Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

donga kloppo said: ↑

Ok, so this is saying that CO2 DOESN'T effect temperature? Again I ask, not to cause an argument but because I'm confused, why do scientists claim that CO2 from volcanoes reversed the Snowball Earth in 1000 years? Did Snowball Earth not happen? Are they wrong as to the causes of its reverse?

Got to go to work now. I'll read and comment on any replies later.

Fascinating discussion chaps. There SEEMS to be science on both sides for the causes, but not a clear thought of what action to take, if indeed to act at all. Must say, it's a paradigm shift to me that CO2 doesn't effect temperature, but then again I have never taken more than a surface interest in this subject and have accepted what even the Telegraph, an anti-green paper if ever there was one, has said on this aspect of the discussion.
Click to expand...

We covered CO2's logarithmic effect, it does affect temperature, I clearly stated that yesterday and showed the scientifically laboratory experiment results proof that causes less and less warming effect each time you double the amount, a doubling of 500ppm (our current level) will cause no significant warming you could even detect except with very good instrumentation and as such a global estimate would be just a guess as the amount of detectable warming would be smaller than the margin of error for current technology

A NASA paper excerpt 1971 shows this. #saturation

please log in to view this image

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

This supports the satellite readings of the Troposphere, full circle.

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

A little information is a dangerous thing Tobes Try reading (all sides of an argument) not only the side of the argument you align yourself with, it's how you grow fool
I like you believed this crap for 30+ years. #bothsidesofthestory

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

Man made climate change is like the emperor's new clothes. Most scientists know it aint true but are too afraid to say it because of the consequences of going against authority and green hysteria.

Tobes · Jan 1, 2016

BringBackFootie. said: ↑

Man made climate change is like the emperor's new clothes. Most scientists know it aint true but are too afraid to say it because of the consequences of going against authority and green hysteria.
Click to expand...

Most scientists know it ain't true.....

Unfortunately the facts don't back up that disingenuous untruth....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

terrifictraore · Jan 1, 2016

Diego said: ↑

No mate, just clicked on a few and skimmed them. I decided I was right about 10 years ago
Click to expand...

Seems to be the MO for a couple on this thread who have already decided they ere right, scientific method my arse!

terrifictraore · Jan 1, 2016

BringBackFootie. said: ↑

A little information is a dangerous thing Tobes Try reading (all sides of an argument) not only the side of the argument you align yourself with, it's how you grow fool

Click to expand...

Tobes · Jan 1, 2016

terrifictraore said: ↑

Click to expand...

Hilarious isn't it.

He posted that without a hint of irony.

saintanton · Jan 1, 2016

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
As I am no expert in this field, I have no choice other than to put my faith in those who are. And by that I mean the hundreds worldwide who spend their lives researching and studying the field as opposed to someone who reads a couple of books and/or blogs and considers themselves an expert.
The real experts may be seen to be wrong in time, and will alter their conclusions accordingly because that's how science works. Theories change not because people are massaging or misinterpreting the data for some malevolent purpose, but because the data alters, becomes more complete, or methods of processing it evolve.
The desire to see a conspiracy amongst many and disparate professionals around the world, whose only commonality is the field in which they work, is a personal issue- and has more to do with the observer than the observed.

Tobes · Jan 1, 2016

saintaKlaus said: ↑

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
As I am no expert in this field, I have no choice other than to put my faith in those who are. And by that I mean the hundreds worldwide who spend their lives researching and studying the field as opposed to someone who reads a couple of books and/or blogs and considers themselves an expert.
The real experts may be seen to be wrong in time, and will alter their conclusions accordingly because that's how science works. Theories change not because people are massaging or misinterpreting the data for some malevolent purpose, but because the data alters, becomes more complete, or methods of processing it evolve.
The desire to see a conspiracy amongst many and disparate professionals around the world, whose only commonality is the field in which they work, is a personal issue- and has more to do with the observer than the observed.
Click to expand...

The entire premise that global warming is part of some huge conspiracy holds up to zero scrutiny.

Are we expected to believe that environazis have infiltrated the UN and all of the numerous agencies worldwide who have concluded that the Earth is warming due to mans industrialisation and CO2 production? Really?

Why in that case have even the likes of BP and Shell come out and acknowledged the fact that CO2 is causing global warming? What possible conceivable benefit could they have for buying into this supposed global #fraud?

I'm with you, the current consensus on this subject is clear and unequivocal. I was a genuine sceptic back in the 80's and 90's when the effects and timescale of the consequences of CO2 production were overblown imo. However, as time as gone in and the evidence stacks up, I'm now convinced that this issue is both very real and of considerable importance to future generations as opposed to my own.

saintanton · Jan 1, 2016

Tobes said: ↑

The entire premise that global warming is part of some huge conspiracy holds up to zero scrutiny.

Are we expected to believe that environazis have infiltrated the UN and all of the numerous agencies worldwide who have concluded that the Earth is warming due to mans industrialisation and CO2 production? Really?

Why in that case have even the likes of BP and Shell come out and acknowledged the fact that CO2 is causing global warming? What possible conceivable benefit could they have for buying into this supposed global #fraud?

I'm with you, the current consensus on this subject is clear and unequivocal. I was a genuine sceptic back in the 80's and 90's when the effects and timescale of the consequences of CO2 production were overblown imo. However, as time as gone in and the evidence stacks up, I'm now convinced that this issue is both very real and of considerable importance to future generations as opposed to my own.
Click to expand...

Fact is, I have no idea what the truth is because I'm not qualified to process the data. It's just that I tend to believe the testament of those who spend their careers studying it rather than a handful of internet dilettantes with a thinly disguised anti-authoritarian agenda or a desire for self-promotion.

As to your last sentence; there may well be nothing we can do- it might be an inevitable, natural climate change- but if there is even the slightest chance that we can do anything to mitigate the effects for future generations it would be incredibly selfish and irresponsible of us not to try.

Thus Spake Zarathustra · Jan 1, 2016

saintaKlaus said: ↑

Fact is, I have no idea what the truth is because I'm not qualified to process the data. It's just that I tend to believe the testament of those who spend their careers studying it rather than a handful of internet dilettantes with a thinly disguised anti-authoritarian agenda or a desire for self-promotion.

As to your last sentence; there may well be nothing we can do- it might be an inevitable, natural climate change- but if there is even the slightest chance that we can do anything to mitigate the effects for future generations it would be incredibly selfish and irresponsible of us not to try.
Click to expand...

That's where I'm at. I have no axe to grind, and I'm a little bemused by some of the stuff I've read this last two days. However we have got there, all I really want to know is can we/should we do anything about it?

Edit: That's not say I'm throwing stones at anyone in this discussion - I just assume that all sides passionately believe their case.

Peej · Jan 1, 2016

BringBackFootie. said: ↑

He copied that straight from a site page and didn't read one of those links mate, and has read none of my posts

he called me an oil shill and a carbon shill, me, someone who has been ragging on Oil companies for years

Meanwhile, I know you can be down with sensible argument mate. Note the rise in temp from 1910 to about 1940 .75 degrees, the same rate of warming exactly as 1960 to 2000. Thing is, man made CO2 only correlates with temperature from 1980 to 1998. That's it, at no other point in history has our CO2 correlated with temperature, and for the millions of years record we have, CO2 never matches with temperature as it was 1000s of ppm in ice ages

please log in to view this image

In fact the 1910 and 1940 trend looks slightly greater. The arctic in 1917 was wide open for shipping, you'd not be able to do that today, Canadian expedition in July had to be cancelled in Hudson bay cos they were frozen in like

I don't respond to pasted links he did not read, I post a link and explain the argument and put work into my posts, the 3 minute experts hunt for a link and paste it. Then accuse me of doing that

BTW NASA have changed this data since it was pointed out about the same rates of warming. Still note the plateau from 98 onwards, that is a flat trend

Meanwhile they deny the planet has not warmed in mean temp in 18 years yet there is a huge list of excuses from the IPCC as to why this "pause" happened.

Tobes said this is not true, even though it is backed by several data sets, though not backed by GISS, the single record that backs it.

please log in to view this image

So apparently this is not true but.. the scientists he believes have said it is true. Only NASA GISS fraud say it didn't happen, even the UK CRU data (RAW) says .7 degrees warming in 120 years ffs.
This is copy and pasted, I read much of it, and would happily elaborate on any of it.

Climate scientists excuses for why global warming stopped, that pause that is now claimed never happened

1) Low solar activity <this is hilarious given the amount of time the IPCC said the sun has no real bearing

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important

33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”

40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”

[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:

“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:

“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]

“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]
Click to expand...

14

Yet Finland has seen the highest average temperature increase in Northern Hemisphere.

If only the world worked at night eh

You clown

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said: ↑

14

Yet Finland has seen the highest average temperature increase in Northern Hemisphere.

If only the world worked at night eh

You clown
Click to expand...

Explain how that relates to the post you just did not read, that you quoted?

Did you also accuse me of cherry picking earlier this week?

A fool who doesnt even know the basics of his own theory, calls me a clown.

Forgetting the peer review Einstein debacle already? Not admitting you are clueless doesn't mean you are not clueless. Food for thought, your laughy face doesn't make your not so funny post any funnier btw

Peej · Jan 1, 2016

PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said: ↑

14

Yet Finland has seen the highest average temperature increase in Northern Hemisphere.

If only the world worked at night eh

You clown
Click to expand...

Jesus. Why did I even bother replying. Just one link confirms my worst fear, Istarted a discussion with a fool and SISU dragged me down to his level!

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

saintaKlaus said: ↑

Fact is, I have no idea what the truth is because I'm not qualified to process the data. It's just that I tend to believe the testament of those who spend their careers studying it rather than a handful of internet dilettantes with a thinly disguised anti-authoritarian agenda or a desire for self-promotion.

As to your last sentence; there may well be nothing we can do- it might be an inevitable, natural climate change- but if there is even the slightest chance that we can do anything to mitigate the effects for future generations it would be incredibly selfish and irresponsible of us not to try.
Click to expand...

So lets examine this thinking.

Who are you talking about and what qualifications do they have, no going to find someone, as you already made this statement.

You also dismiss the scientists who do not agree, without looking at either side. Will you play a numbers game, the more people agree, the righter they are? Consensus?

How do you think that is not ludicrous reasoning?

Again, the atom was dismissed as crazy by most scientists. So was longitute.

Edison put on a public display to discredit Tesla, people believed him, he fried an elephant to prove Tesla's current was dangerous.

So you not see the folly in such thinking?

What makes me laugh is you dont read my posts, that you dismiss. I have been using the data of the people you believe as well as other data.

Dimwitted you are

It is called appealing to authority, not science.
The authority was the earth was flat, and the church, and all the scientists towed the line, those that didn't were deniers. Exactly like today

So had YOU been alive then, you'd have been a a flat earther cos the authority said the earth was flat. I'd probably have tried to understand both arguments

If all of this is lost on you, you're thicker than I thought.

Ignorance that appeals to authority really does irk me hence my bitchy reply. It's not personal. You are basically spouting religion, I believe in the man in the sky even though I have no clue.

Peej · Jan 1, 2016

BringBackFootie. said: ↑

Explain how that relates to the post you just did not read, that you quoted?

Did you also accuse me of cherry picking earlier this week?

A fool who doesnt even know the basics of his own theory, calls me a clown.

Forgetting the peer review Einstein debacle already? Not admitting you are clueless doesn't mean you are not clueless. Food for thought
Click to expand...

Tell me more about the gravitational lensing myth.

Hold on, NASA faked it Poor Mandl

General relativity

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

I just shake my head when someone says, "I dont know what the argument even is but I believe "them""
You cant fix stupid

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

PJS - BACK AND BOSSING IT said: ↑

Tell me more about the gravitational lensing myth.

Hold on, NASA faked it Poor Mandl

General relativity
Click to expand...

So, in a climate science debate so far it's Apollo missions, 9\11, Conspiracy theory, Oil Shill, Carbon Shill, Conspiracy loon and .. ermm.. General relativity, and am I missing something.

You just dont read anything PJ you're an embarrassment, strangely, I think you do some skilled job for some reason, maybe that's why you think you can just jump into Astrophysics Physics and Climate science without even basic study.

Nice. You must be some kind of genius except for you've been wrong on virtually everything you've tried to understand, I asked you what about relativity you believed, and never got an answer because you dont even know what General relativity is, or any of Einstein's other works you so professed were right.

Kinda scary.

BBFs Unpopular View · Jan 1, 2016

PJ more to the point, that list you picked 14 out of, do you even know what that is, it is the excuses from Climate scientists for the lack of warming for 18 years. The lack of warming NASA you and Tobes say isn't happening

Northern Hemisphere snow extent. Finland smashed it's cold record twice this year That red line going up... is more snow extend in case I have to playschool this **** up for you

please log in to view this image

here is NDIC

please log in to view this image

According to these people you believe, there would be no snow by 2010 in the UK, didn't the UK get record snow that year, 30 years after global warming scam started?

Here's more, snow on the up in the northern hemisphere after the intense el nino in 98, the 80s and 90s were hot, it's been slightly cooling since, snowfall backs that up for all your Finland cack

please log in to view this image

According to this snowfall increased in the "hottest 5 years ever"

terrifictraore · Jan 1, 2016

saintaKlaus said: ↑

Fact is, I have no idea what the truth is because I'm not qualified to process the data. It's just that I tend to believe the testament of those who spend their careers studying it rather than a handful of internet dilettantes with a thinly disguised anti-authoritarian agenda or a desire for self-promotion.

As to your last sentence; there may well be nothing we can do- it might be an inevitable, natural climate change- but if there is even the slightest chance that we can do anything to mitigate the effects for future generations it would be incredibly selfish and irresponsible of us not to try.
Click to expand...

Spot on with that, what would help the debate on here though would be people posting things they understand and being willing to explain when others ask questions. However, there will never be any proper debate when people have a set agenda that they want to tell others whilst being unwilling to consider any ideas that do not fit their blinkered view.

Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

saintanton Old

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

saintanton Old

Thus Spake Zarathustra GC Thread Terminator

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

saintanton Old

Tobes Warden Forum Moderator

saintanton Old

Thus Spake Zarathustra GC Thread Terminator

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

Peej Fabio Borini Lover

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

BBFs Unpopular View Well-Known Member

terrifictraore Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator

Tobes Warden
Forum Moderator