Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So soon?
    And I haven't even broken any laws yet. :)
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for that example of temperatures being able to vary by as much as 20degF per mile! ;)

    This is one of the many issues that The Church ignores. Place that thermometer in that particular spot in Dubai and you'll get a WAY different result than if you had it located a mile into the gulf.

    Are we're supposed to believe that the "average global temperature" can be determined within a fraction of a degree?? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
     
    drluggit likes this.
  3. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why it is important to look at the global temperature.
     
  4. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought you were going to teach me about thermal dynamics. Do you want to change now to temperature measurements.
     
  5. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The absolute temperature is not as important as the change in temperature.
    upload_2020-2-20_11-10-12.jpeg
     
  6. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting on you to provide a single link to a recognized and credentialed individual that agrees with you on whether AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.
     
    ronv likes this.
  7. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    As you said, you are just too lazy to look it up even after given the post number. Its not my fault you decided to be lazy. Sloth is never sexy even for flat earthers.



    I posted the post number where it was. That was integrity. You want special treatment because you are either too lazy or scared to look it up yourself. Not going to happen my little friend. Everyone here can see it was posted not once but twice. Just because you are either too scared or lazy to look up where it was posted even when you were told exactly where it was that’s your issue not mine.




    No. Your argument. Or lack of one supported by the facts J




    And that’;s the sad part. You’ve convinced yourself being lazy or scared is a good thing and something to be admired. It isn’t.



    The link was provided. Not once but twice in this thread. You were given the exact post where it was located and you ran from looking it up yourself.


    Its funny watching the hypocrisy when gfm7175 gave you two posts to look up because you weren’t keeping up with his argument and you did so. So what is it about my giving you the link in a post you fear so much?

    Go ahead, deny it. I can screenshot that as well :)



    And you were given the post where the link exists. Still does to this day. And you still run from looking it up.



    LOL No need you aren’t that deep. Anyone running around threads claiming they are more educated or spout how many times completely unverified of course that they’ve had this discussion with others reeks of an ego without boundaries that you are insulted because once again your dogma is being challenged on rational grounds J



    LOL You dismiss it in your exact words I quoted and now you think we should take your word that you secretly researched it and found it wanting without evidence? You my friend are one for the books. J



    Quoting when they lie about their statements? Absolutely. You have to love someone who claims their opponent is psychoanalyzing them then turns around to do the same except of course without evidence J



    Actually I did in the post referenced where the graph and link reside J



    Amazing how you missed the 35 year window where temps went down and CO2 was exploding in production by man in the 1940s. All that science and you couldn’t even look back 100 years? How typical J


    And its hardly the first time CO2 has not followed temperature increases because as history proves it is not a condition for temperature change merely along for the ride. If it was a primary reason for climate change it wouldn’t lag behind 800 or 1000 years as history as proven it has done time and time again.


    https://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html




    LOL Whatever makes you feel better about watching your argument go down in flames J



    God I love it when you guys eat your own.


    Once again if you weren’t so lazy you would have known this came from Legal one of your flat earther buddy’s articles.


    Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per yea


    So once again you were owned with data from the very flat earthers you claim to revere. I love it when a plan comes together :D


    https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm







    LOL No you have never provided direct proof all other factors on this planet have been accounted for that influence climate change and the only thing left to influence climate change primarily is 5.25% of a single greenhouse gas. You love talking around that but you never prove what you claim exists.



    Yes you keep making up that claim but you never produce the evidence that


    All other climate change factors have been accounted for and the only factor remaining for climate change to be primarily effected is 5.25% of one gas that isn’t even .055% of all gasses in the atmosphere. But don’t let me stop you from embarrassing yourself blaming that single gas in less than 6% concentration and under .055% of all gasses in the atmosphere from being the primary cause of climate change for the flat earthers J


    http://www.onepagenews.com/2012/03/30/054-level-of-co2-in-the-greenhouse-gas-layer/


    But since you’ve already admitted you cannot account for all factors when CO2 was far higher we both know your argument is done but you simply cannot admit reality.



    If its so rational then where is the evidence that proves 5.25% of all CO2 that makes up .054 of all gasses in the atmosphere is the primary cayuse of climate change?


    This is why you keep losing the argument. You’ve already admitted you cannot account for all the factors for climate change yet we are supposed to blindly accept your dogma knowing how infinitesimal the percentage of human produced CO2 is in the atmosphere and we have to ignore the history of the planet where CO2 followed was not the cause of temperature.



    Your obsession with a sexual relationship is strange in itself but yes it is religious because your dogma is based on a belief not science.


    Can you account for all other factors that could influence climate change and determine they are not the primary cause of climate change? No. You’ve already admitted that.


    Can you explain how 5.25%of all CO2 magically is the primary cause of climate change? No you can’t. This is why it’s a religious belief for you not science.



    I did post it. Not once but twice. Even gave you the post number where it was and you are still too scared to click on it J



    Oh but I have. J



    No we aren’t. See I knew you would start rewriting the argument after you were exposed. The argument you embraced was man made CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. That’s the subject. Did you really think that slight of hand was going to work? LOL



    I get my jollies watching you run from supporting your argument for man made CO2 being the primary casuse of climate change. I get my jollies from watching you admit we don’t have enough evidence to determine temperature fluxuations in the past that don’t follow CO2 but pretend we magically can now without evidence. I get my jollies watching you blame a “denier” website for actual CO2 concentration on this planet when it actually came from one of your own flat earther websites. And of course I get my jollies watching someone who pretends to be such a fantastic scientist running solely on belief to support his theories. J



    There are literally millions of scientists on this planet. You pretend a few thousand that your websites claim to support you but of course lie about that support is making your case for you.


    Let’s explore the lie of so many scientists supporting your claims shall we?


    Of course Al Gore lied about his claims in his flat earther theory. He claimed his team looked at every single study over 10 years about climate change when it was actually 10% of the articles 928 articles and claimed cO2 was causing global warming and it was a serious problem. Except ZERO of his articles endorsed what he was claiming that humans were the primary cause of climate change.


    10000 earth scientists were asked about climate change that did not blame humans in their questioning as the primary source of climate change. Then they took 77 only respondents from that 10,000 who claimed to be climate experts with 75 responding humans played a “significant ” not even primary role in climate change and magically you get your fake 97% claim. 97% of 2% of the response and they didn’t even claim it was a danger or that humans were the primary source Another flat earther lie exposed.

    And then there’s the jon cook lie in 2013. They claimed to sampling 12,000 papers on climate change and claimed 97% endorsed the claim that greenhouse gasses were at least a part of global warming. Of course Obama being the fool that he is tweeted this one out. Except 2/3rds of the papers expressed no view on the consensus. The remaining 34% the office claimed 33% endorsed it. 33/34=97% so yet another study and consensus lie. The key point is that the survey never asked if the global warming was dangerous or even man made. All they asked was if humans could have some effect on the environment. Only 64 of the 12,000 papers actually blamed humans for global warming. And after the 64 was viewed by David Legates an actual climatologist, only 41 claimed global warming is mostly man made. And never did any of the papers said it was dangerous.


    So your flat earth belief amongst 12,000 papers, only 41 agreed with your dogma.


    Enjoy :)


     

    Attached Files:

    BestViewedWithCable likes this.
  8. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    All kinds that don’t prove your flat earther claim that all other factors of climate change have been accounted for and we are left with blaming 5.25% of CO2 for being the primary source of climate change.



    LOL That’s your entire theory! Hahahaha



    Says the “scientist” who still claims human produced CO2 or 5.25% of all CO2 is the primary source of climate change! Oh you are just too rich :D




    No. You claimed I didn’t answer it which of course I did. You not liking the answer doesn’t change that reality but it is certainly better than admitting you screwed up so many times in a row with a false claim doesn’t it? :)



    You really make a poor scientist if you think saying “we do not know” cannot be an answer. The fake scientists are the one who believe in their dogma like you do. J



    LOL You haven’t even started to work.


    Look at what I’ve already proven.


    • You cannot prove in the past when CO2 was far higher that CO2 was the catalyst for climate change yet you claim you can now without being able to eliminate those same factors for today!


    • Then you accused me of quoting “denier” numbers on CO2 levels when they are from your flat earther articles! Lol My favorite


    • And I’ve proven your so called “scientists” are far from being the majority once you actually look at the papers they claim endorse your flat earther science.


    • And I exposed you trying to change the argument from human based CO2 being the primary cause of climate change to just CO2 which still laughable shows how desperate you are getting that you have to try and change the claim to stay in the game.



    You couldn’t be losing bigger if you tried any harder :)



    I just love exposing fraud in people who think they are more educated than others and display a massive sense of narcissism in their posts. Its fun to expose that :D



    You certainly should after so many massive mistakes you’ve made.



    I did answer your question. So you are going to lie again and say you didn’t get an answer? Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean you didn’t get one but you would need to have the integrity to admit that and its clear you can't.




    LOL So you are going to lie about your own words once again. No problem. I can screenshot your original claim easily.


    I said: Since you are jumping into this discussion are you also under the belief that humans are the primary source of climate change by their CO2 output? This is the argument you are weighing into.


    And you responded to that quote:


    It is not my belief it is the overwhelming truth according to the evidence.


    View attachment 106159


    So once again I’ve caught you outright lying about what you actually said was your argument. Post#627 :)




    LOL You can wait all you want I’m not the one who took a position that I knew what the primary source of climate change was. YOU did. I'm smart enough to know from science we don't have all the answers much less enough to know what the primary factor of climate change is :)


    Oh God. You’ve already admitted it was higher now you are backing off just like you did on your climate change by humans as the primary cause argument. Pathetic but so predicable.



    You have the post where the data and the link exists. :)


    All you would have to do to rightly call me a liar is look at that post where I said the link exists. If it doesn’t screenshot it so everyone can see I never posted it since I have said over and over again I have. But of course you won’t because you know it exists and are too afraid to admit you were too lazy to look it up :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  9. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You rely on sources already caught outright lying about their support and numbers and we are supposed to use the same fraudulent sources you do? I don't think so.





    And the hockystick lie is still on your flat earther websites.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  10. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never use a Youtube video to explain a conspiracy theory. Saying that the 97% claim is a myth is a conspiracy theory. So is saying that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics is a conspiracy theory.

    Instead, use reputable sources like NASA, NOAA, and multiple peer reviewed articles.

    Still waiting on you to prove that you are capable of answering the question of whether you believe AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics? Will you dodge again?!
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  11. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's breakdown the flat earther lie about humans being the primary soruce of climate change

    From @MrTLegal's own website they admit human created CO2 represented 5.25% of all CO2.

    We have proven in the history of the earth that CO2 does NOT cause temperatures and in fact CO2 has been far higher when temps went down even from the 1940s-75 and once for 700 and another for 1000 years it was lagging behind the temp changes blowing their flat earther theory away

    CO2 overall represents .054% of all gasses in the atmosphere. So we are supposed to blindly accept climate change flat earth dogma that 5.25% of all CO2 that isn't even .055% of all gasses in the atmosphere is the primary source of climate change. lol

    And we have exposed the lies of the multiple claims of 97% of scientists agreeing with them when in reality just for one of the claims it was only 41 papers of 12,000 that believe in the flat earther theory that humans are the primary source of climate change.


    This is done. The Emperor has no clothes :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  12. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you can prove their claims are false. Go right ahead legal! Can't wait to see you do it what you claim exists :)

    I knew you couldn't back yourself up.


    A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

    A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

    This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

    Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

    “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

    Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

    Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

    “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

    “It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow - good post - that is really disgusting. As I listened to the Dem debate last night - much talk was there of "Climate Change".

    As one who worked in the field of environmental consulting for over a decade - and an expert in the field of bioremediation and other alternative clean up technologies - (alternative to 'dig and dump" ... dig up and transport to a landfill) - I was disheartened, disgusted and disturbed.

    Oh - I believe in global warming - don't get me wrong - a climate denialist I am not - the earth appears to be warming - and human activities are likely contributing...

    But that is maybe - 4th on the list of environmental threats. What about 1, 2 and 3 ?

    If you are not asking - Huh .. what are 1 2 and 3 ? I thought global warming was by far the biggest threat - you are not alone - and in fact comprise the majority - and who could blame you given the Media storm.


    But ... HOLD on here ... WTF are 1 - 2 and 3. Clearly I am asking you to think on this for a bit and come up with at least 1 potential environmental threat that is greater. The other 2 are connected to both 1 and 4.

    but also posit the disconnect between "The Story" that people believe in .. and reality. (we could segway into a propaganda convo - bit I digress)

    1) Pollution of the Oceans - Scientists do not disagree on this. We do not need models to measure what is happening .. or guess at the cause. More than 2 cans of Tuna a week and you exceed the mercury guideline for pregnant woman.

    We can measure it - and it is not happening in the future.. it is happening now. North America has decreased the mercury levels somewhat - as we don't dump stuff like that directly into the Ocean .. Tuna around Hawaii however have increasing levels due to smokestacks in Asia.

    I can go on and on .. Heavy metals, persistant organic pollutants - Fertilizer is a big one - creating dead zones in the ocean - this is freaky stuff ... worth a google.

    This is happening right now. Yet - not one on that stage talked about it. (by It I mean the #1 threat to the Environment)
    How disturbing is that ? How are these people going to make good decisions - if they do not have a good grasp on the threat ?

    GND - Green New Deal - paraphrasing - " we will not transport our pollution problems to other nations"

    I'm good with that ! :) - good plan. BUT - then why are you opposed to Pipelines ??

    Not building the Keystone - Dakota Access - will not decrease the CO2 equation by one drop of gas. US consumption next year will be 20 million barrels per day.

    We need to get that from somewhere - currently - roughly 46% of supply into US Refineries comes from 70 different nations.

    So we have a choice ... we can get from "Canada" a nation that does not dump nasties directly into the Ocean .. or Nigeria - a toxic wasteland like in your pic .. horrible polluter.

    You have just made the choice to transport our pollution problem to another nation. Not only that - transport by tanker rather than Pipeline is way more enviro unfriendly - and takes more energy.

    But if Obama was for it - it must be a good cause right ?? - referring to his blockage of the Keystone. First claiming "increased CO2" - then when his own study came back saying that was not the case - made up some truly nonsensical gibberish.

    This was a company that invested Billions up front - on the basis of the US not being some kangaroo 3rd world puppet state A company from Canada - a nation that in which we own much of the oil industry - . so it essentially shipping our own oil to ourselves - at a discounted rate .. WCS is way lower than Brent. Brent 59 West Texas Intermediate 54 WCS is 31 dollars.

    International capital hates risk - and the market is now way more competitive - attracting that capital more difficult - and we are already a regulatory nightmare - so have that going against us. Fkn dumb move - big Obama blunder.

    Just like Obama's decision to lead a global effort to arm, supply, support a radical Islamist Proxy army in Syria - one led by Al Qaeda - giving them sophisticated military technology - like surface to air missiles - perfect for taking out civilian airliners but I digress.

    2 and 3. Industrialization/Population growth While we might have gotten some passing "pollution is bad" comment - not a word about these two.

    That oil we buy from Nigeria - Instead of Canada - encourages industrialization - of a non industrialized nation. We don't want to do this.

    A study I read 10 years ago - looking at consumption. First world was 36 - China was 11 - someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Nigeria (1)

    The study concluded that if China was to reach our level of consumption - world resource production would have to double. When you go from eating a bowl of rice a day - to iphone and eating a piece of meat once in awhile - the carbon/pollution footprint increases.

    The fertilizer that ends up in the Ocean is fcking it up right now - no need to wait for some futuristic event.

    So then - at the time of the study there were 1.4 Billion industrialized .. out of 7 Billion. So if we go to 2.8 Billion industrialized -and double the amount of stuff into the oceans - how much worse will it get ? and that is still not even half the population of the earth .. expected to be 8.5 Billion by 2030.

    So lets say we add 1.4 Billion industrialized - over 20 years - not sure where we are how - perhaps 1.9 Billion industrialized. Going from 1.4 to 2.8 by 2030.

    Note that during the same time period - the population has grown by 1.5 Billion - roughly the same rate as industrialization.

    Check out the sargassum epidemic that is washing up on all the breaches in the Caribbean -and in Florida - that is largely from Brazil - but everyone contributes - nitrogen run-off. Total population of North and South America is roughly 800 million. Barely 1/10th of the world. and we are far more industrialized. It is getting from A to B that is the dirty part. Imagine the other 90% is adding.

    The yellow river in China - had friends that did a boat trip down it - driving through garbage the whole way .. where does that river end up ?
    You put up the pic of India - biggest cluster fk of them all in terms of population .. still growing like crazy -

    Its like - there are finite limits here - just as we know there are finite limits to how much CO2 we can put into the atmosphere. Thing is - we are hitting those finite limits with respect to Ocean Pollution - right now - and I am not trying to be alarmist .. believe me .. it is not my style. CO2 .. ok so we warm up a bit - if things get really bad we can turn off the tap - if we really wanted to ..

    How are we going to filter the Ocean ? - Also - anaerobic environment is where disease comes from. This one kind of freaks me out - and now you can claim I am being alarmist .. but from an educated perspective... - in an area which is close to my specialty and expertise.

    What do you test your water for - microbio -speaking ? Coliform (gut bacteria - enterics) - an anaerobic environment. If these organisms are exposed to an aerobic environment - they die - and/or are killed by aerobic bacteria. Nasties will survive longer in an anaerobic environment.

    So if you find anaerobic bacteria in your water - it means that gut bacteria (basically from poop) have gotten into the water supply from somewhere.

    We need to build more pipelines - and produce as much energy as we can in industrialized nations - not export our pollution problems to other nations - and increase the industrialization incentive. We really do not want to do this.

    In addition -we need to get nations to stop breeding like fruit flies - this is getting fcking stupid - Even industrialized nations should not be so eager to increase their populations via immigration.

    Sorry to go on and on - but you did bring it upon yourself by posting that lovely photo.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While that may be true - and this is one scientist that concurs with the other 97%. 99.9% of Scientists agree that Ocean Pollution is a bigger threat to the environment than CO2. See post 965.
     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, humans do not represent 5.25% of all CO2. They produce approximately that much CO2 on a yearly basis, relative to the natural emissions. Of the emissions produced each year, the vast majority gets absorbed back into the Earth. But of the CO2 which does not get absorbed, the CO2 which accumulates in the upper atmosphere, approximately ALL of the CO2 increase over the last ~150 years can be directly attributed to humans.

    You have not proven **** here. CO2 - along with a whole host of other variables - do cause temperature changes. You might have an argument for why CO2 increases or decreases is not the best explainer for previous climatic events (and even here, your ability to make such an argument is truly suspect). But the increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is the best explainer for the CURRENT warming trend.

    Your reliance on "lol" proves that you do not believe your own bullshit.

    And yes, you are expected to recognize that increasing a greenhouse gas, even if that gas compromises a very tiny percentage of the atmosphere, will increase the greenhouse effect. I don't need to rely on an analogy here, but I will to help you. If you alter the percentage that arsenic accounts for in your body by even a very tiny fraction, then you can go from living a perfectly normal life to dying.

    There are multiple studies, each using different methodologies, that have reached the ~97% consensus claim. The most recently conducted study found that 100% of the actively publishing climatologists agree with the basic tenets of AGW.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  16. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very little is known about historical Antarctic temperatures. The Antarctic circle was not crossed until 1773 and the find landing on Antarctica was not until 1853. The first use of dogs and sleds was in 1898. Serious meteorological observations and measurements did not begin until 1903.

    Man's actual empirical date on Antarctic weather doesn't go back very far at all; thus very little is known.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  17. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    uh thats not my argument
     
  18. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's right Legal. Disagree with your own website you linked to. LOL

    Go ahead legal, cite ANY source that makes that rediculus flat earther claim that all CO2 over the last 150 years is man made.

    Go on, let's see it.

    Actually, I have :)

    I'm not the one claiming humans are the primary cause of climate change Legal, You and Earthboy are and every time you try to run from your own claims you prove my point.

    NOT be a primary cause Legal. That is the fatal flaw in your flat earth theory. Your instance man is the primary cause of climate change.

    Name them and I'll be happy to blow their lies up just as I've already done multiple on here that you couldn't combat the facts :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are multiple studies that use different methodologies to reach the ~97% claim. But I will address the critiques raised here.

    First, it should be noted that Legates takes issue with the notion that 97% find climate change to be dangerous. That aspect was never claimed by Cook or any of the other studies. The 97+% claim is that the actively publishing climatologists agree with the basic tenets of AGW - i.e. That the Earth is Warming and Humans are a significant (i.e. non-random) causal factor.

    From that point you can argue about the degree of consensus over how much Humans are influencing the climate or the consensus over the degree of threat posed by AGW.

    But if you really want to focus solely on the Cook study, the reason that he reached the 97% claim despite the limitations noted by these critics is multiple. For starters, Cook does not assume the positions of those authors who did not explicitly discuss their opinion on the cause of global warming. Instead, his study starts by eliminating all of the papers that neither address or discuss climate change. From those, his study refused to assign a value onto those authors that did not explicitly address the cause of the climate change. At that point, he analyzed the papers that did make an explicit reference as to the cause of the climate change. Of those papers that did discuss climate change, and did discuss the causes, 97% concluded that humans are a significant factor.

    But let's say you doubt that methodology. Well guess what? Cook wanted to use a different method for confirming his findings as well. So he mailed out a survey to all of the authors and asked for their personal opinion on Climate Change and whether Humans are a significant factor. Of the respondents, 98% said that the Earth is warming and Humans are a significant factor.

    As I noted, there are multiple studies - using different methodologies and sample sizes - to reach the 97+% claim regarding whether Actively Publishing Climatologists agree on the basic tenets of AGW. But one point that this critique makes is to point out that it is entirely possible that the Climatologists who did not reach a conclusion in these papers and did not answer the survey might disagree with the basic tenets of AGW. And that is absolutely correct. But until you can formulate a study that finds those people in any significant or systematic manner, I am going to continue using the claims supported by NASA and the rest of the Scientific Community.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  20. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't disagree with the website, I disagree with your bullshit understanding of that website.

    And I already provided you the link - multiple times to back up the claim that approximately all of the accumulated CO2 over the last 150 years is man made. You have seen it. You have ignored it, misread it, or intentionally misrepresented about its contents multiple times as well.

    Neither of us have run from that claim. We have presented multiple pieces of evidence and sources to support that claim.

    Yes, a primary cause of the current warming trend.

    J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

    W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

    P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

    N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

    Powell, James (November 20, 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society: 027046761988626.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not claim it was ? It was a simple statement of fact that needs to be considered when assessing one's moves on the chessboard.
     
  22. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ice cores.
     
  23. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said: “science does not build upon falsity”

    A set of falsifiable has not been confirmed or disconfirmed, so science cannot be a set of falsifiable because science is knowledge.

    Science builds upon knowledge not that which has neither been confirmed or disconfirmed.

    Please by all means pull your definitions of whatever words you want to explain from the dictionary, with links please.

    I said: “There is no association between the variables of the Big Bang Theory--whether things can just happen (Stephen Hawking) or a God was involved in creation of a universe or this is just a simulation in God’s quantum computer on the event horizon of the singularity--and whether man is causing Global Warming or any climate change.”

    Your response:

    “Yes there is. They are all initial circular arguments with additional argumentation stemming from them. We don't have an accessible, practical, quantifiable, specific way of testing the null hypothesis of those theories, so they remain religious beliefs.”

    Let’s simplify: “There is no association between the variables of the Big Bang Theory…and whether man is causing Global Warming or any climate change.”

    Following your logic, we could nuke the fracking planet, which would certainly be climate change, and it would be a religious belief.
     
    MrTLegal and ronv like this.
  24. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then don't quote me saying something I never did. Is it really that hard?
     
  25. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes because I can quote their numbers and you can't LOL

    Then quote it saying that Legal. If its so obvious do it :)

    Actually both of you have. He tried in his last response I quoted trying to make it CO2 only not human based and you did when you admitted it was only a theory not a fact as your OP claimed. Busted again :)

    We have presented multiple pieces of evidence and sources to support that claim.

    The prove it. Show us any article of your flat earth science that states they were able to eliminate all other possible primary causes of climate change with eivdence and the only thing left is 5.25% of CO2.

    Go ahead Legal. We both know you are just going to run again. :)

    LOL Cook again? I've already shredded his lies

    A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

    A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

    This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

    Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

    Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

    “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

    Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

    Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

    “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

    “It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

    Go on Legal, dispute it with factual data :)

    No links to any study. Try again Legal after you pick up the pieces of Cook's proven lies and utter failure. :)
     

Share This Page