dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 You need to look at trends over a timescale which is relevant for the type of system being studied. Global warming needs to be looked at over at least 100 years - CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I take it you have gone through the physics of radiative transfer in the Earths atmosphere and discovered some stunning flaw in the basics that has been accepted since the days of Gilbert Plass that you are just about to publish in Nature? Oh wait no, you are just repeating what the Telegraph has told you to think. These threads always turn out the same. Reynard to moan a bout graphs in 10....9...8..... Nope. However I have had every argument that you so carefully produced that doesn't contain an original thought you arrogant bore. It's quite amusing that you and your chronies are high fiving and celebrating each other if it's so "catastrophic" and "disastrous". That's proof that you know it's a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Well the reason I'll carry on bringing this up is the fact that models, presumably with the input of wonderfully trained scientists, failed to predict this. In fact it totally flies in the face of what we were told would be happening presumably as a result of scientists using information they stuck into a computer which was meant to predict global warming/climate change etc. So until they start getting it right, you'll always be hearing voices that think it's pure bullshit. Sorry. The caveat that climate change scientists and their supporters play out is that "even if we're wrong, isn't it a better idea to be good stewards of our planet?" The challenge is simply a demand to prove conclusively that climate change is a reality and it hasn't been done yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 However I have had every argument that you so carefully produced that doesn't contain an original thought you arrogant bore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 My apologies for confusing you. You're a tedious and boring individual who hasn't an original thought of their own. Patronizing and arrogant? VikingTON. Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 The challenge is simply a demand to prove conclusively that climate change is a reality and it hasn't been done yet Yes it has. Harries 2001 showed the changes to the outgoing spectra Wang 09 (among others) showed the increased downwelling IR as expected. Add to that things like observed stratopheric cooling predicted by Manabe and Weatherald 67 and you have a very solid case. Virtually no scientist in the field disputes this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 My apologies for confusing you. However I have had every argument that you so carefully produced that doesn't contain an original thought you arrogant bore. It is your English teacher you should be apologising too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Yes it has. Harries 2001 showed the changes to the outgoing spectra Wang 09 (among others) showed the increased downwelling IR as expected. Add to that things like observed stratopheric cooling predicted by Manabe and Weatherald 67 and you have a very solid case. Virtually no scientist in the field disputes this. So what you've done is to quote sources that back your arguments and told me that "no scientist" disagrees. Interesting method of debate and confirms a view I've held for some time which is that the climate change movement won't argue their case. As for your prissy insults that sums you up. Someone disagrees; plan B - insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 So what you've done is to quote sources that back your arguments and told me that "no scientist" disagrees. Interesting method of debate What kind of devious miscreant references peer reviewed science to back up their arguments in a science debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 So what you've done is to quote sources that back your arguments and told me that "no scientist" disagrees. Interesting method of debate and confirms a view I've held for some time which is that the climate change movement won't argue their case. As for your prissy insults that sums you up. Someone disagrees; plan B - insults. Well, he's provided sources (137 citations for that first paper, so you can go and look up how other people interpreted and built on his work - more than a couple of sources then) which seems to be a pretty solid way of starting a debate. I'm asusming you'll go read those sources and come back with a deconstruction fo them, and where they are wrong, backing that up with peer reviewed papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Well, he's provided sources (137 citations for that first paper, so you can go and look up how other people interpreted and built on his work - more than a couple of sources then) which seems to be a pretty solid way of starting a debate. I'm asusming you'll go read those sources and come back with a deconstruction fo them, and where they are wrong, backing that up with peer reviewed papers? Have you done this with the arguments that refute these claims? Climate change propaganda is easy to come by. it's generally infused with 'catastrophic consequences" and timeline predictions which keep getting stretched as time goes on. I have heard all the arguments and I think they're BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Have you done this with the arguments that refute these claims? Climate change propaganda is easy to come by. The only credible argument left is "low sensitivity". This does not match with our knowledge of past changes in climate nor with recent climate change if you accept the IPCC range for sulphate cooling. The lower figures for that do not matched the well observed cooling from volcanoes. This is not my field, but when I became interested in it I did go out and buy text books to get up to speed on it and regularly read new papers including those promote by denier blogs. I may be wrong, but I have worked hard to understand the issues to my satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 The only credible argument left is "low sensitivity". This does not match with our knowledge of past changes in climate nor with recent climate change if you accept the IPCC range for sulphate cooling. The lower figures for that do not matched the well observed cooling from volcanoes. This is not my field, but when I became interested in it I did go out and buy text books to get up to speed on it and regularly read new papers including those promote by denier blogs. I may be wrong, but I have worked hard to understand the issues to my satisfaction. All of these figures. Have you understood how the data is collected? I mean where the devices are held, how the measurements are recorded? Also any caveats about timelines, such as when the records began and how data can be estimated going back in time? None of this has been explained to my satisfaction and Climate Change itself is based on controlling populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 It's quite right to criticise the models. HOWEVER. You are in no position to do so as you understand neither the basics nor the complexity of creating them. You have no appreciation of the interplay of several man made effects and you are willfully misrepresenting on every issue. In short, your opinion is worthless on this. That may not sit well with you but the truth sometimes hurts. This is a problem for science not obsessive compulsive and plain weird forum posters like you delude themselves into believing they have a valid and totally correct opinion on absolutely everything. Politicians then need to implement their recommendations or suffer the consequences of taking the gamble that 95% of science is completely wrong about this. Well I'm being asked to cough up more money to fund "green" projects based on the modelling done by these clowns who have been proven to be incorrect. So while you're quite right that I'm just an ordinary bod and couldn't possibly comprehend "science" in the same way that gigantic intellects like yourself can. I'll just look at the actual evidence against what was predicted and have to come to the conclusion that they were actually wrong. Whether they continue to be wrong will only be played out in due course, which is the friend of the warmist lobby naturally. In the meantime, here's a very useful graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 All of these figures. Have you understood how the data is collected? I mean where the devices are held, how the measurements are recorded? Also any caveats about timelines, such as when the records began and how data can be estimated going back in time? None of this has been explained to my satisfaction and Climate Change itself is based on controlling populations. You'd have to imagine that the industrialised places have some sort of records going back. The rest of the planet will be patchy to say the least. A lot of where the recording sites are situated are now in built up areas which affects readings obviously. How reliable is it to compare readings now with readings going back ? Not very. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Well I'm being asked to cough up more money to fund "green" projects based on the modelling done by these clowns who have been proven to be incorrect. So while you're quite right that I'm just an ordinary bod and couldn't possibly comprehend "science" in the same way that gigantic intellects like yourself can. I'll just look at the actual evidence against what was predicted and have to come to the conclusion that they were actually wrong. Whether they continue to be wrong will only be played out in due course, which is the friend of the warmist lobby naturally. In the meantime, here's a very useful graph. LMAFO I've just sprayed my desktop with coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Well I'm being asked to cough up more money to fund "green" projects based on the modelling done by these clowns who have been proven to be incorrect. So while you're quite right that I'm just an ordinary bod and couldn't possibly comprehend "science" in the same way that gigantic intellects like yourself can. I'll just look at the actual evidence against what was predicted and have to come to the conclusion that they were actually wrong. Whether they continue to be wrong will only be played out in due course, which is the friend of the warmist lobby naturally. In the meantime, here's a very useful graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Well I'm being asked to cough up more money to fund "green" projects based on the modelling done by these clowns who have been proven to be incorrect. So while you're quite right that I'm just an ordinary bod and couldn't possibly comprehend "science" in the same way that gigantic intellects like yourself can. I'll just look at the actual evidence against what was predicted and have to come to the conclusion that they were actually wrong. Whether they continue to be wrong will only be played out in due course, which is the friend of the warmist lobby naturally. In the meantime, here's a very useful graph. That's the problem with modernism. We now have to worship scientists, naturalists (inc Bill Oddie )and bow at their feet even when they film animal births in a Zoo and tell lies afterwards. Thing is that most of them are opinionated and won't listen to or test out counter arguments because it upsets their "hypotheses" which is goes against their "principles". Mind you when you consider how politicized the whole thing is I'm not surprised. I can't believe why people embraced Harvie so much. He's another tree hugger with an agenda of reducing the population but he's pyoor independence so he's alright eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 That's the problem with modernism. We now have to worship scientists, naturalists (inc Bill Oddie )and bow at their feet even when they film animal births in a Zoo and tell lies afterwards. Thing is that most of them are opinionated and won't listen to or test out counter arguments because it upsets their "hypotheses" which is goes against their "principles". Mind you when you consider how politicized the whole thing is I'm not surprised. I can't believe why people embraced Harvie so much. He's another tree hugger with an agenda of reducing the population but he's pyoor independence so he's alright eh? Perhaps if you would like to list all your counter-arguments. I am in need of a proper laugh rather than the little chuckle that Reynard provided with his "graph" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 All of these figures. Have you understood how the data is collected? I mean where the devices are held, how the measurements are recorded? Also any caveats about timelines, such as when the records began and how data can be estimated going back in time? Scrambling for evidence. None of this has been explained to my satisfaction and Climate Change itself is based on controlling populations. Clearly you have broke the code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.