The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say

[Frankfooter]

I got a much better idea, Frankie. I'll let you tell me why global warming is mostly overhyped bullshit, and if you can't I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair? :nod:

You failed.

You still think that chart is legit.'
Obviously you're just not smart enough for this conversation, Phil.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You failed.

You still think that chart is legit.'
Obviously you're just not smart enough for this conversation, Phil

Yeah, nice try Frankie. Here's a list of all the recorded warming/cooling cycles in earth's history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Lets just take 1 warming period so Frankie can keep up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

Roman Warm Period

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate then was basically the same as it was around AD 2000. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC that resembles the modern pattern of variation.[2]

Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.[3]

Cooling at the end of the period in southwestern Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns

So please tell us Frankie, how could earth suddenly have warmed up?? Scientists speculate it was from a reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth.
But they dont know this for sure.

So here you have just one example of earth warming up, and it couldnt have happened from CO2 output because they obviously werent burning fossil fuels back then

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What about this one Frankie, are you gonna deny this warming period happened also??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Medieval Warm Period

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 that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China and other areas, lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250. Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Averaged 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

Hey look, the Sun getting hotter. Kinda what I've been saying all along

 

[Moviefan-2]

This was from an interview, not a report.

Did you even read your own quote from the Guardian?

Here, let me help you (with emphasis added by me): "The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

The original source of the baseless fairy-tale prediction was the magazine interview, but the prediction was in the 2007 report.

In fact, the 2007 IPCC report said the following:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

Since you say your answer is "no," you didn't believe it, that means even you don't necessarily believe the IPCC's predictions.

So why criticize others who are skeptical?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Oh here, whats this?? Solar activity increased over the 20th century.
Gee, could that be why earth got a littlebit hotter as well over that period??

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms

The energy output from the Sun has increased significantly during the 20th century, according to a new study.

Many studies have attempted to determine whether there is an upward trend in the average magnitude of sunspots and solar flares over time, but few firm conclusions have been reached.

Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century.

Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

Prior research relied on measurements of certain radioactive elements within tree rings and in the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica, which can be altered by terrestrial processes, not just by solar activity. The isotope measured in the new study is not affected by conditions on Earth.

The results, detailed in this week's issue of the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters, "confirm that there was indeed an increase in solar activity over the last 100 years or so," Usoskin told SPACE.com.

The average global temperature at Earth's surface has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists debate whether the increase is part of a natural climate cycle or the result of greenhouse gases produced by cars and industrial processes.

The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated. Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects.

The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.

"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

So there you have it, the Sun's increase in activity plus probably a bit of greenhouse gases caused our slight warming.
But I can almost guarantee you the CO2's played a minor part

 

[Frankfooter]

Yeah, nice try Frankie. Here's a list of all the recorded warming/cooling cycles in earth's history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_climate_history

Wiki is a much better source (even with its issues), so that's better.
However, this is all to cover the fact that you still don't know what is wrong with the chart you submitted and aren't smart enough to figure it out, isn't it?

Lets just take 1 warming period so Frankie can keep up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

Similar issue with your chart, Phil.
You really aren't smart enough to understand the debate and keep posting more garbage as if this next bit will make sense.

What about this one Frankie, are you gonna deny this warming period happened also??

Still can't figure out what was wrong with your chart?
Think posting this will cover for your total failure to understand what is wrong with your posts?

Oh here, whats this?? Solar activity increased over the 20th century.

So there you have it, the Sun's increase in activity plus probably a bit of greenhouse gases caused our slight warming.
But I can almost guarantee you the CO2's played a minor part

Read the study and tell me if your conclusions are reflected in the actual paper.
Please tell me where you think it saws what you just claimed.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3972.pdf

I'm still calling bullshit, Phil.
You can't tell what the problems are with what you post so instead of trying to learn all you did was post different bullshit.
But it's still bullshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

Did you even read your own quote from the Guardian?

I read it, are you trying to cherry pick again?

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

Again, moviefan, by looking as hard as your poor little brain can google and only finding one minor error, one that came from an interview 19 years ago, all you are doing is showing how frigging amazingly solid their work is.
They are on AR6 now, with each report with hundreds of page of research and data, written by thousands of scientists from all over the world.
And you can only find one minor error?

And you have the gall to claim that this makes their work shoddy?
You just proved they are frigging amazing, dude.

You can't even write one post on this board without massive glaring errors!
The IPCC slays you.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3972.pdf

Tell you what Frankie, I'll let you tell me what's wrong with that .pdf file and if you can't, I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair?

 

[oldjones]

Please enlighten me, what exactly was so unpleasant about it?

Crop failures, drought, famine, epidemic disease, kingdoms collapsing, migrations, invasions pillaging across whole continents where we have recorded histories. Then came the downslope when all the folks who did well out of the troubles — took over empty villages, provinces, Greenland, Newfoundland and such — discovered they were dependent on a climate change that had reversed. You did see that the Little Ice Age came next didn't you?

It's your chart, surely you're aware of the history that's tied to it, and how pleasant it was to live through those times. Thing is, back then no one had technology, knowledge or insight to do anything much about it.

We do.

Clearly, lots of us prefer ignorance and argument to connecting a few dots and doing an easy bit we can. Since you're a keener, Google 'books on the medieval warm period' (15,000,000 hits), check the sale table at your local Book City, or sit there and order one online. from your local Library

 

[Frankfooter]

Tell you what Frankie, I'll let you tell me what's wrong with that .pdf file and if you can't, I'll tell you and then we can confirm that I'm smarter then you and you don't know shit about this subject.
Fair?

Not so fast, Phil.

Science deniers like you use this stupid tactic because they can't actually argue the science.
The tactic goes like this:
1) find scary looking chart/article from some denier site
2) post said chart/article
3) when confronted that their chart/article is junk they then, instead of debating return to point 1) and repeat ad nauseam.

So in order for me to progress to this third chart/article in a row from you I need you to admit the following.
The first two charts you posted were bullshit and you didn't or don't know why.

Once you admit you posted bullshit we can discuss why this next article doesn't say what you claim it says.
Fair?

 

[JohnLarue]

Larue, prove that I can't calculate a 'simple weighted average' through quotes and calculations from previous posts or admit that you are just making shit up again.
Go ahead.
Prove it.

You added all the provincial marginal tax rates, divided by the number of provinces and came up with an average tax burden which was wrong.
You incorrectly equated the proportional tax burden of millions of ontario taxpayers with 50,000 or so living in the Yukon. Wrong again
This is material covered at a grade seven, eight or nine level in high school.

I have also asked you to show how to calculate the amount of C02 produced by burning a gallon of gasoline
This is a simple task for anyone with a general high school level of scientific understanding
And it is a must have for anyone who claims to be correct & absolutely correct on a climate change theory centered around the burning of fossil fuels
But you could not do this

I have also asked you to explain the theory & limitations inherent when using half lifes to date materials
You also could not do this

I did not make any of this up

It is real clear you do not understand what you are preaching about & yet you label others who do not agree with you

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Not so fast, Phil.

Science faithers like you use this stupid tactic because they don't actually understand the science.
The tactic goes like this:
1) find scary looking chart/article from some faither site
2) post said chart/article
3) when confronted that their chart/article is junk they then, instead of debating return to point 1) and repeat ad nauseam

And thats exactly what you do! :biggrin1:

In case you didnt notice, I was just mimicking your bullshit lines

 

[Frankfooter]

You added all the provincial marginal tax rates, divided by the number of provinces and came up with an average tax burden which was wrong.

It's not wrong, just not the way you wanted it done.
Nice try.

I have also asked you to show how to calculate the amount of C02 produced by burning a gallon of gasoline
This is a simple task for anyone with a general high school level of scientific understanding
And it is a must have for anyone who claims to be correct & absolutely correct on a climate change theory centered around the burning of fossil fuels
But you could not do this

Nope.
I could easily have given you the 8.89 kg (or 19.6 pounds) answer had I wanted to, but I waste enough time replying to stupid denier posts already. I'm really not interested in answering troll high school questions.
I didn't waste my time answering, its not that I couldn't.

You lied with your claims, typical troll action.
It shows you to be the dishonest one here, larue.

Not only are you a science denier, you're also a liar.

 

[PornAddict]

It's not wrong, just not the way you wanted it done.
Nice try.




Nope.
I could easily have given you the 8.89 kg (or 19.6 pounds) answer had I wanted to, but I waste enough time replying to stupid denier posts already. I'm really not interested in answering troll high school questions.
I didn't waste my time answering, its not that I couldn't.

You lied with your claims, typical troll action.
It shows you to be the dishonest one here, larue.

Not only are you a science denier, you're also a liar.

Show me the calculations ! Not some google answer of 19.6 lbs. Which any grade 5 student can google it! Answer John Laure question by proving that not an imbecile your are!!

 

[Frankfooter]

And thats exactly what you do! :biggrin1:

In case you didnt notice, I was just mimicking your bullshit lines

Bullshit, sir.

I do the opposite.
I answered to your first chart with detailed explanations why it was wrong.
So then you ignored that and posted another chart.
I then said that chart is also bullshit and challenged you to see if you could see why.
So then you ignored that and posted another article.

I responded to each of your posts.
You are the one that squirmed away and tried to change the subject.

Everything you've posted has been bullshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

Show me the calculations ! Not some google answer of 19.6 lbs. Which any grade 5 student can google it! Answer John Laure question by proving that not an imbecile your are!!

Why?
You can't judge if the formula is correct.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Again, moviefan, by looking as hard as your poor little brain can google and only finding one minor error, one that came from an interview 19 years ago, all you are doing is showing how frigging amazingly solid their work is.

It is the height of stupidity to describe this preposterous fairy-tale prediction that made international headlines as a "minor error." In professional organizations, an error of this magnitude would have led to a number of firings -- if not the complete termination of the IPCC.

And what happened to the claim that the IPCC's reports are peer reviewed? How many supposed "scientists" endorsed this Santa-like fairy tale?

More significantly, it wasn't the only wrong prediction in the report. Far from it.

Indeed, the IPCC's fifth report in 2013 confirmed the short-term temperature predictions in the 2007 report were wrong (Page 15): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

It's amazing that Frankfooter didn't know that, as that news made headlines throughout the world in 2013. At the time, I posted a number of the articles on TERB.

And let's not forget the IPCC leaders' claims that it would be "too late" to take action if the world didn't "reverse" global carbon emissions by 2015 -- something that never happened (carbon emissions set an all-time record in 2015, crossing the 400 parts per million threshold).

To repeat what I said earlier, Frankfooter's devout belief in the infallibility of the IPCC is solely a matter of religious faith. Frankfooter clearly has no idea what is in the actual IPCC reports.

(The fact that he thought I needed to do a Google search to uncover the disastrous Himalayan prediction is astonishing in itself.)

Let's go back to my question:

Frankfooter, why do you feel it's OK for you to reject a leading prediction from an IPCC report but wrong for anyone else to do it?

Please explain this apparent contradiction.

 

[Frankfooter]

It is the height of stupidity to describe this preposterous fairy-tale prediction that made international headlines as a "minor error." In professional organizations, an error of this magnitude would have led to a number of firings -- if not the complete termination of the IPCC.

Again, the only mistake you found in all of your denier sites and googling was from an interview 18 years ago and an IPCC report that's 11 years old?
And you still think that makes them look bad?

Only 1 error over thousands of pages of reports by thousands of scientists from over 100 countries?

Frankfooter, why do you feel it's OK for you to reject a leading prediction from an IPCC report but wrong for anyone else to do it?

It was not a 'leading prediction'.

Moviefan, why do you keep supplying incredibly faulty reports, riddled with errors and full of total bullshit?
Why do you keep backing all of this denier stuff that has massive flaws in logic and data yet think the IPCC, with one error over the last 11 years, should be ignored?

Your hypocrisy is incredible.
Until you can find one denier theory/article that doesn't contain multiple stupid flaws, your arguments are total bullshit.

Your own record of predictions, with 2015's global temp, is 0%.
You are the last person to judge accurate work.

 

[toguy5252]

These threads are really pretty hilarious. All the Trumpanistas waiting for a signal from a guy who relies on his "natural instinct for science" to accept which is beyond any scientific debate. Really quite hilarious and SAD.