOt the result of "Greenhouse Gasses" but rather, other phenomena

and in all the deluge of websites, "studies" videos and angry letters "debunking" the claims made in this film, thats the ONE assertion that they just wont touch

or if you wish a more lighthearted, less science heavy explanation of why i disbelieve the touts, watch this vid.

 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I don't understand how anyone could continue to deny that given the overwhelming amounts of evidence
Since the presenters of that evidence have been proven to have lied to us on several occasions, anything they say is held in doubt. You believe solely because you want to believe, not because of "evidence".
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
How would adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate 98% higher than volcanoes not cause a change in the environment?

It's odd, when volcanoes were the cause determined by the denialists, they were the overwhelming majority, to them the amount added to the atmosphere by volcanoes trumped human activity hands down! Now, when they realize human activity is actually the main cause of the increase in CO2, not volcanoes, at such a rate no less, all of a sudden it's not so serious..

This is how I know your argument is bullshit. You are inconsistent
Yes, the only sources of co2 are volcanoes and human activity. You are such a liar.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Your opinion not based on logic and founded by emotion says it's not, the objective scientific facts say it is



LOL!!

Nobody with a basic understanding of math would ever reach that conclusion




Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been 5x's higher than they are today have they?

Lets see if you can find a source for that claim




It's obvious to anyone reading your rants that you have zero to little understanding of how science works. People who understand how science works don't make the kinds of claims and statements you're making. I don't understand why you would rather continue to showcase that instead of just go learn about how it all actually works

"Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
[/quote][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
So your argument is 'you are too stupid to understand" and the you quote a politically fabricated "scientific" opinion posing as a factual statement?
 
Top