Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Close minded warmist bigots
#1
I responded to a Facebook post with a simple comment that led to a conversation with two others so ridiculous that I had to share it with you.

The post:

Shutdown redux? When will the GOP learn?

There are again rumors of a possible shutdown on Capitol Hill, this time over Pres. Obama's climate policy.

LINK

My comment that somehow gets under their skin despite that there is obviously no dire climate catastrophe coming at all.

The comment I posted:

Quote:When will the democrats realize there is no upcoming climate trouble?

The following replies at Facebook in quotes with my annotated Forum responses in Red:

Bill,

Quote:Do you believe the Republicans should shutdown the government over Obama's climate policy?

Sunsettommy,

Quote:No

Amanda,

Quote: How do you not see that the world is changing and it's not natural!? Open your eyes and your MIND!!!!

I see the obvious that the climate is in a state of change and has been for at least a Billion years,and that the temperature changes observed by the data we have going back to the 1850's shows no unusual warming trend at all.From this FORUM is a post i made over 2 years ago showing ALL of the observed warming trends as falling within a very narrow range.This is well known by the warmist scientist camp since it was noted warmist Dr. Jones who pointed this out himself:

From the BBC interview with Roger Harrabin,

Quote:A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here is the chart using DR. Jones temperature data:

[Image: Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg]


Sunsettommy,

Quote: I have been on this since 1988,and read many reports from the IPCC to the Senate Sub Committee.Also discussed and debated many warmists and learned that 99% of them are profoundly ignorant of the actual dispute between warmists and skeptics.


Amanda,

Quote:You don't have to listen to others speak on it though. Look outside. Science is prevalent. Ice is melting at alarming rates? But why? Because we aren't drilling enough in our oceans?!?

This is pointless unsupported babbling.

Sunsettommy,

Quote:It has been cooling slightly for at least 10 years now based on ALL temperature data centers. Longest time period of no category 3+ hurricanes making landfall on America (9 years),record low Tornadoes numbers of the last two years,and decline in total number of tornadoes over the last 50 years.

Quote: Come on Amanda! Antarctica is at record levels and Arctic is slowly recovering as the multi-year ice pack has been growing in size and area for the last 5 years.

Quote:I am in favor of slowly transiting from Coal to Nuclear energy production (Thorium) and Aneutronic Fusion energy production.

Amanda,

Quote: I don't know what media sources you're getting this from... Record levels? Record levels of MELTING ICE. How is it growing? Why though even IF IT is growing why wouldn't you want to help protect it? It doesn't mean sacrificing any lives, just being smarter about the way we produce energy. Thinking about our future relatives. If that's all we can do, why wouldn't you want to play some part in keeping them safe? Why fight it???

It is not hard to find if you go beyond the laughable media,which has a propensity to post sensationalist crap to get attention,here is the Temperature data showing the obvious Cooling trend by the data set the IPCC uses in all of their reports:

[Image: trend]

LINK

Antarctica Sea Ice level


[Image: seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png]

LINK

The slow recovering MULTI-YEAR Arctic ice pack:

[Image: screenhunter_227-sep-23-15-48.jpg?w=640]

LINK

A simple report with supporting links HERE about the reduction of the Arctic ice pack from the late 1980's to mid 1990's.

The Ice pack about the same size last FALL as it was in 1971:

Arctic Ice Almost As Extensive As It Was 42 Years Ago

Sunsettommy,

Quote:Here is the information on the ice pack in the Arctic based on OFFICIAL data: The Dirty Little Secret About Arctic Ice http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/.../t...little.../

The Dirty Little Secret About Arctic Ice
stevengoddard.wordpress.com
The vast majority of multi-year ice is lost during the winter, not the summer. Winter winds blow the thick ice out into the North Atlantic where it melts when it contacts warmer water. Between 1988...

Amanda,

Quote:How is that a reputable source though? . But back to my point. Why wouldn't you want to protect something that could potentially (if you don't agree.. One day!) hurt your children or their children. Why wouldn't you want to do something about it NOW. Rather than later when it's too late?

The link Steve Goddard used is from the University of Colorado:

[Image: 1988-1996_oldice21.gif?w=640]

The rest you say is more emotional pointless babbling.

Sunsettommy,

Quote: He he,it appears I will have to make a post showing the actual data that make clear you are being mislead since we all know the arctic ice cap shrinks to a summer low every year.

Quote:Inside the Goddard link is the links supporting the charts and they are from the NSIDC for all the charts.Do something new that your dad never does is go look at the link I post and you will learn what I learned years ago.

Amanda,

Quote:I'm not mislead. Honestly you are the only person I know in real life who doesn't acknowledge climate change. It's unfortunate, you're so smart.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Never have I argued against the phrase Climate Change since anyone beyond the level of conscious thought knows it is ALWAYS in a state of change.It is the warmists who use this phrase as if is something new,when all it is a STRAWMAN statement.

Skeptics KNOWS Climate Change is real and ongoing all the time.

Skeptics are not convinced of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis claims as being validated and credible,when it is not even correct once in all those IPCC published predictions/projections dating back to 1990 over the many climate temperature models published.

Heck they even projected a temperature rise of about .20C in the first decade when it is about ZERO instead and another .20C increase for this decade and we have a cooling trend instead.


Sunsettommy,

Quote:Antarctica ice sea ice and landmass is at record high and has been for years now,That is why you hardly hear about the Southern cap at all since it does not fit the warmist narrative.

Quote: Amanda you are doing what so many does,ignore the official data.I just gave you access and you ignore it.

Quote:Here it is: antarctic sea ice record high https://www.google.com/#q=antarctic+sea+ice+record+high

Google
http://www.google.com
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.

Amanda,

Quote: How is that official? Because some guy in his basement posted it online? I'm apart of a generation that can cypher through bullshit when I see it. That was not a legitimate source. I believe you are the one ignoring the official data that has been out there for the world to see for decades now...

No madam,it is from GOOGLE page,where I made it convenient for YOU to chose one of the links on the page that points out the well proven evidence that there is more ice than ever on and around Antarctica since we started covering it from the 1970's.

or maybe you are referring to Steve Goddards blog site where he did post the link back to the NSIDC website?

In either case you show no indication that you want an honest discussion about it since you are full of bias and bigotry on it.I have been reasonable with you trying to show the evidence supporting my position and you show your true colors as being a snobby responder.


Quote:Decipher *

Quote:The google "sources" that you provide do not meet my standards of legitimacy.

What you mean is that you are being laughably ignorant and bigoted,not bothering to see that ALL of those links on the google page refers to He he he......... NASA!

Your source bigotry is making you look foolish.

Sunsettommy,

Quote:Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Here is the link to one that shows ALL of the reporting websites that tracks the polar ice: Sea Ice Page http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pag...-ice-page/

Sea Ice Page
wattsupwiththat.com
Global Sea Ice Reference Page: Arctic and Antarctic current graphs and imagery (page last updated 6-10-14) Given the intense interest in Arctic Sea Ice extent this year, I've decided to put all the...

Quote:Google page was showing MANY news sources reporting the record sea ice level around Antarctica. Please stop embarrassing yourself and read at least one of the links.

Amanda,

Quote:All you do is post links to random web pages. Can you not think for yourself? It's also pretty insulting when you tell me I'm the one embarrassing myself, when obviously you haven't a clue. You are my uncle so I won't go further into debate with you/

Quote:And I have looked at every web page you have me. None sponsored by any museum, national collegiate, or really any one with a well known name. So unless your authors are just super unknown for the sake of the cause, or your belief maybe isn't supported by the majority of the world... Hmm I'm not sure....

Then I will say you wear bad glasses because NSIDC,University of Colarado,NASA are linked sources you miraculously missed in your exhaustive read of my posted sources.


That is why the Public having been bombarded with apocalyptic bullshit for 25 years have begun to realize that it is way overblown and moving away from it being tired of the continual doomsday scaremongering.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Here is more temperature data showing undeniable flat to cooling trend by data source:

GISS 12 years and 10 months:

[Image: trend]

LINK

HADCRUT4 12 years 7 months:

[Image: trend]

LINK

UAH 9 years and 10 months:

[Image: trend]

LINK

RSS 15 years and 10 months:

[Image: trend]

LINK

The point of this post is to show that the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports Projected a .20C increase for the first decade,but we see here that it is not warming in the time frame as shown on the charts.

The same IPCC reports making these failed projections,were based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW)

The METoffice talked about this problem HERE where they themselves say it was supposed to be around the .20C increase.

Quote:The answer goes back to the 2001 and 2007 science reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had predicted the world was likely to warm by an average of about 0.2C a decade.

They even wondered why it is not warming enough:

Quote:Overall, then, the world has got slightly warmer since 1997. Perhaps the real question is: why has it warmed so much less than was predicted by the climate models?

For most climate scientists the answer is simple. “Fifteen years is just too short a period over which to measure climate change,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office. “The world undergoes natural temperature changes on all kinds of time scales from daily variations to seasonal ones. It also varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade.”

Whitehouse accepts this point. “The records do show that global temperatures have risen by about 0.4C over the past three decades, most of it in the 1990s,” he said.

“I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that might warm the world but the key issue is how strong the effect is and how the data compare with the models used to predict the future.”

This is an interesting admission, turning what had appeared to be an attack on the keystones of climate science — that greenhouse gases cause global warming — into a “shades of grey” debate over whether global warming will happen slowly and steadily or in jerks, accelerating in some decades but then slowing or even reversing a little in others.

For the critics of climate science this is a crucial point — but why? The answer goes back to the 2001 and 2007 science reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had predicted the world was likely to warm by an average of about 0.2C a decade. The implication was that temperatures would rise steadily, not with 15-year gaps. The existence of such gaps, the critics argue, implies the climate models themselves are too flawed to be relied on.

The warming trend they talked about in the link is the same as the TWO previous ones back to the mid 1800's:

Quote:The simple answer is: they have risen, but not by very much. “Our records for the past 15 years suggest the world has warmed by about 0.051C over that period,” said the Met Office. In layman’s terms that is 51 thousandths of a degree.

These figures come from the Met Office HadCruT3 database, which takes readings from 3,000 land stations around the world, along with oceanic readings from a similar number of ships and buoys.

However, HadCruT3 is just one of several global temperature databases, each overseen by different scientists and calculated in slightly different ways. This allows each group to cross-check results, confirming findings or spotting errors.

One, held at the National Climate Data Centre (NCDC), run by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that global temperatures rose by an average of 0.074C since 1997. That’s small, too — but it is another rise.

A third and very different data set is overseen by John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He gathers figures from three satellites that orbit the Earth 14 times a day. They measure the average temperature of the air from ground level to a height of 35,000ft, a method completely different from those of the Met Office and NCDC. Oddly, given his reputation as a climate sceptic, he found the biggest rise of all.

“From 1997-2011 our data show a global temperature rise of 0.15C,” he said. “What’s more, our satellites have been taking this data since 1979, and over that period [the] global temperature has risen 0.46C, so the world has been getting warmer.”

LINK

My old FORUM post pointed this out TWO years ago:

EXCERPT:

Quote:To sum it up:

1860-1880 .163C per decade
1910-1940 .15C
1975-1998 .166C
1975-2009 .161C
1979-2012 .165C

The warming periods since 1860 have been more significant than the cooling periods thus explains the over all slow warming trend for the 150 years.

When will you warmists understand that there is NO visible AGW signal in it?

The AGW hypothesis has never been validated and never made any sense either since there are only various levels of NEGATIVE feedbacks known to exist in nature
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
From the first post of this thread is my comment that Amanda never answered because she doesn't know the answer at all:

Sunsettommy,

Quote:I have been on this since 1988,and read many reports from the IPCC to the Senate Sub Committee.Also discussed and debated many warmists and learned that 99% of them are profoundly ignorant of the actual dispute between warmists and skeptics.

Her reply,

Quote:You don't have to listen to others speak on it though. Look outside. Science is prevalent. Ice is melting at alarming rates? But why? Because we aren't drilling enough in our oceans?!?

He he,she doesn't know.

The main dispute between Skeptics and Warmists that matters is over the POSITIVE Feedback loop.

Warmists say it will or does exist and the skeptics say there is no evidence of it and never happened in the last billion years.

Here at this POST I made 5 years ago in this forum is over one of the cornerstone predictions made by the IPCC that skeptics call the "Hot Spot",that has utterly failed to show up:

What is the Troposphere "Hotspot"?

EXCERPT:

Quote:The IPCC 2007 report in this SECTION,shows a charted set of modeling runs that purports to examine the level of warm forcing in the Tropical Troposphere.

It was taken from Santer et al. 2003.Where they show based on their AGW hypothesis beliefs.That it is Well mixed greenhouse gases that would cause the "Tropospheric Hotspot".

True the IPCC did not use the phrase Tropospheric HOTSPOT.But they sure imply it strongly and based on their Greenhouse forcing hypothesis.

=============================================================================================

Then Dr. Spenser published a paper in a peer reviewed science publication showing that 73 temperature models as shown in the IPCC report have failed in their projections as they are always too high often WAAAAAY too high:

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

LINK

Still no "hot Spot" by computer generated temperature models can be validated in the real world.

:lol:
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Sadly, a quite typical discussion....

I think the point you raise about negative feedbacks is very important, and probably the one most people will understand, whether they want to or not..... The orange and orange bowl example is so easy, just about everyone is able to grasp it. Bowl right way up = negative feedback, bowl upside down = positive feedback. Then it is just a case of showing the water cycle (clouds are a parasol by day and a blanket by night) and the oceans (because of their massive heat capacity, ie slow to warm, and slow to cool) are a negative feedback. Sit back, watch the person realise their belief system is just that, belief in AGW and GH "theory". Which is the opposite of what we all observe every day.

I recently had a conversation with a chap in a pub, it followed much of the above paragraph, and included a few other obvious examples. For example, humid places (ie, rain forests) always have a smaller diurnal temperature range than arid places (ie, deserts) which are on the same latitude (same strength of solar input). Therefore, water vapour must be a negative feedback, and THE dominant one too. This of itself disproves GH "theory", and therefore also AGW. The chap grasped it all, I could see it in his face, then he realised the size of what I was saying and explaining. He slammed his mind shut, stopped talking and left......

btw - I can not help thinking back to Lord Monckton's the fingerprint of AGW is missing article / paper. The main plots of which show there is no positive feedback by water vapour. IN POINT OF FACT, his plots SHOW water vapour is a negative feedback over the 30 to 40 year time period of the plotted data, whilst the earth was warming. How can he not of seen this???????????????? His plots clearly show a cool spot where there should be, according to GH "theory" and AGW, a warm spot......................... I have asked him about this several times now, he refuses to answer. However, he, Arthur Rorsch, William Kininmoth and several others are presently working on trying to redefine what a feedback is (along electrical lines) within earth's climate system, so that a positive feedback can change direction, yet still remain a positive feedback and NOT a negative feedback..................... Utter, utter blinkered belief, bordering on madness.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#5
(06-22-2014, 09:32 PM)Derek Wrote: Sadly, a quite typical discussion....
.... Utter, utter blinkered belief, bordering on madness.
It would take me a while to find it and get a screencapture of it, but I saved a url to a long-ago AGW off-topic thread at a 4x4 vehicle forum, where a guy claimed CO2 could rise to the level where it becomes toxic, 22%, I believe he said it was. I merely asked what possible atmospheric mechanism could possibly prompt that under our current emissions situation, and the guy called me closed-minded before stomping out of the discussion in a virtual door-slamming huff.

I'm a continual optimist, because nobody knows what the total effect of such discussions is with these people. Potentially, others around them see the psychological projection going on, they wonder why such folk can't engage in the arena of ideas in a genuine fashion, then they start looking into why the mainstream media refuses to do so, and they ultimately start looking into the matter deeply for themselves. That's what I call the cancer that will eventually eat the AGW movement from the inside out, folks realizing that the issue is built on faith alone about its certain science and its 'industry-corrupted' skeptics rather then on supportable scientific facts or supportable character assassination tactics.

I may not know beans about the science and could never contribute to that part of the issue, but I have it pretty well nailed down where most all of the wipeouts are within the accusation that skeptics are lying crooks.
My blog site: GelbspanFiles.com, focusing entirely on the smear of skeptics. New blog posts announced via my corresponding @GelbspanFiles twitter account.
Reply
#6
My views got thrashed in a conversation for claiming Global warming to be real.
People claim Global Warming to be a hoax.
Scientists arguing about it being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
I chanced upon few global warming essays and research papers and it's no hoax. There's a rise in sea level, ocean temperatures, Earth's average temperature, Ocean Acidification and shrinking glaciers that cannot be denied.
Reply
#7
(08-18-2016, 12:41 AM)EricRomm Wrote: My views got thrashed in a conversation for claiming Global warming to be real.
People claim Global Warming to be a hoax.
Scientists arguing about it being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
I chanced upon few global warming essays and research papers and it's no hoax. There's a rise in sea level, ocean temperatures, Earth's average temperature, Ocean Acidification and shrinking glaciers that cannot be denied.

I agree that there has been warming since at least the mid 1800's,but not an unusual warming rate has ever showed up as pointed out in this thread.

Some people say it is a hoax,when they really mean CO2 is NOT the driver of warming,it is sloppy way to say which caused problems in debates. Others really seems to say there is no warming,but fail to include a time frame and others just say no warming at all.

CO2 is a feeble IR absorber,meaning it really can't drive the climate at all. It has a long stated logarithmic warm forcing rate that adds very little more warming to the atmosphere, which is short lived anyway (something most people never think of). Here is a simple example of a logarithmic curve showing that at the 400 level there are very little forcing left to gain from additional CO2 in the air.

[Image: log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif]
==============================================================================

Here is an EXCERPT from an Atmospheric Physicist,you should ponder over:

Quote:Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source.  This is part of the so-called "greenhouse effect"

[Image: CO2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.jpg]

Quote:As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively.  The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2.  In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality.  If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

LINK

==============================================================================

Sea level has been rising for around 15,000 + years now as shown here,which means that it is not unexpected and that it has risen several HUNDRED feet already:

[Image: Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png]

More later.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#8
Hmm. I see those are some interesting numbers to ponder over.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)