[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.

your own quote up there..keep digging sparky!

[uwish]

N_Fiddledog 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.

Poor Doc..he can't even keep his own religion straight in his wee head!

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=109641

if the earth doesn't like your sudden CO2 output, you better tell her, because she is greener than ever!



so your claim then is not only the medieval warming, which was the smallest but the Roman, Minoan etc were all 'local' anomalies? or did the Romans burn fossil fuels?
hum there you go just 'disproved' your hypothesis. CO2 has NOTHING to do with global temperature.

QED

[PluggyRug]

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.

Rejected because it does not fit the current hysteria. Science is there to be challenged, and yet, you accept it without question.

[xerxes]

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

$1:

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.

While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

[PluggyRug]

Logsdon must be referring to those who worship at the alter of AGW.

[Martin15]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Imagine if a massive typhoon hits Bangladesh and kills a few million people and floods half the country - those refugees will pour across borders and destabilize neighbouring countries. Then suddenly those countries have problems and send out their own waves of refugees. Eventually, those refugees will wind up here, unless Canadians are willing to sink ships/shoot down planes. I don't think even the most cold-hearted amongst us would support that.

Same goes for waves of migrants from Latin America. Think of all the consternation that one little caravan caused this summer. Imagine five or ten millions heading north because drought has killed their crops and they have nothing left. They destabilize countries as they approach the US border. Again, unless the Americans are willing to massacre thousands of people, they could pour into the US and severely weaken it.

What you fail to recognize is that there is an entire system in place to move those illegals into the US.

Transportation, food, medical care, all being provided in order to satisfy a political agenda.
Do you really think all those 'Syrians' walked across Europe in 2015 ?
Or those 'dangerous ocean voyages' of 10km or less ?
Or that the 'caravan' walked all the way across Mexico in a few days ?

Remove the support system, as in the case of a big disaster, and the average human
won't make it 100 miles without help.

$1:

Or what happens when the US southwest runs out of water in a couple decades? What do those millions of Americans do? Do they move to Idaho and Montana? Or do they demand Canada allows them to build some massive project like like NAWAPA or GRAND?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... r_Alliance

Now I agree THAT could be a huge issue in the future, and it doesn't even need a big
disaster, just California to keep doing what it is doing.

$1:

There are literally hundred of possible future scenarios where climate change could impact Canadians. I'm not sure who said it, but I think it was an American politician who said of Al Qaeda, "We're better off fighting them over there instead of over here."

That holds true for the world's poor - it's easier to help them where they live instead of trying to bring them all to the West.

It was **coughcoughBushcoughcough**.
The best way to help them there, is to stop giving them hope of the automatic
milk and honey land here.

[N_Fiddledog]

In any case, climate refugees are like the Yellowstone mega volcano or an alien invasion. I'll worry about them when I see them.

I don't see what else can be done.

Unless Boots is telling us he can manage the weather; in which case, fill your boots, Boots. Can you fix the lower mainland's constant winter rain for us while you're at it? It gets tiresome.

[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.

your own quote up there..keep digging sparky!

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.

Try again. Your claim that that I don't consider all greenhouse gasses as greenhouse gasses is false, so you prove it by disproving it. That's not how logical debate works, and why you always fail.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

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.

Rejected because it does not fit the current hysteria. Science is there to be challenged, and yet, you accept it without question.

Rejected because there is no statistical correlation between the Milankovitch Cycles that last millions of years, to the warming we measure over the last 200.

Again, read the study.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

Poor Doc..he can't even keep his own religion straight in his wee head!

Ad Hominem. Irrelevant.

uwish uwish:

if the earth doesn't like your sudden CO2 output, you better tell her, because she is greener than ever!

As numerous studies have shown, more CO2 in the air cannot be absorbed fast enough by plants, and the co2 they do absorb only causes them to use ground based nutrients faster and die sooner.

Green cover does not change measured CO2 in the atmosphere.



And since CO2 traps heat, then the Earth must also be warming. Unless you have some magic beans that show it doesn't cause warming?

New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature

Good luck!

uwish uwish:

So what does the temperature between snowfalls on a Greenland glacier have to with Global temperature?

$1:

These paleothermometers agree closely on the size, speed, and timing of surface-temperature changes in central Greenland. Results from other regions rest on fewer paleothermometers and are somewhat less secure, especially in meteorologically complex areas

https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

Nothing! Watts cherry picks those because they show what he thinks you'll believe, but they really don't tell us what we want to know. It only tells us what occurred there in the past. To find out what happened globally, we need to find the CO2 concentrations, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Methane isotopes in those cores, in the layers of trapped ice containing atmosphere from the past which accurately tells the global average temperature that year.



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu ... y_IceCores





https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/c ... e_co2.html

Oh! Look! Nothing happening for 800,000 years, then right at the industrial revolution when all that coal was being burnt for steam power and *BAM* CO2 rising in the atmosphere. How unexpected. Looks a lot like Mann's 'hockey stick' doesn't it? That's how we know Mann was right, because independent measurements show precisely the same trend.

And Watts likes the local Greenland temperature that shows 'the little ice age' because he think it'll show that the climate can change without the influence of Man. And he is right. A recent study shows it was the result of an Icelandic volcano, and not a global phenomenon. It was local to Greenland, and the eastern hemisphere.

current-events-f59/nature-science-omnibus-thread-t119974-255.html#p2351210

uwish uwish:

so your claim then is not only the medieval warming, which was the smallest but the Roman, Minoan etc were all 'local' anomalies? or did the Romans burn fossil fuels?
hum there you go just 'disproved' your hypothesis.

And it wasn't my claim, it was the peer reviewed and published study I cited. Do you notice that? I don't make my own claims, I cite papers from Yale, Standford, NASA, the NOAA. You cite Watts. That is why you fail. You try to disprove my argument by making up my argument out of things you think I am writing, but really you should be disproving them.

uwish uwish:

CO2 has NOTHING to do with global temperature.

QED

Richard Muller was also a skeptic, and he decided that he and his daughter were going to expose the Global Warming hoax once and for all. So they got to work, doing exactly what I suggested - proving Man made global warming isn't happening.

$1:

How did Berkeley Earth come about?

Berkeley Earth was created in 2010, by Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller who had been previously collaborating on energy and climate issues. Together they observed a real need for a new project to analyze current global surface temperature records in order to respond to concerns of critics and calm the debate about global warming. After joining with lead scientist Robert Rohde, Berkeley Earth was created. In early 2013, Berkeley Earth became a new, independent non-profit.

So they took all the data they could get, and set to work. What did they find?

$1:

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, homogenization, 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/#question-4

QE and Done. {mic drop}

I have no idea how many times I have totally disproved the skeptics, but that was the last. Not going to waste my time any more.

[Tricks]

uwish uwish:

N_Fiddledog 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.

Poor Doc..he can't even keep his own religion straight in his wee head!

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=109641

if the earth doesn't like your sudden CO2 output, you better tell her, because she is greener than ever!



so your claim then is not only the medieval warming, which was the smallest but the Roman, Minoan etc were all 'local' anomalies? or did the Romans burn fossil fuels?
hum there you go just 'disproved' your hypothesis. CO2 has NOTHING to do with global temperature.

QED

Bad graph is bad.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-w ... ate-change

[uwish]

You cannot suggest that the ice cores are not an accurate representation of global wx patterns when they clearly identify things like the younger dryas periods that were global phenomenons.

Don't you hate it when actual hard data, not models completely negates any claim of AGW. In Science all you need is ONE piece of evidence and there are significantly more than one that disproves and AGW hypothesis and it's over.

I think the only mic that dropped was on doc's head!

[Tricks]

uwish uwish:

You cannot suggest that the ice cores are not an accurate representation of global wx patterns when they clearly identify things like the younger dryas periods that were global phenomenons.

Don't you hate it when actual hard data, not models completely negates any claim of AGW. In Science all you need is ONE piece of evidence and there are significantly more than one that disproves and AGW hypothesis and it's over.

I think the only mic that dropped was on doc's head!

Single placement ice cores can't even be an accurate representation of Greenlands patterns.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355.epdf

You can see the 6 different locations being drilled being different in greenland alone.

That's why that image is bunk, It's almost 30 year old out of date data, that wasn't a good measurement to begin with, because it was only at the top of the ice sheet. Your graph even lies to you. It's data is not "present" at 2000, but 1950. You're literally quoting a graph that is mislabeled.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Try again. Your claim that that I don't consider all greenhouse gasses as greenhouse gasses is false, so you prove it by disproving it. That's not how logical debate works, and why you always fail.

I have a better idea. Show us why you think greenhouse gases other than CO2 matter.

No diversionary gobbledy gook, please. Just show us the actual affect, say methane is actually having on climate.

Notice I didn't say "can" have. I said "is" having. And do try to cut the crap. We both know the answer is little to none. There just isn't enough of it. And as I recall Methane is second under CO2 for affect on climate. If that effect is little to none do the others beneath it even matter?

Go ahead then, Doctor Data. You're up.

[uwish]

https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/31/co2-emissions-tripled-during-1961-2002-as-greenland-cooled-and-gained-1-35-trillion-metric-tons-of-ice/

"For over 40 years (1961-2002), the Greenland ice sheet cooled, thickened, and gained mass just as anthropogenic CO2 emissions were sharply rising."