The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Who is "they?" The IPCC didn't even exist. I think you're referring to an article in Time or Newsweek, which aren't peer reviewed science journals.



Yes, actually. There haven't been any measurements that have contradicted the measured warming trends. For any sufficient sample size the trend holds.



Well it's pretty straightforward. The global average temperatures are rising, the global CO2 content is rising, and by measuring isotopes they have proved the CO2 has come from man.

I'm not sure what else you want them to show.

Am I living in the twilight zone here? Can the Cultist really be this blind?

The hypothesis(and I use the word hypothesis because the case of MMGW is so flimbsy you can't call it a theory) of global warming says that the greatest amount of warming occurs in the polar areas. Since that is the case why did the antartic ice sheet get thicker? How can that be? This blows the whole thing out of the water. The hypothesis made a prediction and the prediction was false, 100%.

bigdavediode, your skill at science is very weak and your abilitiy to be scammed is very high.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from drjekyllus:

There is no way to pinpoint a single claim made by the Global Warming Cult. They have made countless claims that were proven to be false. Why dont you go do a little research and find what these idiots predicted in the '80s? I will give you a hint. They were all wrong.

Have these folks adopted the scientific method? The whole thing is quite simply. It goes like this. Come up with a hypothesis. Create predictions based on the hypothesis. Conduct experiments. Do the predictions of the hypothesis match those of the experiment? If yes, continue testing, you may be on to something. If no, take the paper that you wrote you hypothesis on and wipe your ass with it, because its useless garbage. So far the paper that the global warming hypothesis is written on should be used as toilet paper because its not worth shit.

In 1995, the global temperature relative to the 1951-1980 base was .43.
In 2005, it was .73.

In 1996, the global temperature relative to the 1951-1980 base was .35.
In 2006, it was .63.

Do this for any set of years you care to find. You will find that temperature anomalies relative to the base have been rising pretty much throughout.

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

There's a cult at work here, but it's not the people working with the actual evidence who are involved in it.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from trefoil:



In 1996, the global temperature relative to the 1951-1980 base was .35.
In 2006, it was .63.

Cultist, climate change does not prove man made climate change.

As stated before, the polar ice caps extended down to New York State 12,000 years ago. Those melted as the Earth got warmer. The long term trend is up and 99% of the warming happened before heavy industry so whats your point. By the way, NASA only the has the present day increase from the 1800's as .7 so I dont buy your data either. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You are a blind cult member and your analytic skills need refining.

 

[trefoil]

1) I picked those four years at random.
2) The maps directly refute your bogus claim that warming at the poles isn't more extreme than it is elsewhere.
3) I had full confidence, despite picking them at random, that I wouldn't find a year in which the temperature would be lower, and I would find that more recent years would have greater warming than years in the more distant past. How did I have such confidence? Because a while back I'd looked at carbon data and noted that CO2 concentrations were not only rising, but the rate at which they were rising was also increasing. That gave me all the confidence I needed.

In short, all of it was evidence based, it shows what you would expect based upon the evidence, and none of it contradicts what the evidence would lead you to expect.
That's quite enough for me.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from trefoil:

1) I picked those four years at random.
2) The maps directly refute your bogus claim that warming at the poles isn't more extreme than it is elsewhere.
3) I had full confidence, despite picking them at random, that I wouldn't find a year in which the temperature would be lower, and I would find that more recent years would have greater warming than years in the more distant past. How did I have such confidence? Because a while back I'd looked at carbon data and noted that CO2 concentrations were not only rising, but the rate at which they were rising was also increasing. That gave me all the confidence I needed.

In short, all of it was evidence based, it shows what you would expect based upon the evidence, and none of it contradicts what the evidence would lead you to expect.
That's quite enough for me.

I guess thats true as long as you don't include 2008. Doh.

This is straight from NASA
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere."
"


Did you ever know that CO2 is a TRAILING INDICATOR when it comes to the Earths climate.?

You lose, your facts are weak and you don't know physics.

We can consider your myth BUSTED.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from drjekyllus:

I guess thats true as long as you don't include 2008. Doh.

This is straight from NASA
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth�s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere."
"


Did you ever know that CO2 is a TRAILING INDICATOR when it comes to the Earths climate.?

You lose, your facts are weak and you don't know physics.

We can consider your myth BUSTED.

1 - Picking a single datum (2008; for the purposes of this post I'll assume it agrees with some assertion of yours, although which you don't specify) is typical of those who try to deny warming exists.
2 - Sea ice can increase or decrease due to all kinds of things. The overall record, in the maps, that polar warming has been more extreme than elsewhere, is quite clear. This argument is mere hand-waving, an attempt to distract.
3 - I have no idea what you're trying to say. As the rate at which CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere has been increasing since at least 1958, when it was first measured, the fact that it's a trailing indicator is actually an argument in favor of curtailing CO2 emissions. You do realize that, no?

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from trefoil:

1 - Picking a single datum (2008; for the purposes of this post I'll assume it agrees with some assertion of yours, although which you don't specify) is typical of those who try to deny warming exists.
2 - Sea ice can increase or decrease due to all kinds of things. The overall record, in the maps, that polar warming has been more extreme than elsewhere, is quite clear. This argument is mere hand-waving, an attempt to distract.
3 - I have no idea what you're trying to say. As the rate at which CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere has been increasing since at least 1958, when it was first measured, the fact that it's a trailing indicator is actually an argument in favor of curtailing CO2 emissions. You do realize that, no?

Okay this is last post on this because it is like trying to teach calculus to a second grader.

WARMING HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR AT LEAST 12000 YEARS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE RESPONSIBLE. THE EARTHS CLIMATE CHANGES. Its a 50/50 chance. It will be warming or cooling. Why dont the cultist understand that pointing out a climate trend PROVES NOTHING?

1. Maybe I just randomly picked 2008 because ITS THE MOST RECENT. What dont you understand about that?

2. Ice melts when it gets warm. When it stays cold, it doesn't melt. Get it?

3. If CO2 levels are a trailing indicator doesn't this tell you that CO2 levels are function of global temp not global temps are a function of CO2 levels.

 

[trefoil]

1. Big deal. You still don't say what 2008 proves. Please specify.
2. You're wrong. Do some research, come back when you've been educated.
3. Ridiculous. It proves nothing of the sort, first of all, and second of all, you've posted zero evidence that CO2 trails temperature changes. Post some actual evidence.

Actually, post some evidence of anything that you say. Talk is cheap. Do some research, come back when you have proof.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

Am I living in the twilight zone here? Can the Cultist really be this blind?

Wouldn't a "cultist" by nature be blind to opposing viewpoints?

The hypothesis(and I use the word hypothesis because the case of MMGW is so flimbsy you can't call it a theory) of global warming says that the greatest amount of warming occurs in the polar areas. Since that is the case why did the antartic ice sheet get thicker? How can that be? This blows the whole thing out of the water. The hypothesis made a prediction and the prediction was false, 100%.

bigdavediode, your skill at science is very weak and your abilitiy to be scammed is very high.

Well to paraphrase an intelligent source -- there are two problems with this argument, and the one that immediately kills it is that you can't use regional data to prove or disprove a global phenomenon.

The second is the recent GRACE experiments which indicate that antarctic ice mass has been lost.

To respond to your other point, that there's no evidence that this has been caused by man, there is actually pretty irrefutable evidence. Please ask if you would like more details.

 

[toho]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Well I don't count PhD's in dentistry. One name I googled appears to be dead.

No - really. You mean that in a petition that has been going on for over a decade and has over 30000 signatories, one of them has actually died. Imagine that. What are the odds. Surely it must be a hoax then.

Then there is your bogus dentist claim again. Are you trying to say there are 6500 dentist PhDs on the list?

You're avoiding the point, though, which is that this petition contains almost no climatologists, and nobody on this list can easily be verified.

39 names out of a bulk mail list of 31,478 "scientists" -- even according to them are climatologists. That's a ratio of 0.001 -- and you say that you have no basis for an opinion on this ridiculous survey? Come now, you're either be dishonest or trying to protect your ego.

You are the one being dishonest here. You have been caught fabricating facts. And as usual you are trying to distort and misrepresent what I have actually written. I am not avoiding anything. I have already answered this. Twice. No sane person would believe that there are 30000 climatologists on the list. As far as I know noone has claimed them to be clitmatologists. But I don't buy in to your strange notion that climatology has nothing to do with physics and that physicist signatories are somehow irrelevant.

Well if you have some way of measuring isotope levels in national debt, like they've done with CO2 pollution levels where they've proven conclusively that these are man-made, then yes, your point is valid.

I am willing to accept that national debt is man-made without proof from isotope measurements.