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

I've already provided you with that.

 

Sure.

They like free money like everyone else.

 

So why are you turning your nose up at the free stuff that the Paris Climate Accord will give the United States?

The United States is currently still part of the Paris Climate Accord. How much has it cost you?

 

No, you have not. How about I ask it this way though, just give me the name of a single person that you trust and respect on this subject.

Surely you can not be the only person who knows the truth about this subject, right?

 

None, since we're not honoring it and sending money so China can lie and build even more coal plants.

 

We are still bound by the Paris Climate Accord and have been for several years. And it has cost us nothing as you said.

 

We're not bound by anything.

The entire thing was never legally binding.

Perhaps you should understand what you're talking about first.

 

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. But yes, the theory that you start out with MUST be falsifiable.

No, at that point you are left with both options. Your example isn't that good btw because of the whole "I think, therefore I am" bit...

This whole bit is you acting as if "science" is holding a religious belief and then trying to convince yourself that your belief is true via supporting evidence. No, that's not science at all. That's actually how religion works. It takes an initial circular argument and then throws a bunch of supporting evidence at it. Science, rather, focuses on conflicting evidence.

 

Quote it. Nothing in that post proves you have evidence all other factors for climate change have been accounted for influencing the climate and the only thing left to blame for primary cause is human produced CO2.

So quote the part that proves that. We both know you can't that's why you just put post numbers out there

And you posted that link as proof and it never even said anything remotely like your BS claim as I've already proven

Then quote your post that makes that claim with evidence because neither 643 nor 994 does.. You've only been asked for it 3 times. Time to watch you run away again from quoting it

And we've been through this. 970 is nothing but your worthless opinion with no evidence.and 971 is exactly the same. You quote the debunked Cook lie and I proved he lied about the consensus number and the amount of papers that even bring up human based climate change which was only 41 of the 12,000 he lied about. Of course you ran away from that evidence found by 2 actual eliminate scientists who actually read the papers and your only response was "nuh uh"


I know its easier to throw a post number how and pray someone will find the facts you pretend exist but until you can actually quote those posts that specifically back your flat earther claims up with evidence it worthless

 

Sub zero Fahrenheit or Celsius?

It's still Summer there, so it'll still be warmer yet. I think it's now back to being in the 30-40degF range most of the time at that particular station, so right around the sub-zero range for Celsius.

 

Yes I have. Numerous times, actually.

Now you're pivoting back to focusing on the "who" again instead of the "what" (the theories themselves)...

Myself.

Right. Plenty of other people know it as well.

 

"A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

That was probably useless to post under the circumstances. I don't have any data yet that you are an AI, and the dictionary is useless unless you agree with the above.

"The AI thinks, therefore, it is human." Really? Kind of like: The "liberal" thinks, therefore, it must be right.

So are there two entities or just one AI I have to test?

 

So, signing a piece of paper and doing nothing is better than the usa who has drastically reduced emissions for half a century?

 

The only reason we are not "bound" is because Trump views all oaths, including his marriage, to be non-binding.

 

NAME ONE.

 

You end every sentence with an emoji. That's how I know you know that you are full of ****.

If you truly thought that my answers were insufficient, you would actually quote the posts that I referenced instead of demanding that I quote the posts for you. You have the post numbers. Go fetch.

 

And yet, even without that piece of paper the usa is still doing more than china and india who do nothing.

 

Tell us how you really feel about his emoji... You know we really care

 

Intuitively we might assume the oval would get larger in diameter slightly with stuff sliding around, but more mass would attract the Moon. We just can't do that. Way too over my little head. It's like they measure the planet, and the more times you do it the better for determining rate of expansion, could it like expand a lot and then not, intuitively probably not...

A freaking asteroid could do us in or just do enough to save the planet.

For all intents and purposes what is underground is closed, until the door opens, either naturally (volcanos...) or unnaturally (drilling...). Predicting our unnatural effects on climate is as hard as predicting a "liberal" open-minded to Bernie... I hope they pick Bernie, but then again, that might be like shooting ourselves in the foot with a shot gun as we vomit ourselves to death in a display that makes Madcow in 2016 look conservative by comparison.

 

Yet it is a warming that is inevitable regardless of man using fossil fuels for the energy needed for civilization.

What man is doing if the science is correct is speeding up the process that happens anyways . This too is the fact of the matter. It just means man will have to adjust and adapt sooner rather than later. And that fact isnt worthy of the almost hysterical concern of the doomsday crowd that you see on the left politically . Who want to address the warming by transferring wealth from the non elites to the elites in a massive manner . By carbon taxes and the financialization of that . Quite the scheme to dig the last cents from billions of pockets and transfer to those pockets already over flowing with wealth. That this is being supported by the non elites on the left is where it goes into the absurd. But given where the dems haved moved since they helped dismantle what fdr set up for our common people it should not be a surprise.

Instead of writing What is the Matter with Kansas, Franks could have written What is the Matter with Ca. and been on point just as well .lol

 

Mmm no.

It's because the "Paris Accord" was never legally binding.

 

No. You refuse to post the data for your claim so we could study it on it's merits. Now you claim that the period of ice age you were trying to refer to when CO2 was 14 or 17 times higher than today was not included in the past 500 million years covered during the GEOCARB study.

You have not even bothered to try to clarify this.

Why would I be scared to look up one of you BS claims when you are too lazy to defend your argument? I asked for a link. You went to the trouble of posting a single paragraph from a denier site. That is not a link. You made the claim. It is your job to back it up with data, not mine.

Why would I run from looking up your claim for you? You refused to post a link as I asked. Period.

I didn't look up his post. I sussed out what he was saying from the post above it with Legal and made a comment. I haven't even read his other reply to me yet as I have been away busy for the last few days.

There is nothing to deny. You are trying desperation tactics to make this argument about me when it is really you refusing to post the link I asked for.

Whatever, so don't post the link if it makes you feel better.

Again, you are personlizing this. I have had this discussion many times before and with people who made much better arguments than you. One of them even thanked me on another thread on this site for my efforts. You are posting nothing new with the Great climate Hoax stuff or quoting WUWT or Willie Soon. This stuff is really dated and almost all debunked as nonsense. Even the fossil fuel industry who funded most of this denial material and scientists like soon are distancing themselves and moving to research alternatives and renewables. Unfortunately, some of the people they have taken in so thoroughly are a little slow to catch up with current trends. I told you I had a BSc. and worked at a university. A background in physics or mathematics helps understanding of what is happening in climate and gives you the resources to dismiss some of the ridiculous claims you see on this thread.

[/quoteLOL 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

[/quote]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[/quote]

Why do you think I missed it. That is nothing new. That particular trope is as old as the Medieval period dodge or the pause in warming meme. All these have been long ago discredited. I even gave you the explanation for why that happened.

You are citing a blog again. That is scientific data? It is true that the greenhouse effect has been set in motion by orbital mechanics in the past and that rapid CO2 increase has accelerated the process that began by other forcings as well as other greenhouse gases that increase in the atmosphere as a feedback effect such as methane clathrates and even water vapour in the atmosphere which you can expect as a result of a warming planet..

Yes, it's called the carbon cycle and the carbon balance where natural flora and the oceans absorb and exchange CO2. there is a finite amount of CO2 that can be absorbed adding CO2 to the system throws that balance out of equilibrium. We are actually emitted about 36 gigatonnes per year. If that cannot be absorbed by natural cycles, where does it go?

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.

I asked you to come up with one other factor and you could not even do that. I even gave you hints as to what they were.

So, here's the problem. I could explain to you that it is not the sun because solar irradiance has been decreasing for a couple of decades even as the world warms and I could show you graphical and even sunspot data to prove this. I did this once earlier for someone on this forum and was even thanked for the effort.

I could explain to you that there is no evidence that geological activity such as volcanoes or mountain building has increased significantly over the period we have seen increased warming.

And, I could try to explain the three cycles that make up Milankovitch forcings, including obliquity and eccentricity of the Earth's orbit at various times as well as precession of the equinoxes and how these orbital cycles which last 26,000, 100,000 and 40,000 years effect the surface area that is exposed to the sun and how that causes changes in climate.

But you haven't the foggiest clue about any of these so I would have to take the time to explain what the cycles are and how they work and then try to get you to understand the calculations that show that all these cycle are moving towards a long term cooling trend and so could not possibly be responsible for the warming we are seeing.

At the end of all that work, you wouldn't understand it anyway and then you would run off to WUWT to find some arcane bit of nonsense to try and chip away at the science - and then at the end of it you would insult me for making all that effort.

If you are really not stupid enough to think that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming we are experiencing, then you have to come up with some rational explanation as to what the primary driver is or else you are just making an argument on ignorance - which is why I asked you to come up with at least one other forcing besides CO2.

I have given you the three main ones that science has determined. You can easily google it yourself now rather than have me waste anymore time on trying to have a scientific discussion with someone who doesn't understand science and thinks he is winning a debate by resorting to insults.

And I can't even defend myself or my posts get deleted. So there you go.

 

If you want to participate in this thread, at least make a comment about the subject matter from the topic instead of inserting yourself into every other aspect of the thread.

Start now - Do you agree with the basic tenets of AGW? That is, do you believe that the Earth is warming and do you believe that humans are a significant causal factor in that warming?

 

I think I see your problem. The video was about a minute long and was sort of the essence of scientific demonstration of how CO2 absorbs infrared.

Funny you dismiss that but I am supposed to take gballs video of some guy from the Cato institute seriously.