Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gee haven't had a chew toy in a while let alone two. !!


Perhaps our knowledgeable helicopter jockey could point out the "plateau" in this wiki image of ocean heat?

400px-Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png


One hopes he understands flying a chopper better than climatology.
 
Or we have some leaders with some cojones to get on with moving to a carbon neutral civilization regardless of whinging from the fossil fuel interests as Sweden is getting on with.
The city of 60,000 is replacing most of its oil, gas, and electric furnaces for district heat with "cogeneration" plants, which burn sawdust and timber waste from the surrounding wooded region.


In my home (Canada) I burn deadfall timber and wood scraps for 40 years in order to heat my home. I use a state of the art wood burning stove which burns all the volatiles (smoke) and is 80% efficient .

So why are the global warmists still trying to outlaw my heating system yet hold high what Sweden is now doing ??

Furthermore the sawdust from our lumber industry is pelleted and burned in pellet stoves for more than 30 years .... same as off grade grain or spoiled oil seeds .... we burn it and heat huge buildings .... same as wheat and flax straw ... farmers (who are not warmists) have been doing these things upwards of 50 years now

So why are you pounding the drum about what Sweden is doing. This is ancient technology ... Is it just to make you "feel good" about the environment ?? I can think of no other reason

Thank you
 
Gee haven't had a chew toy in a while let alone two. !!


Perhaps our knowledgeable helicopter jockey could point out the "plateau" in this wiki image of ocean heat?

400px-Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png

Speaking of that, I wanted to comment about the new values -the last quarter is lacking in that figure- which are really worrying -not because they show heat going up, because they don't-. It looks we have an eventful triennium in front of us as I see in it more evidence that the deep storage phase is taking a pause.
 
What an extraordinary example of a strawman. Extraordinary because normally sophists fabricate strawmen to debilitate the opponent's proposition by debilitating the proponents themselves, and you haven't even shown a position nor propositions but just a state of animus! Are you sure what was in your head was properly set in words within the thread?

I will be waiting for your replies about the thread's topic, that is, science.
.

No sir .... it is not a straw man .... The Al Gore's and David Suzuki's of the world bring their propaganda message to our communities and schools to indoctrinate everybody into believing that if you send carbon credits to a third world country the planet will be saved.

And they repeatedly use the word science ... so go after them and not me sir.

It is more about politics and control than actual science.

Thank you.
 
.

No sir .... it is not a straw man .... The Al Gore's and David Suzuki's of the world bring their propaganda message to our communities and schools to indoctrinate everybody into believing that if you send carbon credits to a third world country the planet will be saved.

And they repeatedly use the word science ... so go after them and not me sir.

It is more about politics and control than actual science.

Thank you.

Even if this is true, what has it got to do with the science of global warming? I ask again, did you read the articles linked to?
 
Gee haven't had a chew toy in a while let alone two. !!


Perhaps our knowledgeable helicopter jockey could point out the "plateau" in this wiki image of ocean heat?

One hopes he understands flying a chopper better than climatology.

.

I understand them both very well sir ... and before you try to bedazzle me with your graphs please tell me why you have had to revert to measuring the temps of the deep ocean ??

Is it because surface temps have refused to follow your predicted models from 20 years ago?

Quit changing disguises , .... you go from Global Warming to Climate Change and now it has become Ocean Warming ....

Chew on that

Thank you
AM
 
.

I understand them both very well sir ... and before you try to bedazzle me with your graphs please tell me why you have had to revert to measuring the temps of the deep ocean ??

Is it because surface temps have refused to follow your predicted models from 20 years ago?

Quit changing disguises , .... you go from Global Warming to Climate Change and now it has become Ocean Warming ....

Chew on that

Thank you
AM

This is simply amazing. :D
 
.

No sir .... it is not a straw man .... The Al Gore's and David Suzuki's of the world bring their propaganda message to our communities and schools to indoctrinate everybody into believing that if you send carbon credits to a third world country the planet will be saved.

And they repeatedly use the word science... so go after them and not me sir.

It is more about politics and control than actual science.

Thank you.

Do you have any filter to catch potentially ridiculous prose before you press "post"?

You have to understand elementary rules of thinking and debate before starting to speak your guts out, and by elementary I mean K-12. You don't say that your clear strawman is not a strawman just because the strawman you used in it is made of straw. You also added an additional strawman. I'm starting to think you don't have the faintest idea what a strawman is, among many other topics, including climate science. I'm saying this departing from the fact that you're avoiding any scientific considerations and concentrating in a blurred cloud that is made of, what? one-sided assertions, prejudice, hate and resentment? Please, clarify this for everybody here.

Thank you very much. Much obliged.
 
Would a Mormon jump to read the Koran or the Abhidhamma Pitaka just because a Muslim or a Buddhist suggest it?

.
No but a lot of Morons read and believed the Global Warming propaganda just because evangelists Gore and Suzuki suggested it

And a lot of otherwise decent people read and believed Mein Kampf when AH & the boys recommended it

Same thing as Global warming .... it has all the tenants of religion for the non-religious

The temperature is the Devil , the IPCC is the Savior , and you are the evangelist

And it requires a lot of faith because science cannot substantiate it.

Amen
 
.
No but a lot of Morons read and believed the Global Warming propaganda just because evangelists Gore and Suzuki suggested it

And a lot of otherwise decent people read and believed Mein Kampf when AH & the boys recommended it

Same thing as Global warming .... it has all the tenants of religion for the non-religious

The temperature is the Devil , the IPCC is the Savior , and you are the evangelist

And it requires a lot of faith because science cannot substantiate it.

Amen

You mean, except for the fact that science does substantiate it, and denial of AGW is prevalent among the religious.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 
.
No but a lot of Morons read and believed the Global Warming propaganda just because evangelists Gore and Suzuki suggested it

And a lot of otherwise decent people read and believed Mein Kampf when AH & the boys recommended it

Same thing as Global warming .... it has all the tenants of religion for the non-religious

The temperature is the Devil , the IPCC is the Savior , and you are the evangelist

And it requires a lot of faith because science cannot substantiate it.

Amen

And we have a Godwin.

Very funny stuff.
 
You haven't explained a thing. Just more dodge.

Explain why the ocean temps have increased...in fact the rate of increase has accelerated....do you think it might have some connection with AGW or are their elves in the abyss turning up their stoves :rolleyes:

Why has the stratosphere continued to show cooling.

Newly published research in ’PNAS’ identifies what authors call a ‘vertical human fingerprint’ in satellite-based estimates of atmospheric temperature changes, adding still more to confidence levels about human influences in warming.

A new research paper by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer and co-authors looks in detail at how climate change resulting from human activities is affecting the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.

They argue in their paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that natural climate forcings like volcanoes, El Niño, and changes in solar activity could not have been responsible for the cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the lower atmosphere, and they identify a clear human “fingerprint” to the warming seen over the last 30 years.

While observational data from satellites show less warming than predicted by most models, Santer and his co-authors demonstrate that the observed warming is consistent with models including both human and natural forcings, but inconsistent with models using only natural forcings and variability.
To determine effects of both natural climate forcings and the human contribution, the researchers examined global climate model runs from the latest set of models, known as CMIP5, produced for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. They compared temperatures at different layers of the troposphere — the lower part of the atmosphere to six or so miles up — and lower stratosphere (between six to 30 miles up). They looked at both the standard model runs, which include anthropogenic (human-caused) and natural forcings, and also at runs that only include natural forcings. That approach let them try to isolate the anthropogenic component of warming, allowing them to see if it was statistically significantly different from what likely would have happened in the absence of human activities.

Their research approach has been used extensively before, but applied mainly to surface and ocean temperatures. The figure below, taken from the 2007 IPCC report, shows model runs with only natural forcings; model runs with all forcings; and observations of surface temperatures for the whole globe — land areas and ocean areas. The fifth IPCC report was expected to expand these graphs by showing a similar chart for deeper ocean temperatures (0 to 2000 meters).

In all cases, the observed temperatures are generally consistent with model runs incorporating all forcings and notably inconsistent with runs using only natural forcings.

0913_ZH_fig1_zps3655534a.jpg


To determine the temperature of different portions of the atmosphere, Santer and his colleagues sampled the output of global climate models at specific areas of the atmosphere where temperature is currently measured by satellites. This approach allowed them to compare the rate and distribution of warming predicted by models with those shown in observations. The figure below provides a rough schematic to help visualize how climate models work. They calculate changes in heat flows, moisture changes, and other factors in three-dimensional grid boxes — and do so in Earth’s atmosphere, at its surface, and beneath the surface of the oceans — with grid boxes interacting with their neighbors.

more
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...n-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/

Theory, model and observational confirmation .......

Go back to flying.....one hopes for your employer or passengers you are better at that than peddling fossil fool agitprop in a science forum

I notice you dodged Alec as well...why am I not surprised.
 
Well...Martin, I think you forgot the part where Investment Banks are trying to create a market in Carbon Credits - much like Enron tried to Create a Market in Weather.
Also, I don't think being "Socialist" neccessarily has anything to do with it. I mean, if I am an Exxon or some other big refiner, then the thing I really want to see is a movement that makes it extremely difficult for a competitor to enter the market. Seriously...Big Business loves a regulatory environment that stifle smaller competition - hell, they helped create that environment!

Are you suggesting anything nefarious in market makers creating carbon credit or weather trading platforms?
 
Do you have any filter to catch potentially ridiculous prose before you press "post"?

You have to understand elementary rules of thinking and debate before starting to speak your guts out, and by elementary I mean K-12. You don't say that your clear strawman is not a strawman just because the strawman you used in it is made of straw. You also added an additional strawman. I'm starting to think you don't have the faintest idea what a strawman is, among many other topics, including climate science. I'm saying this departing from the fact that you're avoiding any scientific considerations and concentrating in a blurred cloud that is made of, what? one-sided assertions, prejudice, hate and resentment? Please, clarify this for everybody here.

Thank you very much. Much obliged.

.
Yes I have an excellent filter and all the red flags in my filter recognized the tactics of a manipulative brainwash when the Global Warming music started playing years ago.

And my instincts continue to be proven correct.

And by the way I do not in a blurred cloud that is made of
one-sided assertions, prejudice, hate and resentment
nor do I have anything personal against you or anyone on this forum

My "hatred" is propaganda (untruths) used to frighten the masses and manipulate society. There is always a nefarious motive .

And speaking of one-sided assertions .... it is my opinion that the IPCC is totally one-sided in their approach .... they refuse to look across the aisle to study evidence against warming

You would expect them to rejoice if warming was not the monster it was predicted to be ... but they want warming ... it gives them huge powers of control .... has nothing to do with weather.

Best wishes
AM
 
.
No but a lot of Morons read and believed the Global Warming propaganda just because evangelists Gore and Suzuki suggested it

And a lot of otherwise decent people read and believed Mein Kampf when AH & the boys recommended it

Same thing as Global warming .... it has all the tenants of religion for the non-religious

The temperature is the Devil , the IPCC is the Savior , and you are the evangelist

And it requires a lot of faith because science cannot substantiate it.

Amen

I am to consider this piece also your reply to my post #830. I say because with your "I hate'em because they are so hatable" you have shown nothing but strawmen. Besides the clear loophole four yourself: "decent people read and believe Mein Kampf" includes your right to believe your deleterious preach and yet, if you did read it somewhere and believed it, it makes you a "decent guy". So you can believe any BS and promote it, scorning every person that opposes to your beliefs and still you are a decent guy even in the event you are pointed your many errors and you might have been willing to accept them. It would be a you-win-everybody-else-lose situation typical from narcissistic people.
 
.
Yes I have an excellent filter and all the red flags in my filter recognized the tactics of a manipulative brainwash when the Global Warming music started playing years ago.

And my instincts continue to be proven correct.

And by the way I do not in a blurred cloud that is made of nor do I have anything personal against you or anyone on this forum

My "hatred" is propaganda (untruths) used to frighten the masses and manipulate society. There is always a nefarious motive .

And speaking of one-sided assertions .... it is my opinion that the IPCC is totally one-sided in their approach .... they refuse to look across the aisle to study evidence against warming

You would expect them to rejoice if warming was not the monster it was predicted to be ... but they want warming ... it gives them huge powers of control .... has nothing to do with weather.

Best wishes
AM

Now you're becoming Kafkian, with collective institutions that are one-sided and you the Don Quixote commended to right wrongs and fight a full fledged conspiracy with international ramifications.

Instead, why don't you just try to convince us that there's no global warming and do that with scientific arguments and facts? And remember, if you don't like some value, care to provide the real ones and justify them, and save us the conspiracy theories about the values, because it looks you will be going that way a lot -I hope I'm wrong about that-.

I'm looking forward you start talking science and not fantasies.
 
And my instincts continue to be proven correct.

No, they don't.

However, I think we might have identified why you deny the fact of AGW. You made your mind up years ago, and to admit your mistake would be a strike to your ego.

My "hatred" is propaganda (untruths) used to frighten the masses and manipulate society. There is always a nefarious motive .

Please outline the basics of your conspiracy theory. Who are using AGW to control the masses?

And speaking of one-sided assertions .... it is my opinion that the IPCC is totally one-sided in their approach .... they refuse to look across the aisle to study evidence against warming

I am equally upset at astronomers who refuse to look across the aisle to study evidence that the moon is made of cheese.

You would expect them to rejoice if warming was not the monster it was predicted to be ... but they want warming ... it gives them huge powers of control .... has nothing to do with weather.

Believe me, any rational person would be happy if AGW suddenly went away. However, all rational people live in reality, where AGW isn't suddenly going away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom