A long series on climate change

[Tranquil Suit]

Thanks, Cullion.



@Rabbit: Yeah, his answer was better.

[goodlun]

Thanks, Cullion.



@Rabbit: Yeah, his answer was better.

Cullion's answer was unsupported.

The over whelming scientific consensuses based on statistical data as well as experimentation shows global warming to be real. His 16 years of failed predictions statement isn't exactly an accurate either. As well as his statements about cooling.

If you look at the graph I posted you can see yes there is cooling but even at the cooling lows you can still see that they are higher than say 40 years ago highs. This is the trending I am talking about. He has yet to produce any data that supports his claims.

[W. Rabbit]

@Rabbit: Yeah, his answer was better.

Lies often do sound better.

He won't stop doing it (lying), so I stopped taking this thread seriously long ago.

Worst part is him informing me it's my job to point out his inconsistencies.

That's your job, mod. I just post here.

[Cullion]

Cullion's answer was unsupported.

The over whelming scientific consensuses based on statistical data as well as experimentation shows global warming to be real. His 16 years of failed predictions statement isn't exactly an accurate either.

Yes it is. One of the proponents of AGW theory put it best:-

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't

If you look at the graph I posted you can see yes there is cooling but even at the cooling lows you can still see that they are higher than say 40 years ago highs. This is the trending I am talking about. He has yet to produce any data that supports his claims.

I've already supported my claims about the last 16 years. There has been no warming in that time. The short periods of time you cite are insufficient to establish a causal link between human CO2 emissions and global average temperature, and as has already been explained to you many times, science is not a democracy. The scientific method isn't based on taking a headcount, it's based on making testable predictions and then testing them.

What other claims would you like me to point you at evidence for? I'm quite ready to do so.

@Rabbit: You have the following questions to answer:-

Please cite the papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you were at least a co-author to support your claim to be a scientist.

Please PM a mod or I your real name so that we can contact Richard Muller to check whether or not you really know him as claimed.

Please clarify whether or not you support this hypothesis:-

'As CO2 increases, so will global average temperature'.

And finally, as you keep accusing me of lying, could you state specifically what it is you think I've lied about, and provide evidence ?

[W. Rabbit]

Yes it is. One of the proponents of AGW theory put it best:-

Nope, you're wrong. Read why.

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevi...of-warming.htm

Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.

I've already supported my claims about the last 16 years.

No, you haven't. You haven't cited any reputable sources either and I'm up to like twelve. More, if you start from the beginning of the thread. It's not that hard to find them.

You keep citing "Climategate", something JohnnyCache called a "nontroversy", and exonerated by eight independent inquiries, then lied claiming some "didn't read the emails". And the balls to tell me I'm the gish galloper L O L

@Rabbit: You have the following questions to answer:-

Please cite the papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you were at least a co-author to support your claim to be a scientist.

Red herring. That's a nice little definition of scientist you've got going on there.

Please PM a mod or I your real name so that we can contact Richard Muller to check whether or not you really know him as claimed.

Show me where I claimed that, dumbass.

Please clarify whether or not you support this hypothesis:-
'As CO2 increases, so will global average temperature'.

Like I said, you're a major dumbass if you have to ASK me over and over what I think.

I changed my mind, keep trolling and I'll keep rolling.

[Tranquil Suit]

That's your job, mod. I just post here.

Bwaaahahahaha. Apparently you're still new here. Yes, even if this was my district.

[W. Rabbit]

Bwaaahahahaha. Apparently you're still new here. Yes, even if this was my district.

More LIES.

It's the color scheme, I am having weird flashbacks.

Getting trolled on a climate change thread, yeah...this is like arguing with my father-in-law.

Honestly nothing more to say about this subject, and yes I should have taken JohnnyCache's lead and left Cullion to his conspiracy blogs and crazy dismissal of mainstream science.

As far as verifying whatever credentials I've ever claimed (and where are everyone elses scientific creds in this thread, hmm?), I've done that enough for mods and non-mods alike and getting quite tired of it, considering how the other side always tends to remain a net ghost.

[Cullion]

Nope, you're wrong. Read why.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevi...of-warming.htm

Skeptical science is hack advocacy. Almost all of your sources are pop science magazines and newspapers.

I can source my assertion that it hasn't been warming for 16 years with peer reviewed academic research. For example, from the University of Alabama at Hunstville.





Your attempt to whitewish Trenberth's private admission is feeble.

You keep citing "Climategate", something JohnnyCache called a "nontroversy", and exonerated by eight independent inquiries, then lied claiming some "didn't read the emails". And the balls to tell me I'm the gish galloper L O L

You're using JohnnyCache as a scientific source? Wow.

Red herring. That's a nice little definition of scientist you've got going on there.

Ah, do you now concede that you've never had research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Why did you give the answer 'forensics' when I questioned you on it before ?

What's your definition of a scientist ?

Show me where I claimed that, dumbass.

Right in this thread.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/arch...07128-p-6.html

I actually knew Muller from before his AWG work because of my astrophysics hobbies.

When did you know him? How did you meet ?

Like I said, you're a dumbass if you have to ASK me over and over what I think.

Because you appeared to imply before that you didn't think increasing temperatures were actually necessary to validate the AGW hypothesis. And now you won't answer this perfectly simple question.

[W. Rabbit]

Skeptical science is hack advocacy. Almost all of your sources are pop science magazines and newspapers.

NOAA, NSF, NASA, IPCC, Nature, and Scientific American are "pop science"? Your ignorance must be a British thing...

What's your definition of a scientist ?

The one in the dictionary, dumbass.

I would share my works with you (I've done it for others when on-topic), but you're really not a peer of mine, so no. **** off and die.

Right in this thread

More reading comprehension fail on your part.

When did you know him? How did you meet ?

Dig more, dumbass.

Because you appeared to imply before that you didn't think increasing temperatures were actually necessary to validate the AGW hypothesis. And now you won't answer this perfectly simple question.

Not my fault you can't read, now you're backpeddling to what you think I "implied".

Now I understand why your grasp of AGW is so poor and you remain in the absolute fringe of the issue.

[goodlun]

Yes it is. One of the proponents of AGW theory put it best:-

We can account for the lack of "warming" right now. Natural variance from year to year in temperatures based on factors other than CO2.

I've already supported my claims about the last 16 years. There has been no warming in that time.

Lets look at the chart, yep looks like the newer years trend higher over these last 16 years.

As you see here

over the short term you will have variance from year to year. But you will also notice that variance is only about .2 C

When we look at this

We can see a lot of variance in short term period but an over all trend that is going up.
Yes when you compare the Peak of heat from over the last 16 years to the Coldest years of recent years you only have about .1C difference. This is disingenuous though.

When you compare high in cycle to the high in a cycle you clearly see the warming.

We can clearly see the cycles of warming and cooling. When you compare the lows and highs in the cycles you can see the upward trend in warming including the past 16 years.

The short periods of time you cite are insufficient to establish a causal link between human CO2 emissions and global average temperature,

The one chart has 110 years of data while this is a drop in the bucket on the global time scale. We can clearly see the corollary link. We can in the lab see a causal link between CO2 and Temperature. We see this same corollary link in ice core data as well.

So we know from empirical evidence that more CO2 in an atmosphere its going to warmer with all other factors being equal. As evidenced in the videos I showed earlier. When you combine this understanding with corollary data you start to get a very strong case.

and as has already been explained to you many times, science is not a democracy. The scientific method isn't based on taking a headcount, it's based on making testable predictions and then testing them.

Your right its not about a head count. But when you have 1000s of scientific papers have done experiments and have interpreted data and virtually ALL have come to the same conclusion you know what maybe they are right. You keep thinking their predictions haven't been 100% accurate that some how this makes them moot, this isn't how science works, it is a constant process.