Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31

    https://xkcd.com/1732/
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

    Comment


    • #32
      MrCombust,

      You're welcome to have your opinion on this topic, but please do not spam the forum with multiple threads about the same issue. Please only start a new thread when you have a new topic, not just supporting documentation for the same hypothesis/opinion.

      Thank you.
      Ow

      Comment


      • #33
        Medwards posting a fake graph, created by a comedian, showing 3 degrees of warming that hasn't happened..
        Perfect example of fake climate science.

        Check the graph, 3 extra degrees courtesy of the author. Check the link, author is a comedian.
        "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

        Comment


        • #34
          The author is a comedian, but the graph is still mostly true.
          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

          Comment


          • #35
            Can the guy not read graphs? It pretty clearly shows that warming to 2016 is just under 1C.

            Comment


            • #36
              Just to be clear to the forum kooks posting fake science. I'm not here to engage you. I'm here to post the truth. I'm not going to argue with nonsense you post unless it suits me. Post all the fake "science" you want in response to my posts. The graph above is mostly false. I'll be dealing with the fraudulent "hockey stick graph" (of which this is a version thereof), in due time. If you want me to discuss your posts I will do so at your request. But if you post crap from a comedian, with no supporting references, I'm not interested.
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • #37
                Question: does pollution (natural or human induced) harm or alter the environmental, ecological, climactic composition on the Earth?
                Live and love... your neighbourhood.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                  Just to be clear to the forum kooks posting fake science.
                  Hilarious, given that you're the kook posting the fake science & making unsubstantiated claims that aren't backed by anything other than your own wild imaginings.

                  (I was gonna respond to more, but what else needs to be said?)
                  Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    MrCompost

                    Love your 'Holier-than-Thou' sanctimonious, holder of all truth statement.

                    With your attitude on a discussion forum, I'm not here to engage you either.




                    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by MrCompost
                      I'll be dealing with the fraudulent "hockey stick graph" (of which this is a version thereof), in due time.


                      This should be amusing! I look forward to you debunking several dozen different temperature proxy records (the original "hockey stick controversy" was over a single temperature record), including the Berkeley Earth record which was actually created to do just that, but ended up more or less agreeing with all the previous reconstructions:
                      http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

                      Originally posted by MrCompost
                      I'm not going to argue with nonsense you post unless it suits me.


                      Oh, we fully realize, don't worry.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A cursory glance at Berkely Earth is leaving me with cause for concern. Their own "skeptics guide" pamphlet contradicts itself several times. I don't give much quarter to deceptive practices. Maybe you should review your source.

                        http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/...ate-change.pdf

                        "Hasn’t climate changed before in the past?
                        Yes, natural variability exists, and the Earth’s temperature has changed in the past. However, for the past century we know that CO2 is coming from human burning of fossil fuels. While climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today, we nevertheless can tell from the unique carbon fingerprint that today’s warming is human caused."

                        What's the "unique carbon fingerprint" if "climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today"?

                        Isn't that a head scratcher?

                        And.............
                        "While informed critics of global warming agree that more CO2 leads to a warmer planet, there is wide disagreement about how much warming will occur in the future, and if it may have some positive aspects.

                        immediately followed by................

                        "The science is clear: global warming is real, and caused by human greenhouse gas emissions"

                        You're going to present top drawer "science" from these guys? Oh yes, there WILL be amusement. In fact, I'm quite amused already.
                        "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                          "Hasn’t climate changed before in the past?
                          Yes, natural variability exists, and the Earth’s temperature has changed in the past. However, for the past century we know that CO2 is coming from human burning of fossil fuels. While climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today, we nevertheless can tell from the unique carbon fingerprint that today’s warming is human caused."
                          The Answer was right below, it's hardly baffling. To paraphrase:

                          Yes, the temperature can fluctate drastically without human intervention (i.e. when Yellowstone's super volcano erupts and ash fills the air blocking the sunlight. The temperature will drop drastically). But the whole thing is temporary. Once the dust/ash settles down, it will return to normal.

                          These temperature changes we are experiencing can't be explained by anything but humans.

                          Speaking of global warming, what happened to winter this year?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            MrCompost, first of all, you should be aware of what Berkeley Earth is, who started it, and why. Since you seem to have no idea. The long and short of it is that Richard Muller was himself a climate change skeptic, and didn't trust the numerous other temperature records out there, and felt there were numerous problems with them. So he assembled a team and funding, and set out to create an independent temperature record unsullied by all these problems. Turns out his previous skepticism was unfounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richar...Berkeley_Earth

                            Originally posted by Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Muller
                            When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
                            Originally posted by MrCombust
                            What's the "unique carbon fingerprint" if "climate has changed in the past, possibly even as quickly and dramatically as it is changing today"?

                            Isn't that a head scratcher?
                            If you're willfully scientifically ignorant, then yes. If you aren't, then you would look in to it and discover that through radio-isotopic analysis of carbon it can be determined that the increased concentration in our atmosphere is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/

                            Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
                            CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
                            We know, for an absolute fact, that most of the carbon entering the atmosphere is human caused. This is not up for dispute in any scientific circles. None. Nada. Zilch. It is a fact.

                            Originally posted by MrCompost
                            You're going to present top drawer "science" from these guys? Oh yes, there WILL be amusement. In fact, I'm quite amused already.


                            Are you laughing at yourself?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In any case, what you don't seem to get, MrCompost, is that there are literally dozens of different temperature records at this point, many of them independent. At the time of the hockey stick "controversy", that was just about the only game in town (some minor, legitimate issues were raised and corrected and didn't change it to any significant degree). But that was something like 20+ years ago. Time has moved on and other researchers have done their own reconstructions, and they all point to the same thing: a hockey stick shaped graph. So even if you somehow falsify one, which you haven't even come close to doing (you'll need a PhD for that), you've got to falsify the rest. If you're truly interested in educating yourself, which we both know you aren't, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                                In any case, what you don't seem to get, MrCompost, is that there are literally dozens of different temperature records at this point, many of them independent. At the time of the hockey stick "controversy", that was just about the only game in town (some minor, legitimate issues were raised and corrected and didn't change it to any significant degree). But that was something like 20+ years ago. Time has moved on and other researchers have done their own reconstructions, and they all point to the same thing: a hockey stick shaped graph. So even if you somehow falsify one, which you haven't even come close to doing (you'll need a PhD for that), you've got to falsify the rest. If you're truly interested in educating yourself, which we both know you aren't, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)
                                funny isn't it... he doesn't want to accept numbers generated from the time when we have a greater ability to measure things in more ways than ever before possible but he's quite happy representing "data points" from 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 years ago as accurate.
                                "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X