The new official climate change thread

[fuji]

So, go ahead and do the calculation.

Looking at the actual temperature anomalies, I stand by my statement that there was no statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the El Nino weather phenomenon.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

The El Nino's getting hotter is caused by global warming.

 

[Frankfooter]

I have not missed the answer,...that is NOT an answer my question,...

Your' done footer,...and everybody here knows it.


FAST

It is an answer to your question.
The problem you didn't note is that your incredibly poor writing is probably (I say probably because its hard to say exactly what you are trying to say most of the time), your poor writing skills probably left me answering a different question then you thought you were asking.

What percentage of CO2 that is constantly being added to the atmosphere, can be attributed to burning fossil fuels ?

I would expect that you are still confused by the carbon cycle and meant to ask what portion the total carbon cycle human emitted greenhouse gases from fossil fuels are, but that you instead asked a different question due to your poor english skills.

Must suck to be constantly misunderstood due to your poor language usage.

:biggrin:

 

[FAST]

It is an answer to your question.
The problem you didn't note is that your incredibly poor writing is probably (I say probably because its hard to say exactly what you are trying to say most of the time), your poor writing skills probably left me answering a different question then you thought you were asking.

I would expect that you are still confused by the carbon cycle and meant to ask what portion the total carbon cycle human emitted greenhouse gases from fossil fuels are, but that you instead asked a different question due to your poor english skills.

Must suck to be constantly misunderstood due to your poor language usage.

:biggrin:

Its NOT an answer to my question,...its an answer to a different question.

And yes,...footer,...I did in fact "ask(ed) a different question",...you catch on real quick,...considering.

But keep on shoveling it footer,...better get out your hip boots though,...its getting kinda deep.


FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

The El Nino's getting hotter is caused by global warming.

Not according to the former vice-chair of the IPCC.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

And my statements (and K Douglas' statement) were about the period in the 21st century prior to the El Nino weather phenomenon. We can't really say anything post-El Nino until the La Nina that is expected to follow has been comleted.

 

[JohnLarue]

Sorry larue, but slander isn't debate.
If you've got nothing left to add to this discussion other then slander, why don't you and canada-man start a thread for the two of you.

I will come and go as I see fit
You do not add to the discussion, not without bias.
it is an important issue which should be judged by all without you injecting your bias

I understand that you can't answer those questions, that your views are so shaky that they can't stand any day light on them.

You do not pay attention do you?
I am undecided on the issue
How can my views be shaky when they have yet to be determined?

& I do not answer questions from fools who do not pay attention

Its typical of all the deniers here, you ask them a tricky question and they hide away for a couple of days, try to change the topic or like you, just default to insults.

Deniers?
I have neither confirmed or denied any position on climate change
How can I be a denier ?
You just spew but do not think !!

What you've clearly proven is that you fully fit the definition of the fore mentioned study. You swing farther right then republicans, you won't change your mind regardless of what facts are shown and further questions only makes you dig in further to defend your ever shakier claims. You are obviously at the point where you can't even raise any legit points and are left only with insults and slander.

Too funny
I am undecided, so how can I fit the definition

What is real clear is that you do not pay attention, mistake one author for another and miss details
Which is a real issue for anyone who feels they have the absolute correct & undeniable interruption of the multitude of (sometimes conflicting) research papers on climate change
You just do not inspire the confidence required to take that position when you are better known as a spreader of manure

BOVINE SCATOLOGY

Nope you just google search and cherry pick research based on the headlines don't you?
However your attack on Dr. Carters character for a chart he did not produce shows why you should never be trusted wrt scientific issues
You have an agenda which is far more important to you than getting anywhere near the truth of the matter which is what science should be about

Your replies prove you fit the study:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2943.epdf

Being undecided fits the study?

Your reply's indicate a hidden agenda

How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?

& I do not answer questions from fools who do not pay attention

 

[K Douglas]

The El Nino's getting hotter is caused by global warming.

You're talking out of your ass there fuji. That's something I would expect from Frank. There is no proof that climate change is causing more extreme El Nino events or extreme weather. Anyone who is claiming this is lying through their teeth (most likely IPCC driven)

 

[bishop]

You are guessing, you are assuming that surface stations aren't automated, that buoys that take sea surface temperatures aren't automated, and there aren't other automated stations. You also are guessing they can't sample the temperatures even more often then satellites. Do some research.
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/...tations']&Portal=GCMD_Services&MetadataType=0





That's been done repeatedly, and the polls find around 97% of climatologists support the claims of AGW.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Polls have also done with non-climatologists and they show high acceptance of the findings synthesized by the IPCC.

And why can't you answer this question:

Why do you think the temperature in the upper troposphere is more relevant to us then the temperature down here on the surface of the planet?

Look Frank, science is not done by polls. If it was then we would still be stuck in the dark ages. It took Darwin 25 years to publish his work, he waited until his wife died and he was old to publish his work, because back then science was in it's infancy and attitudes like popular opinion among the learned mattered greatly and popular opinion was the gate keeper of truth vs fiction. Darwim was right to wait given the time he lived in, if you want to turn science back 200 years then go ahead and use your silly polls as truth. Frank think about the logical consequences of doing science by polling.

The only reason you want to use surface temperatures is because it supports your AGW views, if tommorow satellite data showed greater warming that surface warming then you would be the first to change your tune. Your only consistency is your blind allegance to AGW, it matters not to you what the data is, so long as it supports your view then it is science, and any data that is remotely inconsistent with supporting your views is written off as non science.

You keep posting that CIMP5 chart over and over as some magical proof of AGW, even though you know it has only at best 2 years of actual predictions. I know to you that does not matter, if there is a chart showing upward temperatures then that to you is a chart worth posting regardless of the actual data in the chart or even if the data is real or not.

To date I have never seen you post anything that is not a copy a paste job of some article or someone else's thoughts, I have never seen you argue or attempt to argue anything using reason and logic.

My opinion is that satellite data is a better more consistent dataset for the modern times. If satellite data supports AGW more than surface temperatures, I do not give a shit. I only care about methodology and reason, not about the outcome. If the methodology and reasoning is sound then the outcome is sound.

 

[fuji]

Not according to the former vice-chair of the IPCC.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

And my statements (and K Douglas' statement) were about the period in the 21st century prior to the El Nino weather phenomenon. We can't really say anything post-El Nino until the La Nina that is expected to follow has been comleted.

It's a fact that they are getting hotter . If you look just at the hottest year in each El Nino they have been getting progressively hotter.

In any case the thirty year averages cover multiple El Nino's and eliminate that as an excuse.

Either way you look at it our climate is warming.

You missed this bit from your link:

"For instance, he said, when the world continued to get warmer in future, naturally, and when an El Nino occurred, it would cause the overall temperature for the period to rise much higher than what was usually experienced."

He has explained that while global warming doesn't cause El Nino, it starts them from a higher baseline and so they reach a higher temperature, which is exactly what we see in the data. We see exactly that each El Nino is warmer than previous ones.

You just lose this debate.

 

[Frankfooter]

You do not pay attention do you?
I am undecided on the issue
How can my views be shaky when they have yet to be determined?

Lets see if you really are undecided.
Someone who wanted to research say, gravity, would do well to look up the latest research, correct?
Someone who is really undecided on climate change would look up and read the latest research, in this case its quite easy as its been summarized and synthesized for you, right here:
ipcc.ch

If you are unbiased and undecided, will you read their reports?

 

[Frankfooter]

You're talking out of your ass there fuji. That's something I would expect from Frank. There is no proof that climate change is causing more extreme El Nino events or extreme weather. Anyone who is claiming this is lying through their teeth (most likely IPCC driven)

You are accusing the IPCC of 'lying'?
Why do you think all climatologists from all countries in the world would 'lie through their teeth' for onwards of 30 years now?

 

[Frankfooter]

Look Frank, science is not done by polls.

I agree.
The consensus isn't a poll at all.
The consensus is just reporting that all of the research done by climatologists came to the same conclusion, that AGW is real and its effects will be devastating.
That's not a poll, that's just noting that all the research came to the same result.

The only reason you want to use surface temperatures is because it supports your AGW views, if tommorow satellite data showed greater warming that surface warming then you would be the first to change your tune. Your only consistency is your blind allegance to AGW, it matters not to you what the data is, so long as it supports your view then it is science, and any data that is remotely inconsistent with supporting your views is written off as non science.

Not at all, because the latest satellite data does show the same warming, read the first chart here which shows the latest data:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/06/troposphere-temperatures-for-may-2016.html

I just don't think that the temperatures in the clouds are that relevant to discussions about the climate down here on the surface.
Why don't you?

To date I have never seen you post anything that is not a copy a paste job of some article or someone else's thoughts, I have never seen you argue or attempt to argue anything using reason and logic.

Nonsense, these are my words and my arguments, though they are based on research I've read from others, of course.

My opinion is that satellite data is a better more consistent dataset for the modern times. If satellite data supports AGW more than surface temperatures, I do not give a shit. I only care about methodology and reason, not about the outcome. If the methodology and reasoning is sound then the outcome is sound.

But the data from satellites has multiple problems. Satellites go around the planet, they sample temperatures whenever they are over the area in question, at whatever time of day that is based on their orbit. The orbits change and the data must be adjusted. The data has to be fudged to compensate for way too many issues for it to be considered totally clean.

Whereas an automated sensor floating on a buoy just reads the temperature and can sense it way more often. No adjusting necessary and on top of that, the temperature is at the same level people live at, not in the clouds.

Your arguments make no sense.

 

[bver_hunter]

I agree.
The consensus isn't a poll at all.
The consensus is just reporting that all of the research done by climatologists came to the same conclusion, that AGW is real and its effects will be devastating.
That's not a poll, that's just noting that all the research came to the same result.



Not at all, because the latest satellite data does show the same warming, read the first chart here which shows the latest data:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/06/troposphere-temperatures-for-may-2016.html

I just don't think that the temperatures in the clouds are that relevant to discussions about the climate down here on the surface.
Why don't you?





Nonsense, these are my words and my arguments, though they are based on research I've read from others, of course.



But the data from satellites has multiple problems. Satellites go around the planet, they sample temperatures whenever they are over the area in question, at whatever time of day that is based on their orbit. The orbits change and the data must be adjusted. The data has to be fudged to compensate for way too many issues for it to be considered totally clean.

Whereas an automated sensor floating on a buoy just reads the temperature and can sense it way more often. No adjusting necessary and on top of that, the temperature is at the same level people live at, not in the clouds.

Your arguments make no sense.

The latest research conducted by NASA confirms that climate change is trending towards global warming.

 

[Frankfooter]

Peabody, the biggest coal mining company in the US, went bankrupt due to low natural gas prices.

During bankruptcy talks the list of deniers, lobbyists and out and out liars paid by Peabody are starting to come out.
Lindzen, Soon and a host of others.

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

So does the Washington lobbyist and industry strategist Richard Berman, whose firm has launched a welter of front groups attacking the EPA rules.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...limate-change-denial-funding?CMP=share_btn_tw


Meanwhile 2016 is set to break 2015's record global warmth.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...imatecentral/djOO Climate Central - Full Feed

 

[FAST]

Footer, I see have run away and hid again.

But I'm an open minded helpful guy.

So here goes again,...but 1st a little info for ya,...CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be constantly replenished,...if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any, would there,...got it?

2nd,...I'll reword the question to help you out even more.

As you have just learned,...CO2 has to be constantly added to the atmosphere to maintain the current and past levels, and note, co2 comes from many sources.
CO2,...you know, that gas that plants need to grow, and that we eat to grow !

So once again,..."what is the percentage of CO2 that is constantly being replenished in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels?"


FAST

 

[FAST]

One way to keep employed

The latest research conducted by NASA confirms that climate change is trending towards global warming.

Too funny,...1st the Unemployables say we are going to die because of "global warming",...then when they realize they got it wrong,...it became "climate change",...now when they realize they were wrong again,...we're back to "global warming".

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Footer, I see have run away and hid again.

But I'm an open minded helpful guy.

So here goes again,...but 1st a little info for ya,...CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be constantly replenished,...if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any, would there,...got it?

2nd,...I'll reword the question to help you out even more.

As you have just learned,...CO2 has to be constantly added to the atmosphere to maintain the current and past levels, and note, comes from many sources.
CO2,...you know, that gas that plants need to grow, and that we eat to grow !

So once again,..."what is the percentage of CO2 that is constantly being replenished in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels?"


FAST

FAST, you need to a bit more research here before we can continue this conversation:
carbon cycle research

Then take a look at your question and answer this:
Why do you think CO2 from burning fossil fuels is being 'replenished'?
Are you claiming that CO2 from fossil fuels disappears and needs to be pumped back into the atmosphere to 'replenish it'?

Your question makes about as much sense as your claim that all government paid climatologists all over the world do the bidding of the UN, as you stated here previously.

Really, you are just out to lunch.

 

[FAST]

FAST, you need to a bit more research here before we can continue this conversation:
carbon cycle research

Then take a look at your question and answer this:
Why do you think CO2 from burning fossil fuels is being 'replenished'?
Are you claiming that CO2 from fossil fuels disappears and needs to be pumped back into the atmosphere to 'replenish it'?

Your question makes about as much sense as your claim that all government paid climatologists all over the world do the bidding of the UN, as you stated here previously.

Really, you are just out to lunch.

NO loser, I do not need to do any research, we all know you ALWAYS lie and avoid answering the questions you don't like the answers to.

Lie,...I did NOT claim,..."that CO2 from fossil fuels disappears and needs to be pumped back into the atmosphere to 'replenish it'?


What I did state,..."CO2 has to be constantly added to the atmosphere to maintain the current and past levels, and note, comes from many sources.
CO2,...you know, that gas that plants need to grow, and that we eat to grow !"

You are also not intelligent enough to realize you have just admitted you understand my question,...you just changed some of the content, to also prove what you are.

Keep it up footer,...its fun watching you make an ass of yourself.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

NO loser, I do not need to do any research, we all know you ALWAYS lie and avoid answering the questions you don't like the answers to.

Lie,...I did NOT claim,..."that CO2 from fossil fuels disappears and needs to be pumped back into the atmosphere to 'replenish it'?


What I did state,..."CO2 has to be constantly added to the atmosphere to maintain the current and past levels, and note, comes from many sources.
CO2,...you know, that gas that plants need to grow, and that we eat to grow !"

You are also not intelligent enough to realize you have just admitted you understand my question,...you just changed some of the content, to also prove what you are.

Keep it up footer,...its fun watching you make an ass of yourself.

FAST

You should have clicked on the link and done your basic homework, now this is going to take forever.

Ok, one more free lesson for you.
You are getting closer to asking a question whose language and basic understandings make it a question that can be answered, but you aren't there yet.

What I did state,..."CO2 has to be constantly added to the atmosphere to maintain the current and past levels, and note, comes from many sources.
CO2,...you know, that gas that plants need to grow, and that we eat to grow !"

Carbon cycle.
You are talking about the carbon cycle that you clearly don't understand yet, or you would have used the correct and simple terms to define it.

Now, take your question and rewrite it using the correct term, 'carbon cycle'.

Try again, maybe this time you'll ask the question you think you are asking.

 

[FAST]

You should have clicked on the link and done your basic homework, now this is going to take forever.

Ok, one more free lesson for you.
You are getting closer to asking a question whose language and basic understandings make it a question that can be answered, but you aren't there yet.


Carbon cycle.
You are talking about the carbon cycle that you clearly don't understand yet, or you would have used the correct and simple terms to define it.

Now, take your question and rewrite it using the correct term, 'carbon cycle'.

Try again, maybe this time you'll ask the question you think you are asking.

BULL SHIT footer,...BUUULL SHIIIT.

And once again you have found a new term to repeat over and over again when you are losing,...'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle',...just like a kid with a new toy,...too bad you don't know how to play with it though.

Up to date reports of the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2,...are readily available, even from the three tax leaches.

So don't give me this shit about,... 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle'.

If you can't find out what the current percentage of the atmosphere is CO2,...I'm more than willing to help you out,...again.

Again footer,...you are NOT fooling anybody except your self,...so drop this stupid dance footer,...its getting you a big fat 0

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

BULL SHIT footer,...BUUULL SHIIIT.

And once again you have found a new term to repeat over and over again when you are losing,...'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle',...just like a kid with a new toy,...too bad you don't know how to play with it though.

Up to date reports of the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2,...are readily available, even from the three tax leaches.

So don't give me this shit about,... 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle 'carbon cycle' 'carbon cycle'.

If you can't find out what the current percentage of the atmosphere is CO2,...I'm more than willing to help you out,...again.

Again footer,...you are NOT fooling anybody except your self,...so drop this stupid dance footer,...its getting you a big fat 0

FAST

Ah, and you were getting so close to asking a question that both made logical sense and used clear English.
Then you went and made it look like you were asking a totally different question:

Up to date reports of the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2,...are readily available, even from the three tax leaches.

Is this sentence a victim of your poor English skills or is the question you're trying to ask so unclear in your mind that you can't clearly state what the question really is?

It must be really hard for you in life, if this really is the best you can do for writing.