[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Data doesn't lie, and meteorologists are no more climate scientists than gas pump jockies are red seal mechanics.

Take a look at this....



https://www.livescience.com/64813-milan ... ycles.html

[uwish]

He won't consider those because the climate alarmists all say that water vapour and the sun don't drive climate on our planet.

That is why the entire Co2 causing anything with climate is a complete joke.

Laughable to think the sun and water vapour which is orders of magnitude more powerful as a 'green house gas' than Co2, has nothing to do with our climate.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Data doesn't lie, and meteorologists are no more climate scientists than gas pump jockies are red seal mechanics.

Take a look at this....

https://www.livescience.com/64813-milan ... ycles.html

Do you know how many climate science studies show that those are responsible for the warming over the last 200 years?

None.

And how about the role of the sun in global warming?

$1:

Some skeptics have suggested the real culprit behind rising temperatures is increased solar activity. But a wide variety of data and experiments still provide no solid evidence to refute the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are the major reason the planet is heating up.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/probing_ ... al_warming

[uwish]

of course the sun isn't causing it, we are in a prolonged solar minimum that matches the historical record perfectly (pre man). Likely why any warming trend is no longer present, in fact I claim we are going to start cooling due to the solar minimum.

they don't call it global warming anymore, get your religions straight..and they don't because of this past 17 year modern period with..NO GLOBAL WARMING!

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

here read this..

I am not interested in the opinion of a meteorologist being paid to deny the facts.

You're kind of selective about that, aren't you?

Isn't this guy one of your heroes.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/31

I mean, I know what the hard left Wikipedia says about the guy but he is listed as a Professor of Meteorology at Penn State.

And there's a hell of a lot more, and more credible, debunking of his hockey stick study than there is of say fellow Meteorologist Anthony Watt's study on the faulty temperature measurements in the American land surface temperature data.

You should have a look at that one if you honestly believe yourself when you say "Data doesn't lie."

Have you never heard the expressions "faulty data" or "massage the data?"

Not to mention imaginative data reinterpretation of the Michael Mann variety. I particularly enjoyed how your hockey stick hero turned a graph upside down in one of his papers then refused to correct it when the mistake was pointed out to him.

And what they call "Mike's Nature Trick" or "Hide the Decline" is a classic.

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Do you know how many climate science studies show that those are responsible for the warming over the last 200 years?

None.

And how about the role of the sun in global warming?

$1:

Some skeptics have suggested the real culprit behind rising temperatures is increased solar activity. But a wide variety of data and experiments still provide no solid evidence to refute the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are the major reason the planet is heating up.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/probing_ ... al_warming

So anything prior to 200 years, or the Sun. or the earth's erratic orbit will not be taken into consideration. That's not science but a consensus of political global wealth distribution fools.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

So anything prior to 200 years, or the Sun. or the earth's erratic orbit will not be taken into consideration. That's not science but a consensus of political global wealth distribution fools.

It was considered, and rejected. Did you not read the paper?

I've written it before; if you want to disprove human caused global warming, show how carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor do not trap heat in the atmosphere. Show how all the experiments and tests and models are wrong. That's the smoking gun.

[N_Fiddledog]

Earth's climate is a chaotic system.

The claim politically approved scientists can isolate the primary driver, predict 30 or more years into the future, or manage our current weather is ridiculous.

[uwish]

whoa back up the truck little buddy...the claim is CO2, not water vapour, not CH4...CO2...once again you can't even get your own religion correct.

No one is saying they are not green house gases...I never said anything of the sort. The question is why don't they consider the sun? water vapour? because the IPCC rejects them all because man doesn't create those..

but this little CO2 thing? hum we can use that....

IF that was the case then why do ice cores show much lower temps with much greater Co2 levels in the past? How does Co2 explain the medieval warming period? I could go one... you can't have it both ways....

water vapour out numbers Co2 in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude and it's 'green house gas' effect is also orders of magnitude greater than Co2 yet..nope not going to use that...

sure...keep digging your hole...keep kidding.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've written it before; if you want to disprove human caused global warming, show how carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor do not trap heat in the atmosphere. Show how all the experiments and tests and models are wrong. That's the smoking gun.

First you show us how you get 2 degrees or more per doubling of CO2 from science that say's 1 degree per doubling.

Exaggerating the science is not science.

Even if there are no negative feedbacks or balances built into the climate system (but there are) we humans will get by adjusting to 1 percent per doubling just fine.

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

So anything prior to 200 years, or the Sun. or the earth's erratic orbit will not be taken into consideration. That's not science but a consensus of political global wealth distribution fools.

It was considered, and rejected. Did you not read the paper?

I've written it before; if you want to disprove human caused global warming, show how carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor do not trap heat in the atmosphere. Show how all the experiments and tests and models are wrong. That's the smoking gun.

clearly you don't understand science. You don't get to disprove human caused global warming..it is a hypotheses. One that is currently being debated and studied, just because somethings composition is positive does not imply causality. Basic rule of the scientific method..

it you serve you well to keep that in mind.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

whoa back up the truck little buddy...the claim is CO2, not water vapour, not CH4...CO2...once again you can't even get your own religion correct.

Quote me where I wrote that.

uwish uwish:

No one is saying they are not green house gases...I never said anything of the sort. The question is why don't they consider the sun? water vapour? because the IPCC rejects them all because man doesn't create those..

but this little CO2 thing? hum we can use that....

You write that like the IPCC is one unified group. They are in fact, a group ov volunteers that compile reports from various sources. And, which report from 2016 again?

And CO2 is not useful if the plants are not adapted to use it. This study mirrors many others looking at the same thing.

$1:

The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters -- at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster.

But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

uwish uwish:

IF that was the case then why do ice cores show much lower temps with much greater Co2 levels in the past?

When, exactly?

https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data

uwish uwish:

How does Co2 explain the medieval warming period? I could go one... you can't have it both ways....

It was a local anomaly, not a global event.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 145919.htm

uwish uwish:

water vapour out numbers Co2 in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude and it's 'green house gas' effect is also orders of magnitude greater than Co2 yet..nope not going to use that...

Quote me where I wrote that.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

uwish uwish:

sure...keep digging your hole...keep kidding.

It must cause you physical discomfort to be this wrong this often.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

So anything prior to 200 years, or the Sun. or the earth's erratic orbit will not be taken into consideration. That's not science but a consensus of political global wealth distribution fools.

It was considered, and rejected. Did you not read the paper?

I've written it before; if you want to disprove human caused global warming, show how carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor do not trap heat in the atmosphere. Show how all the experiments and tests and models are wrong. That's the smoking gun.

clearly you don't understand science.

Clearly.

uwish uwish:

You don't get to disprove human caused global warming..it is a hypotheses. One that is currently being debated and studied, just because somethings composition is positive does not imply causality. Basic rule of the scientific method..

it you serve you well to keep that in mind.

Firstly, the hypothesis has a high change of being false if you can prove the negative. Basic rule of science. If the hypothesis is that man is causing global warming by putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, you then need to show data disproving that hypotheses. (and don't bother trying to disprove there is any data, smarter people than you and I have already shown it's true)

I've written before that we don't have 200 years to wait while this data is collected. So the next best thing is to disprove that these gasses do not cause warming, then man putting them in the atmosphere results in null hypothesis.

QED.

And no, the debate is not ongoing. The debate is over. In a balanced system, any year, any month has an equal opportunity to become the warmest recorded month or year on record.

When we got 9 of the last 10 years as being the warmest recorded by instruments ever recorded, the debate over whether Humans were causing global warming ended. The system is not balanced, the dice are loaded.

[CharlesAnthony]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The debate is over.

Great!
Keep your wonderful "science" knowledge secret. Leave us all to burn in hell and go on your merry way.

or

Do you want the rest of us to survive the apocalypse with you????

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If the hypothesis is that man is causing global warming by putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere,

Except that isn't what your side's hypothesis is. You do that sort of thing all the time. You'll adopt a term like "Climate Change" to insinuate that people are "denying" climate changes.

But nobody is.

Your actual hypothesis says Human emissions of CO2 are the main driver for the current climate into the future. This, you say, will cause catastrophes. And there is a farther insinuation that implies the existence of a political solution. You seem to be saying you can fix the weather.

Alleged science supporting that hypothesis and its implications is all pretty shady.

You just don't have the scientific support for your hypothesis you claim you have once we clarify what your hypothesis actually is.