Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 172324252627
Results 625 to 648 of 648

Thread: Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)

  1. #625
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Oh El Nino ?
    Now you're trying to use natural climate variability to explain away an inconvenient cooling period
    Sorry but you have made it crystal clear that CO2 and CO2 alone is the control knob for climate

    if you are now saying El Nino is responsible for the US temperature spikes in 2012 and 2016 then how is natural climate variability not responsible for all or even the majority of any warming during any period under study?
    I know you've posted how complicated this subject is for you before and that it took 10 posts before you even understood the difference between F and C, but this is getting ridiculous.
    Do you really not understand how El Nino events bump up global temperatures?
    Is that really too hard for you to understand?
    Read this and see if you can follow it.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature

    If you still don't get it, I'll give you some bricks and you can try to knock some sense into your brain.


    You just cheery picked yourself into a corner
    I am feeling rather good today, but I'm not sure what you really mean with 'cheery picking'.






    One only needs to look at an extended graph to see that climate alarmists picked the 1870s as a low temperature point as a reference.
    Now that is cherry picking

    [https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/91proxes_figure5.png?w=576&ssl=1G]
    Bullshit source.
    Try a legit source for a chart of the last 2000 years.
    This is from NOAA and note that the last 20 years have put us over the top of the chart by around 0.2ļC


    Actually the NOAA data shows quite clearly the US average annual temperature has declined from 2012 to 2019 and from 2016 to 2019
    Wow, I know it took 10 posts for you to get the difference between F and C, but now we're at over 20 posts where you still don't understand cherry picking.
    Ok, once more with feeling....
    From your source:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
    2010 - 2019 = warming
    2011 - 2019 = warming
    2012 - 2019 = cooling
    2013 - 2019 = warming
    2014 - 2019 = warming

    So which date did you cherry pick?







    Ignoring the medieval warming period, the Roman warming period and ignoring any natural climate variability is cherry picking
    Medieval warming period was not global, it was a European event caused by ocean current changes.

    I do not take orders from people I do not respect
    Garb them yourself
    What is wrong with you?
    As I thought, you can't defend your own claims.





    No it is a factual statement backed by NOAA data
    It has cooled off in the USA the past 7 years
    Its a factual statement backed by your NOAA chart that the US has warmed over the last 10 years.
    Why do you ignore this?
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000



    I never said the planet is cooling.
    I was quite clear
    backed by NOAA data
    I simply pointed out the fact that It has cooled off in the USA the past 7 years
    that should not have happened if CO2 is the control knob for climate
    But according to your chart the US has warmed over the last 10 years.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000

    According to your chart the US has warmed over the last 5 years.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000

    Why do you only use the number 7?
    Cherry fucking picking
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  2. #626
    [QUOTE=Frankfooter;6626323]
    I know you've posted how complicated this subject is for you before and that it took 10 posts before you even understood the difference between F and C, but this is getting ridiculous.
    Do you really not understand how El Nino events bump up global temperatures?
    No I understand it,probably better than most. Definitely better than you do

    the issue is you have repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate and that natural climate variability can not be the cause for the warming. El Ninos are most certainly natural and variable
    But now you are claiming El Nino is responsible for the US temperature spikes in 2012 and 2016 ??

    You can not have it both ways
    Either natural climate variability is responsible for warming or it is not
    If natural climate variability is responsible for warming in 2012 and 2016, then why can it not be responsible for all of the warming experienced since 1870?

    Is that really too hard for you to understand?
    Read this and see if you can follow it.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature
    No I understand the phenomenon , but you do not understand when you have contradicted yourself.... again

    If you still don't get it, I'll give you some bricks and you can try to knock some sense into your brain.
    or you try keeping better track of your lies and consider when your argument contradicts previous cast in stone statement you make
    But then you lie so often it must be difficult , especially when you do not understand what you are talking about

    I am feeling rather good today, but I'm not sure what you really mean with 'cheery picking'.
    Of coarse you are not sure. how can one be sure when basis understanding is missing?

    Go back and read it again, so that you understand
    you cherry picked two annual periods and claimed they were caused by el nino, thus proposing natural climate variability (El nino) is responsible for warming in 2012 & 2016
    That is not possible if CO2 is the control knob for climate.
    If natural climate variability caused 2012 and 2016 warming , then natural climate variability also could have caused some, most or even all of the warming since 1870

    Do you not see how you cherry picked you way into a corner?





    Bullshit source.
    Try a legit source for a chart of the last 2000 years.
    This is from NOAA and note that the last 20 years have put us over the top of the chart by around 0.2ļC


    My chart & your chart both show the reference point of 1870 as a low spot on the chart.
    obviously cheery picked as the reference period for displaying temperature differences



    Wow, I know it took 10 posts for you to get the difference between F and C, but now we're at over 20 posts where you still don't understand cherry picking.
    Ok, once more with feeling....
    From your source:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
    2010 - 2019 = warming
    2011 - 2019 = warming
    2012 - 2019 = cooling
    2013 - 2019 = warming
    2014 - 2019 = warming
    So which date did you cherry pick?
    Oh boy
    The question stands on its own face value
    a 7 year time frame of declining temperatures should not have happened at all if CO2 has risen during that same 7 years and if CO2 is the control knob for climate change,
    Do not blame me for stupid and ultimately indefensible statements you make


    Medieval warming period was not global, it was a European event caused by ocean current changes.
    Bullshit
    Sorry Michael Mann tried that and was shown for what he is

    And top it off you claim Medieval warming period was not global, yet it is the big spike in the middle of your global chart (around 1100)
    You contradict yourself within a single post !!! Too funny
    What a dope

    As I thought, you can't defend your own claims.
    I gave you the links already, go back and get the charts yourself. Lazy prick
    What is wrong with you ?
    I do not take orders from people I do not respect

  3. #627
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    22,132
    Blog Entries
    185
    HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam will generate more electricity from coal and oil this year to compensate for an expected drop in output from hydropower plants because of a lack of rain, the government said on Friday.

    The Southeast Asian country, which has one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia, is increasingly reliant on fossil fuels to support its growth

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-v...-idUSKBN208137
    Ignore: Frankfooter

    Steph from Vixens

    I'm a western woman. Here is what i've learned, both in my own life and from what my girlfriends tell me.
    Women want a man that is worthy of their RESPECT. Period. It doesn't matter to most of us if you drive a fancy car, or if you're 6 feet tall or if you make a gazillion dollars. We want to respect you. As MEN.


    https://private.kinky-blogging.com/ is back online!

    back up https://canadaman2019.blogspot.com/

  4. #628
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    No I understand it,probably better than most. Definitely better than you do

    the issue is you have repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate and that natural climate variability can not be the cause for the warming. El Ninos are most certainly natural and variable
    But now you are claiming El Nino is responsible for the US temperature spikes in 2012 and 2016 ??

    You can not have it both ways
    Either natural climate variability is responsible for warming or it is not
    If natural climate variability is responsible for warming in 2012 and 2016, then why can it not be responsible for all of the warming experienced since 1870?
    Holy shit, larue. Explaining this to you is going to be harder than telling you that you got your numbers wrong and harder for you to understand than cherry picking. And its incredibly simple.
    Yes, you can have a general increase in temperature that also has bumps caused by El Nino making single years warmer, like 2016, while La Nina's make some years a bit cooler.
    Have you not ever noticed that these charts are not smooth lines before?

    Take a look, again, at the Schmidt chart that shows global temperature.
    Its not a fucking smooth line, its got bumps on it, including a big one on the El Nino, 2016 year.







    But then you lie so often it must be difficult , especially when you do not understand what you are talking about
    Show me one 'lie' from me.
    I challenge you.
    Prove it or admit that you are bullshitting.



    you cherry picked two annual periods and claimed they were caused by el nino, thus proposing natural climate variability (El nino) is responsible for warming in 2012 & 2016
    That is not possible if CO2 is the control knob for climate.
    If natural climate variability caused 2012 and 2016 warming , then natural climate variability also could have caused some, most or even all of the warming since 1870
    No, you cherry picked 2012 and 2016, I'm just pointing it out. When I show you charts I give you long term trends, not arguments that only work if you start on one year.
    And again, CO2 drives the general warming of the climate while El Nino events make particular years warmer while La Nina events can make other years a bit cooler.
    That's why the chart above is spiky and not a smooth line, because there are natural events, like those current events as well as volcanoes that also temporarily influence the climate.
    An El Nino event is typically only one year long, then it reverts back.
    This is incredibly basic yet you still can't understand this?

    Do you not see how you cherry picked you way into a corner?
    How do you fail to see that it was you that cherry picked 2012 and 2016?
    I know it took 10 posts for you to understand you used C numbers instead of F, but this is going on 20 + posts where you still don't understand that you are cherry picking?






    My chart & your chart both show the reference point of 1870 as a low spot on the chart.
    obviously cheery picked as the reference period for displaying temperature differences
    It was not 'cheery' picked, that is as far back as climatologists have for modern global temperatures. Dates prior to that use different methods to calculate global temperatures.




    The question stands on its own face value
    a 7 year time frame of declining temperatures should not have happened at all if CO2 has risen during that same 7 years and if CO2 is the control knob for climate change,
    Do not blame me for stupid and ultimately indefensible statements you make
    'The question stands on its own face'
    That's hilarious, very 'cheery'.

    Again, you claim the US is cooling through cherry picking one warm year to a cooler year in a spiky chart.
    Moving your claim earlier or later and the chart says that the US is warming.
    You are cherry picking.

    From your source:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
    2010 - 2019 = warming
    2011 - 2019 = warming
    2012 - 2019 = cooling
    2013 - 2019 = warming
    2014 - 2019 = warming
    So which date did you cherry pick?



    It took 10 posts to get you to understand you used F numbers for C, are you even able to understand the concept of cherry picking data?
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  5. #629
    [QUOTE=Frankfooter;6626590]
    Holy shit, larue. Explaining this to you is going to be harder than telling you that you got your numbers wrong and harder for you to understand than cherry picking. And its incredibly simple.
    Yes, you can have a general increase in temperature that also has bumps caused by El Nino making single years warmer, like 2016, while La Nina's make some years a bit cooler.
    Have you not ever noticed that these charts are not smooth lines before?
    you have repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate and that natural climate variability can not be the cause for the warming. El Ninos are most certainly natural and variable
    But now you are claiming El Nino is responsible for the US temperature spikes in 2012 and 2016 ??

    You can not have it both ways
    Either natural climate variability is responsible for warming or it is not
    If natural climate variability is responsible for warming in 2012 and 2016, then why can it not be responsible for all of the warming experienced since 1870?

    Take a look, again, at the Schmidt chart that shows global temperature.
    Its not a fucking smooth line, its got bumps on it, including a big one on the El Nino, 2016 year
    .

    Again if you claim El nino caused warming in 2016, then how can you then ignore it for the rest of entire period and claim CO2 is the control knob for climate?
    You can not make both claims

    you really do not understand anything about science


    Show me one 'lie' from me.
    I challenge you.
    Prove it or admit that you are bullshitting.
    Ok, this will not be hard
    Medieval warming period was not global, it was a European event caused by ocean current changes.
    and then you post a temp chart clearly showing the Medieval warming period (1,100 AD) . and you did this in the same post! It was either an outright lie or you are incredibly stupid. Your choice



    The question stands on its own face value
    a 7 year time frame of declining temperatures should not have happened at all if CO2 has risen during that same 7 years and if CO2 is the control knob for climate change,
    Do not blame me for stupid and ultimately indefensible statements you make

  6. #630
    [QUOTE=Frankfooter;6626590]

    Take a look, again, at the Schmidt chart that shows global temperature.
    Its not a fucking smooth line, its got bumps on it, including a big one on the El Nino, 2016 year.
    Then explain how EL nino and or other natural climate variability is not responsible for all the bumps and the gentle rising slope of the curve?

    This is how science works
    If you propose a stupid , irresponsible and indefensible hypothesis such as "CO2 is the control knob for climate" then you have to be able to use that hypothesis to explain all observations
    This is how science works

    If you need to bring El ninos into the explanation, then you need to alter your hypothesis
    You may consider "CO2 is the control knob on climate, except when a nature climate variability factor such as El nino results in more or less warming than can be explained by C02 "
    Which really translates to " Yeah we really don't know'

    Watching you argue scientific issues is like watching a turtle who has flipped over onto his back
    Kinda funny for a while, but then it just becomes cruel

  7. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post

    you have repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate and that natural climate variability can not be the cause for the warming. El Ninos are most certainly natural and variable
    But now you are claiming El Nino is responsible for the US temperature spikes in 2012 and 2016 ??

    You can not have it both ways
    Either natural climate variability is responsible for warming or it is not
    If natural climate variability is responsible for warming in 2012 and 2016, then why can it not be responsible for all of the warming experienced since 1870?
    Larue, you are totally clueless.
    Let me see if I can educated you on how two forces can act on one body, another grade 6 level subject you apparently can't follow.
    Say there is a bike riding at its maximum speed of 40kmh, what happens when that bike goes down a big hill?
    Does the bike continue at 40kmh or does it gain extra speed because of the decline?
    And what happens after that bike descends the hill and goes on a long plane, does it maintain its new faster speed or does it lose energy through drag and revert back to its maximum speed of 40kmh.

    Now apply this to the global temperature. CO2 increases are driving the planet warmer at roughly 0.2ļC/decade. El Nino adds another say, .3ļC temp for one year, a little speed boost to the rising temperature. Afterwards the planet reverts to its present CO2 driven temperature rise, which means that there is a little bump on the El Nino year's chart followed by reverting to the CO2 driven rate.

    Most teens could understand this, I wonder if you will be able to. It may be even more complicated than cherry picking.

    .




    and then you post a temp chart clearly showing the Medieval warming period (1,100 AD) . and you did this in the same post! It was either an outright lie or you are incredibly stupid. Your choice
    Do you realize that the present warming we are experiencing is 2 times this 'bump', a warming you claim is significant?
    How does that make the present warming rank?



    The question stands on its own face value
    a 7 year time frame of declining temperatures should not have happened at all if CO2 has risen during that same 7 years and if CO2 is the control knob for climate change,
    Do not blame me for stupid and ultimately indefensible statements you make
    I totally blame you for all the stupid statements you keep making, don't worry.
    How can you claim that the US is cooling if it shows warming in 4 out 5 years and only shows cooling in the one year you cherry picked?
    How can you still not understand what cherry picking is after so many frigging examples and different ways of explaining it to you?
    How can anyone be so daft?

    From your source:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
    2010 - 2019 = shows the US warming
    2011 - 2019 = shows the US warming
    2012 - 2019 = shows the US cooling
    2013 - 2019 = shows the US warming
    2014 - 2019 = shows the US warming
    So which date did you cherry pick?

    This is exactly what you did, using different years.
    Substitute 2016 with 1998 (the previous biggest El Nino year) and 2008 with this year and its exactly the same.
    Same claim, same cherry picking dates on a chart showing increases to claim its a chart showing a decline.
    Same dishonest argument, I wonder if you'll ever be able to understand cherry picking.

    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  8. #632
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post



    Then explain how EL nino and or other natural climate variability is not responsible for all the bumps and the gentle rising slope of the curve?

    This is how science works
    If you propose a stupid , irresponsible and indefensible hypothesis such as "CO2 is the control knob for climate" then you have to be able to use that hypothesis to explain all observations
    This is how science works

    If you need to bring El ninos into the explanation, then you need to alter your hypothesis
    You may consider "CO2 is the control knob on climate, except when a nature climate variability factor such as El nino results in more or less warming than can be explained by C02 "
    Which really translates to " Yeah we really don't know'

    Watching you argue scientific issues is like watching a turtle who has flipped over onto his back
    Kinda funny for a while, but then it just becomes cruel
    See the bike metaphor above.
    Read it again, make sure your lips are moving.
    Read it again to a 10 year old.
    Have them explain it to you.
    After you yell at them read it to someone you trust is smart.
    Have them explain it to you.
    After you yell at them read it to a teacher of some sort.
    After you yell at them, buy 2 bricks.
    If you still don't get it, bring bricks together as fast as possible using only your head to slow their velocity.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  9. #633
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    22,132
    Blog Entries
    185
    Ignore: Frankfooter

    Steph from Vixens

    I'm a western woman. Here is what i've learned, both in my own life and from what my girlfriends tell me.
    Women want a man that is worthy of their RESPECT. Period. It doesn't matter to most of us if you drive a fancy car, or if you're 6 feet tall or if you make a gazillion dollars. We want to respect you. As MEN.


    https://private.kinky-blogging.com/ is back online!

    back up https://canadaman2019.blogspot.com/

  10. #634
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Larue, you are totally clueless.
    Let me see if I can educated you on how two forces can act on one body, another grade 6 level subject you apparently can't follow.
    Too bad you restricted yourself to one force by claiming C02 is the control knob for climate, but we will humor you


    Say there is a bike riding at its maximum speed of 40kmh, what happens when that bike goes down a big hill?
    Does the bike continue at 40kmh or does it gain extra speed because of the decline?
    And what happens after that bike descends the hill and goes on a long plane, does it maintain its new faster speed or does it lose energy through drag and revert back to its maximum speed of 40kmh.
    I am not arguing against multiple forces acting to impact climate.
    I have been very clear it is a multi variant non linear chaotic system which includes turbulent air and water flows. (which are far to chaotic to model).
    You however have held steadfast against any other possible cause for changes to climate other than rising CO2.
    That is until now, when you have to explain some cooling
    All of a sudden you say El nino is responsible for a bump in warming , specifically 2016.

    CO2 increases are driving the planet warmer at roughly 0.2ļC/decade. El Nino adds another say, .3ļC temp for one year,
    And how pray tell did you seperate the impact of those two which are theoretically occuring at the same time? Two inputs (hundreds in reality) and only one output: temperature
    And how pray tell did you come up with those specific estimates ?

    You have El nino adding 1.5 times in one year (0.3 C) as you have Co2 adding in a decade (0,2C)
    El ninos frequency is less than 10 years

    So your hypothetical example shows El Nino is by far the dominate force wrt warming. At least 1.5 times more warming than C02 over a ten year cycle
    Job Done ! You have solved the global warming riddle.!
    Call Justin & Greata. you have proven natural climate variability is the boss

    of coarse it is more complicated than your failed grade six level attempt to explain temperature changes
    However by opening the door for natural climate variability to be responsible for some of warming in 2016, you also open the door for natural climate variability to be responsible for some , most or even all of the warming in any year
    That is how science works


    a little speed boost to the rising temperature
    .
    a little boost where you need it you say
    Afterwards the planet reverts to its present CO2 driven temperature rise,
    Given climate has historically always changed and you are wetting the bed because of current change, why do you have any expectation of a return to equilibrium (expect for Co2 and only Co2)?
    Climate is a chaotic multivariate nonlinear system (The IPCC)
    How does one define equilibrium for a chaotic system? You cant

    which means that there is a little bump on the El Nino year's chart followed by reverting to the CO2 driven rate.
    Or El Nino could be responsible for far more than your guess of 1.5 times greater than Co2
    too bad you can not separate the two effects empirically

    Most teens could understandit this, I wonder if you will be able to. It may be even more complicated than cherry picking.
    Perhaps you can get a teen to explain it to you then. they might at least get the fractions supportive of your argument instead of supportive of natural climate variability

    Watching you argue scientific issues is like watching a turtle who has flipped over onto his back
    Kinda funny for a while, but then it just becomes cruel

  11. #635
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    22,132
    Blog Entries
    185
    consensus on climate alarmism is maintained by censorship, blacklists and firings.


    Climate sceptic awarded $1.2m for unfair dismissal

    A "lukewarm climate change sceptic" who was sacked by his university, Professor Peter Ridd, has been awarded $1.2 million in compensation because his employer contravened the Fair Work Act in dismissing him.

    In his compensation ruling, Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta said James Cook University, had "poisoned the well" and ensured that Professor Ridd could not "obtain employment".

    He said Professor Ridd, 59, would be "damaged goods" to any employer and "will continue to pay a heavy price for that stereotype".

    In 2017 Professor Ridd had questioned his colleagues' conclusions that the Great Barrier Reef was being damaged and degraded.

    He was sacked from his position as head of physics at JCU in May last year after a series of warnings not to breach university confidentiality.

    National president of the National Tertiary Education Union, Alison Barnes, said all universities should be on notice that breaches of the enterprise agreements were serious matters with million-dollar consequences.

    "Professor Ridd’s academic freedom was only protected by the collective agreement negotiated by the union, and that enterprise agreement clauses provide the only enforceable rights to academic freedom," she said.

    The compensation includes $712,500 for foregone future wages, $143,773 for lost wages, $90,000 general damages and $125,000 in pecuniary penalties.

    With superannuation on top, total compensation was $1,219, 214, which the university said it will appeal.

    In the original judgment, Judge Vasta said the university had breached Professor Ridd's academic freedom, which was protected by his enterprise agreement.

    This took priority over the JCU academic code of conduct, which required him to "uphold the integrity and good reputation of the university".

    Professor Ridd told The Australian Financial Review, the case was not about climate change.

    "That's what sparked it. But at the bottom it's about debasement of the university system. Breaching academic freedom is an example of the university system.

    "The judgment was about JCU action. It's not to do with the Great Barrier Reef.

    "What it does demonstrate is that anyone who does stand up against climate change or the Great Barrier Reef will be imperilled in their jobs and there's a likelihood their career will be affected.

    "This is why crushing academic free speech is such a serious sin for a university to permit.

    "The fact JCU is going to appeal just shows they still don't understand the concept of academic freedom."

    A spokesman for James Cook University said the university's position would be addressed in its appeal.

    Professor Ridd told the Financial Review he was a "lukewarm climate change sceptic".

    "Irrespective of whether the half to three-quarters degree warming in the last 100 years is man-made or not, I do not believe that has had an effect on the Great Barrier Reef.

    "But I am a red hot sceptic when it comes to the reef and run-off sediment."

    It was his criticism of colleagues for claiming a link between sediment and damage to the reef that led to the university's case against him.

    In an unrelated matter in July, Judge Vasta was relieved of some of his circuit court duties and required to receive counselling from a senior judge after appeal against a conviction in which the full Federal Court of the Family Court called Judge Vasta's conduct of the case "an affront to justice".

    In a recent report for the federal government, the former high court judge Robert French said there was "no crisis of freedom of speech" in universities.

    https://www.afr.com/policy/health-an...0190906-p52oml
    Ignore: Frankfooter

    Steph from Vixens

    I'm a western woman. Here is what i've learned, both in my own life and from what my girlfriends tell me.
    Women want a man that is worthy of their RESPECT. Period. It doesn't matter to most of us if you drive a fancy car, or if you're 6 feet tall or if you make a gazillion dollars. We want to respect you. As MEN.


    https://private.kinky-blogging.com/ is back online!

    back up https://canadaman2019.blogspot.com/

  12. #636
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Too bad you restricted yourself to one force by claiming C02 is the control knob for climate, but we will humor you
    No, I said CO2 is driving warming of the planet.
    El Nino is a cyclical current event that raises the temperature of the planet temporarily, typically over 1 year or so, it isn't warming the planet.


    I am not arguing against multiple forces acting to impact climate.
    Yes you clearly did.
    But I will accept your withdrawing from this claim as another admission you were wrong.


    And how pray tell did you seperate the impact of those two which are theoretically occuring at the same time? Two inputs (hundreds in reality) and only one output: temperature
    And how pray tell did you come up with those specific estimates ?
    I approximated based on looking at the charts of global temperatures. The IPCC has stated they expect about 0.2ļC warming per decade through CO2, though that may now look to be conservative. And for El Nino, I just looked at the chart and used the bump as a guess. Its just a guess for this debate, but feel free to do some actual research and find the real numbers.

    You have El nino adding 1.5 times in one year (0.3 C) as you have Co2 adding in a decade (0,2C)
    El ninos frequency is less than 10 years
    El Nino has a large effect on global climate, but yes, its cyclical.

    So your hypothetical example shows El Nino is by far the dominate force wrt warming. At least 1.5 times more warming than C02 over a ten year cycle
    Job Done ! You have solved the global warming riddle.!
    Call Justin & Greata. you have proven natural climate variability is the boss
    No, El Nino doesn't raise the planet's temperature permanently, it bumps the temperature up temporarily for a year or so.
    Just like when you ride down a hill it boosts your speed but that speed is lost through drag on a plane and then possibly lowered when you go back up the next hill (or La Nina).

    of coarse it is more complicated than your failed grade six level attempt to explain temperature changes
    However by opening the door for natural climate variability to be responsible for some of warming in 2016, you also open the door for natural climate variability to be responsible for some , most or even all of the warming in any year
    That is how science works
    The grade six level explanation seems to have worked as you now appear to understand that two forces can act on one body.
    And no, El Nino is not responsible for climate change, its just a cycle much like winter and summer.


    Given climate has historically always changed and you are wetting the bed because of current change, why do you have any expectation of a return to equilibrium (expect for Co2 and only Co2)?
    Sure, the climate will likely return to a norm in a few thousand to a few hundred thousands of years, depending on whether we drive it to a thermal maximum or not.
    Unless we do drastic change and keep climate change to 1.5ļC or so.
    What do you think is the better option?
    Thermal maximum or cheap gas?


    Or El Nino could be responsible for far more than your guess of 1.5 times greater than Co2
    too bad you can not separate the two effects empirically
    1) El Nino doesn't drive climate change, its a cycle like winter and summer.
    2) Yes, scientists can easily separate the differences, it may be hard for you to understand but its not for them.


    Watching you argue scientific issues is like watching a turtle who has flipped over onto his back
    Kinda funny for a while, but then it just becomes cruel
    You really think you're doing well in this debate?
    Dunning Kruger......


    You really are a FLICC

    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  13. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    No, I said CO2 is driving warming of the planet.
    Absolute not !!!!

    You repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate


    El Nino is a cyclical current event that raises the temperature of the planet temporarily, typically over 1 year or so, it isn't warming the planet.
    You can not prove that empirically
    You have two inputs El Nino & CO2 (hundreds in reality) and one output temperature
    You can not separate the impacts of the two on a global scale

    Yes you clearly did.
    No I am not arguing against multiple forces acting to impact climate. Pay attention will you !!!!!
    What is wrong with you?

    But I will accept your withdrawing from this claim as another admission you were wrong.
    Oh I will admit if I am wrong, but I am not.
    You conversely will never admit to anything despite so many examples I have lost count. Countless others have said the same about you
    Once again you forget you need virtue before you can try virtue signalling

    I approximated based on looking at the charts of global temperatures.
    You guessed & your guess made a stronger case for Natural Variability than for CO2
    what a dope !!!

    The IPCC has stated they expect about 0.2ļC warming per decade through CO2, though that may now look to be conservative.
    Conservative??????
    their models have consistently overshot reality & they have a long long list of failed predictions
    No if there is an adjustment required it is towards a much lower sensitivity


    And for El Nino, I just looked at the chart and used the bump as a guess. Its just a guess for this debate, but feel free to do some actual research and find the real numbers.
    "Used the bump as a guess", well that should get you some consideration for a nobel prize"
    I can just see the Headlines "FrankFooter guesses , proves his theory wrong and is awarded the Noble Prize..... Greata is non too pleased to come in second"

    Sorry science requires a lot more rigour than "I just looked at the chart and used the bump as a guess."

    but feel free to do some actual research and find the real numbers.
    I do not need to do anything
    You are the one incorrectly claiming CO2 is the control knob for the climate, All I need to do is sit back , watch you make an absolute fool of your self trying to argue scientific concepts.
    It is really not to hard to point out flawed logic
    That is how science works. It weeds out & dismissed flawed logic. If it is allowed to operate ex politics

    If you propose a hypothesis and claim it to be true, then it has to sand up against any and all challenges.
    That's the way science works

    That is also why only a fool would claim "Co2 is the control knob for Climate" or " The science is settled"

    El Nino has a large effect on global climate, but yes, its cyclical.
    Oh so now you want to introduce a new factor, "cyclicality" of El Nino ???

    Well if your going to do that then you need to introduce the periodicity of a whole shit load of other factors such as:
    1. changes in the jet stream,
    2. solar activity ,
    3. the Milankovitch cycles ,
    4. convection forces
    5. radiative transfer across the variable temperature gradient of the troposphere
    6. the logarithmic changes in absorption by c02 as concentration increases and the exponential decrease in absorption across a decreasing tempature gradiant of the troposphere
    7. Cloud formation
    8 Water Vapour concentration (The big dog of greenhouse gases)
    9. The impact of turbulence on air and water flows
    Etc Etc

    None of which are properly (if at all) incorporated into computer climate models

    In science you just can not introduce unspecified cyclicality of one input "as needed" , but exclude all others

    But back to your statement
    El Nino has a large effect on global climate, but yes, its cyclical.
    How much of an effect? you said large so then it is significant
    But again how much?

    Your first guess showed it to be 1.5 times greater than the impact of Co2 over a ten year cycle
    ??? Is there something wrong with your suddenly evolving theory of global warning?

    Remember you took the absolute , no doubt about it , the science is settled stand that "Co2 is the control knob for climate" and we can control climate by controlling the Co2 knob


    No, El Nino doesn't raise the planet's temperature permanently, it bumps the temperature up temporarily for a year or so.
    Explain the physics behind that statement. something a lot more in depth than your grade six level bicycle/ hill analogy

    Just like when you ride down a hill it boosts your speed but that speed is lost through drag on a plane and then possibly lowered when you go back up the next hill (or La Nina).
    I wondered when you would introduce La Nina another Naturally occurring driver of Climate
    Three down, hundreds more natural variable effects to come


    [The grade six level explanation seems to have worked as you now appear to understand that two forces can act on one body.
    #1. No the grade six level explanation does not work as climate is a lot more complex that that
    2. There is a whole lot more than two forces acting on numerous bodies in the climate, many interacting in highly unpredictable manners hence the term chaotic
    And no, El Nino is not responsible for climate change, its just a cycle much like winter and summer.
    There is no scientific basis for either of the two inaccurate conclusions in that statement
    El Nino's do not have a regular periodicity like winter of summer.



    Sure, the climate will likely return to a norm in a few thousand to a few hundred thousands of years, depending on whether we drive it to a thermal maximum or not.
    What part of "Climate is a chaotic multivariate nonlinear system" do you not understand?
    You can not define an equilibrium of a chaotic system


    Unless we do drastic change and keep climate change to 1.5ļC or so.
    Scare mongering about a subject your clearly do not understand


    What do you think is the better option?
    Thermal maximum or cheap gas?
    Oh Boy that's scary!
    too bad for you I am not a child

    What do you think is the better option
    Using propaganda to support puedo science, dangerous distributive policies and to scare the living hell out of children
    or
    allowing constructive scientific debate to arrive at the truth
    Such strong and continued efforts to shut down the opposition are a pretty serious red flag that "Climate Change" science is not rock solid and most definitely not settled
    If your right , there would be no need to shut anyone down
    But alas you clearly are not right and the propaganda effort continues


    1) El Nino doesn't drive climate change, its a cycle like winter and summer.
    You showed it to be responsible for 1.5 X the warming of Co2 over a ten year period???????
    But that was just a guess

    2) Yes, scientists can easily separate the differences, it may be hard for you to understand but its not for them.
    That is just not true. absolutely not on a global scale in a chaotic system

    They can guess, but look where that got you guessing

    This is just too funny


    You really think you're doing well in this debate?
    oh boy, now that is also very funny !! Stop it , it hurts when I laugh like this
    Watching you argue scientific issues is like watching a turtle who has flipped over onto his back
    Kinda funny for a while, but then it just becomes cruel

    You really are a FLICC
    I am not permitted to say what you really are

  14. #638
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Absolute not !!!!

    You repeatedly claimed CO2 is the control knob for climate
    No, that's your language not mine.
    Go ahead and check the posts.



    You can not prove that empirically
    You have two inputs El Nino & CO2 (hundreds in reality) and one output temperature
    You can not separate the impacts of the two on a global scale
    No, you can't. But smarter people, like all climatologists clearly can.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature

    Oh I will admit if I am wrong, but I am not.
    You conversely will never admit when you are wrong despite so many examples I have lost count
    I admit when I'm wrong.
    Here's a chance for you, please list 10 of these examples where you can prove I'm wrong, if you're right I'll admit and if not you will admit it and we'll add it to your increasing tally.


    You guessed & your guess made a stronger case for Natural Variability than for CO2
    what a dope
    You still don't understand, not that I'm surprised. It took 10 posts to get the difference between F and C and you still don't understand cherry picking.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature

    Conservative??????
    their models have consistently overshot reality & they have a long long list of failed predictions
    No if there is an adjustment required it towards a much lower sensitivity
    Their models have done really well, the only exceptions is they didn't expect as much polar ice melt and expected more tropical change, but global numbers are really accurate.


    "Used the bump as a guess", well that should get you some consideration for a nobel prize"
    I can just see the Headlines "FrankFooter guesses , proves his theory wrong and is awarded the Noble Prize..... Greata is non too please to come in second"
    Go ahead and show what you think those numbers really are.
    Don't forget to show your math and sources.


    Sorry science requires a lot more rigour than "I just looked at the chart and used the bump as a guess."
    This is a debate and I'm trying to teach you basic physics, at this point you've almost learned that two forces can act on one body but are now busy on the L part of FLICC.


    I do not need to do anything
    You are the one incorrectly claiming CO2 is the control knob for the climate, All I need to do is point out your flawed logic
    That is how scince works
    If you propose a hypothesis and claim it to be true, then it has to sand up against any and all challenges.
    That's the way science works
    Its standing up. The projections match the global data from multiple sources over 20 years of projections.
    You're still learning F vs C, basic physics and the idea of cherry picking data.

    Oh so now you want to introduce a new factor, "cyclicality" of El Nino
    New?
    Why would you think that is new, I thought you understood the basics of El Nino. Do I have to teach you that as well?

    Well if your going to do that then you need to introduce the periodicity of a whole shit load of other factors such as:
    1. changes in the jet stream,
    2. solar activity ,
    3. the Milankovitch cycles ,
    4. convection forces
    5. radiative transfer across the variable temperature gradient of the troposphere
    6. the logarithmic changes in absorption by c02 as concentration increases and the exponential decrease in absorption across a decreasing tempature gradiant of the troposphere
    7. Cloud formation
    8 Water Vapour concentration (The big dog of greenhouse gases)
    9. The impact of turbulence on air and water flows
    Sigh.
    FLICC

    None of which are properly (if at all) incorporated into computer climate models
    Prove it.

    In science you just can not introduce unspecified cyclicality of one input as is needed , but exclude all others
    They didn't, you just weren't paying attention.




    I wondered when you would introduce La Nina another Naturally occurring driver of Climate
    Three down, hundreds more to come
    Covered endlessly here, but likely it went in one ear and out the other.
    Start here:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

    #
    1. No the grade six level explanation does not work as climate is a lot more complex that that
    2. There is a whole lot more than two forces acting on numerous bodies in the climate, many interacting in highly unpredictable manners hence the term chaotic
    Yes, of course. Volcanoes are another force that can drive climate change, for instance.
    They've all been covered and are all to be found in the IPCC reports.
    In fact, I'll bet you that every claim you can make has been discussed in the IPCC reports and if I'm right you have to admit that you don't know what you are talking about with climate change.
    (though I've said I won't bet right wingers on this board as they all renege on bets)




    There is no scientific basis for either of the two inaccurate conclusions in that statement
    El Nino's do not have a regular periodicity like winter of summer.
    They are both cyclical, as I said. Whether they have regular cycles is immaterial.

    What part of "Climate is a chaotic multivariate nonlinear system" do you not understand?
    You can not define an equilibrium of a chaotic system
    What part of 'just because its too complicated for you to understand doesn't mean that most sane people can't understand it' do you not understand?




    What do you think is the better option
    Using propaganda to support puedo science, dangerous distributive policies and to scare the living hell out of children
    or
    allowing constructive scientific debate to arrive at the truth
    That's why I quote the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and AAAS as legit scientific sources while you have Anthony Watts and Judith Curry as your massive team of research.
    FLICC



    2) Yes, scientists can easily separate the differences, it may be hard for you to understand but its not for them.
    That is just not true. absolutely not on a global scale in a chaotic system
    Sure it is, just because its above you doesn't mean that others can't figure it out.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature
    They can guess, but look where that got you guessing
    My guessing almost got you to understand that two forces can act on one body.
    This is just too funny
    Personally, I find it more pathetic.
    Dunning Kruger....
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  15. #639
    Half Man Half Amazing
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Room 112
    Posts
    17,710
    So Frankie lets just get this clear. You are now saying that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of the gentle warming we've seen post WWII? So why the fuck are we here then?

    I shine and rise at the same time.

  16. #640
    Quote Originally Posted by K Douglas View Post
    So Frankie lets just get this clear. You are now saying that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of the gentle warming we've seen post WWII? So why the fuck are we here then?
    Sigh.
    CO2 is the primary driver of the not at all gentle warming we've experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.
    Try paying attention.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  17. #641
    Half Man Half Amazing
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Room 112
    Posts
    17,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Sigh.
    CO2 is the primary driver of the not at all gentle warming we've experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.
    Try paying attention.
    CO2 only really starting rising significantly since the 1950's. Yet the warmest decade we have seen is in the 1930's. Wonder what drove that warming? And yes overall the warming has been gentle approx. 1įC since temperature records began in 1880.

    I shine and rise at the same time.

  18. #642
    Quote Originally Posted by K Douglas View Post
    CO2 only really starting rising significantly since the 1950's. Yet the warmest decade we have seen is in the 1930's.
    Two things wrong in one sentence.
    Well done!

    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  19. #643



    I have a graph here that proves all your graphs are BS. You can't deny science mate.
    The complex harmony of how the human body seems to function in order to just exist is in stark contrast to what most people actually do with it! I mean, life is nothing but a wonder, living it is often ludicrous!

  20. #644
    There's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_...and_statistics


    People on ignore: Frankfooter

  21. #645
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil C. McNasty View Post
    There's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_...and_statistics
    Well, if that's all you've got.

    I'll stick with the science.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

  22. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    No, that's your language not mine.
    Go ahead and check the posts.
    Different thread
    You made that claim many times
    Will I invest the time searching to prove you are lying again?
    Deny this again and find out

    No, you can't. But smarter people, like all climatologists clearly can.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/interact...al-temperature
    Two actions occurring simultaneously (at the same time) with only one output and on a global scale?
    No way.
    They can guess , but far too much guessing in Climate science. Look how you did guessing

    I admit when I'm wrong.
    Here's a chance for you, please list 10 of these examples where you can prove I'm wrong, if you're right I'll admit and if not you will admit it and we'll add it to your increasing tally.
    You do not make the rules, especially when it comes to your credibility and honesty
    What is wrong with you ?

    No deal , but I shall remind you of some recent lies

    Lets start with this one

    Medieval warming period was not global, it was a European event caused by ocean current changes.
    and then you post a temp chart clearly showing the Medieval warming period (1,100 AD) . and you did this in the same post! It was either an outright lie or you are incredibly stupid. Your choice



    you never owned up to that
    too embarrassed I suspect

    And then when I posted about the US temp decline
    1. You tried to explain a three year period using a five year year average (holy stupid batman)
    2. when that did not work you tried to claim the decline did not exist at all because the link was broken. This is after you had already senn and commented on the the decline. (Really? children are smarter than that)
    3. After that did not work , you refused to address this for a week claiming cherry picking
    4. Then you said it must be el Nino in 2016

    so at least three or four on this one issue

    You are a pathological liar and completely clueless about science

  23. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Sigh.
    CO2 is the primary driver of the not at all gentle warming we've experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.
    Try paying attention.
    Sigh There is no empirical evidence to support this statement
    Correlation is not causation
    and you have admitted natural climate variation supposedly cause the warming in 2016. you can do that without opening the door for natural Variation to be the primary driver of all the gentle warming we've experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.

    That is how science works

    you are the one how needs to pay attention

  24. #648
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Different thread
    You made that claim many times
    Will I invest the time searching to prove you are lying again?
    Deny this again and find out
    Whatever, mr science.

    Two actions occurring simultaneously (at the same time) with only one output and on a global scale?
    No way.
    They can guess , but far too much guessing in Climate science. Look how you did guessing
    They are smarter than you and can figure it out.
    Accept that there are people smarter than you and they can figure it out.

    You do not make the rules, especially when it comes to your credibility and honesty
    What is wrong with you ?
    I know you can't find examples when I'm wrong because I am right in these threads and you aren't.
    Easy challenge that I knew you'd drop or find some excuse not to take.

    Lets start with this one
    Yes, lets.
    From the wiki page:
    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[1] It was likely[2] related to warming elsewhere[3][4][5] while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid-20th-century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
    Yup, I'm right and you're not.
    Score yet another one for me.




    And then when I posted about the US temp decline
    1. You tried to explain a three year period using a five year year average (holy stupid batman)
    2. when that did not work you tried to claim the decline did not exist at all because the link was broken. This is after you had seen the decline
    3. After that did not work , you refused to address this for a week claiming cherry picking
    4. Then you said it must be el Nino in 2016

    so at least three lies , maybe 4 on this one issue
    Here we go again.
    1) Five year averages are useful in determining trends, not so the case with one, cherry picked, 3 year period - you are wrong
    2) Your link was dead, you want me to comment on a chart I can't look at? - wrong again
    3) I addressed it by showing you that you are cherry picking dates, a charge you have yet to understand or defend. - again you are wrong
    4) I said that you cherry picked 2016 because it was the last strong El Nino year so was warmer - I am right about this and you are wrong

    That's 4 for 4 where I am right and you can't even understand the debate.
    Try again, mr science.
    Donít be a tough guy. Donít be a fool! I will call you later

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 172324252627

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •