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. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HAHAHAHA You mean I wasted time dealing with someone who can't read the facts or have their own facts to debate with :)

    This is a pure definition of flat earthers because they cannot even read any facts that go against their dogma. They blindly accept on pure faith that their flat earth scientists tell them and dismiss any challenge to that dogma. The absolute reversal of real science.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  2. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you cannot point to any facts that state we have been able to prove all other natural factors that effect climate change have been eliminated and that the only thing left to primary effect climate change is man made CO2.

    You've been told this over and over and over again and you still can't admit reality. :)
     
  3. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How the hell does CO2 "balance with temperature"?

    That ain't right. Hell, it doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.
    So given this,

    “Today the atmosphere is rich in oxygen, which reacts with both hydrogen and deuterium to recreate water, which falls back to the Earth's surface. So the vast bulk of the water on Earth is held in a closed system that prevents the planet from gradually drying out."​

    how much reason is there to believe there has been significant water loss in the last million years?
    Be that as it may, it's lightyears away from what he said.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  4. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody is lying except the blogs where you get your BS information which you then try to spread here.

    Almost every thing you have said in this thread is a lie and every source you cite from the video of the dude from the Cato Institute which is funded largely by libertarian or fossil fuel interests to Willie Soon who you cited upthread and who had to admit in disgrace that his major funding came from Exxonmobile exists for the sole reason of discrediting the science of climate change. You are not even spreading new lies. All the lies you are spreading have been debunked and disproved long ago from the trope that only 5% of CO2 is man-made to the fantasy that CO2 cannot be causing the current warming because CO2 was higher in the past to the notion that because a couple of decades of decreased warming after WWII when industrial activity really took off creating higher levels of aerosols means the current warming is not caused by man-made CO2.

    Nobody except denier think tanks and the blogs they fund and people who have been taken in by the lies they try to spread believe the BS you are peddling.

    Nobody is lying about the 97% except you. Naomi Oreskes surveyed over 800 papers on climate change and not one disagreed with the scientific consensus:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

    https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/mil...percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

    That is from a peer-reviewed researcher writing in the Board of Atomic Scientists bulletin

    None of your denier BS from WUWT or anywhere else can change the fact that almost no scientists with credentials agree with you except those with known fossil fuel interests funding them like Willie Soon or Fred Singer or Roy Spencer. You are spreading fossil fuel industry lies and trying to mislead people.

    Nobody is a flat Earther except you and nobody is lying except the sources you dredge up here from WUWT or Cato or whatever.

    You cannot come up with even a single forcing other than CO2 that is causing the current warming yet you dare scoff at people who actually understand how the greenhouse effect works.

    You don't know anything about solar cycles or orbital mechanics which are all experiencing long-term cooling trends and cannot explain the current warming.

    You are functionally illiterate on the greenhouse effect or how CO2 acts in the upper stratosphere to stop heat from radiating back to space.

    We pump over 30,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and the ratio has moved from 280ppm to over 400ppm and counting and all that change is manmade and is the highest level for over 800,000 years. But you don't think that can cause the current warming. Hard to know if you actually believe that or you are just lying for whatever reason.

    You are correct that CO2 has lagged warming due to orbital mechanics setting warming period in motion but CO2 has been associated with almost every single dramatic warming event in the past including 4 of the major mass species extinctions. It is a lie that CO2 ALWAYS lags warming. The causal relationship goes both ways and nobody ever said that CO2 was the only cause of climate change. It is the cause of this one though and none of the lies you are trying to spread can change the reality that human caused emissions are responsible for the current warming.

    None of the other forcings science has studied is responsible for the extremely rapid warming we are experiencing now. Almost no credible scientists outside a few outliers and fossil fuel industry shills think the current warming is anything other than the expansion of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. All your lies and character assassinations and BS are just stupid tactics. You are wholly unable to explain this simple graph showing the correlation between CO2 and climate:

    [​IMG]

    or this one:

    [​IMG]

    And as the effects of man-made emissions on climate become more severe, even in the US where you are saturated in the kind of BS propaganda you are trying to peddle, more and more people are seeing through the lies. And everywhere outside the US government which is still in full scale denial mode people are starting to take action to reduce emissions - and this includes the fossil fuel industry who are now recognizing they can be held culpable for the lies they are spreading.

    But some people will just never let go the Cato Institute, Heartland, Koch Bros., lies that have fueled the denial industry and it's army of useful liers.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  5. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quotes Lord Monckton as an expert reviewer,:rolleyes: Perhaps the most comical of Cato's band of google-eyed nattering shills but par for gball.

    [​IMG]

     
  6. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again no evidence just dogma. Pure flat earther fake science :)

    LOL You haven't proven any of my links are funded by big oil let alone proved them wrong. You are the purest example of fake science relying on dogma not science to debate :)

    And actually one of my favorite sources is a simple crowd funded and Canadian eh? :)



    Then prove my links wrong. Don't just pretend your word as laughable as it is, is wrong.

    Start with the 12,000 97%.

    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/



    BTW, if you actually read it you would have found that it was two climate scientists who actually broke down the lies but of course you have no time for the facts do you? :)

    Cook is a liar and a fraud and all it took was two scientists not accepting his dogma to prove him exactly that :)

    LOL Why am I not surprised you would quote a flat earther liar like this for your "facts"


    Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change” proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change”) instead of the two (“climate change”) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change” instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.” Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,” brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that




      • only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view”;
      • 29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change”;
      • 8 percent focused on “mitigation”;
      • 6 percent focused on methodological questions;
      • 8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change”;
      • 3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’”;
      • 4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change”; and
      • 42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”
      • Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman’s “Examining the Consensus on Climate Change” (EOS, January 2009), concluded, “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” However, Doran and Zimmerman counted only 79 out of the 3,146 responses to their survey in determining the alleged consensus, and the two questions asked in the survey were framed such that even the most ardent skeptics—like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer—would have answered “Yes”:
        • “When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
        • “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
        Another study, “Expert credibility in climate change” (PNAS, April 9, 2010), by William Anderegg et al., reported that a survey of publication and citation data of 1,372 climate researchers found that 97 to 98 percent believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.” But Anderegg’s study covered only the 200 most prolific writers on climate change, excluding thousands of others, and even the conclusion that humans caused “most” of the warming doesn’t mean that those scientists consider global warming a crisis or that we should spend trillions of dollars attempting to stop it.
    https://cornwallalliance.org/2017/0...limate-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/


    So yes Earthboy she was a liar and a fraud like so many other flat earther scientits you so blindly embrace the dogma.


    And once again exposing the lies of the flat earthers could not be easier.

    31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".
    31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?
    [​IMG]
    Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

    While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.

    This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.




    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence
    Because you can't prove its the primary source of climate change as you keep claiming. That's why. :)

    You NEVER post a link that states we have identified all other natural factors of climate change and are left with the fraction of cO2 produced by humans (actually resleased from the earth but you aren't educated enough to know that) to be the primary cause of climate change.

    No matter how many emotional rants you come up with or false claims about where my facts come from even you have already admitted we cannot account fo all other factors and can factually dismiss them as not being the primary source of climate change.

    And you still can't admit that reality. :)

    [/quote]
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  7. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, he is talking about your willingness to copy and paste entire articles from a source you like, but an outright refusal to address information from a source that disagrees except to the extent that you cant find a very specific quote within that information.
     
  8. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can be wrong on this topic.

    But there is a whole host of data points, science, and conclusions from nearly every relevant expert on the planet to back up the assertion that I am not.

    And you will notice that this particular post is calling out your inability to identify - again - any type or amount of evidence that would convince you to change your mind.
     
  9. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is accurate to state that scientists have been able to eliminate all other known factors, except for anthropomorphic causes, as a likely explainer for the current climate warming trend. You have been provided those data points and sources wherein you could find more information time and time again.

    It is entirely possible that there are unknown factors that could be the REAL cause. It is also entirely possible that climatologists are mistaken about their collective data and analysis regarding the currently known factors of climate change.

    But the former has not been discovered and all of the data and analysis, using different methodologies and a diverse range of scientists from around the planet, are in agreement that humans are the most significant cause as to the current warming trend.

    I will ask you these two questions.

    Do you believe the Earth is warming? Do you agree that humans are a significant causal factor in that warming?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  10. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP
     
  11. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no proof, only a theory yet you demand proof when you started the thread off under a complete lie:

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

     
  12. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is another lie. The United States is actually decreasing our CO2 emissions while China and India are increasing theirs. When you keep making false statements and running down lies that you accept as facts, you will always be on the wrong side and never able to convince anyone your theory is accurate.

    Because what you have is just a theory.

    You also continue to bark up the wrong tree. Your anger, if you actually believe all of your statements here, should be directed at the countries who are increasing CO2 emissions. They are the ones who are at fault. They are also the ones that signed the stupid "Paris Agreements" that allowed them to increase their emissions and pretty much laugh in the face of the world as they did it.

    Yet, here you are, crying at the United States to do more. When you take such a stance, it makes you look hypocritical as you point fingers at those that reduce emissions while ignoring the biggest culprits on the planet. You also forget that you, yourself, are guilty as charged for spewing emissions into the atmosphere.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree that CO2 emissions is tied to climate change?
     
  14. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  15. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sequitur again...
     
  16. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting on you to "see please" to bother answering a couple of basic questions on a thread about climate change.

    1) Do you agree that the Earth is warming?
    2) Do you agree that humans are a significant causal factor in that warming?
     
  17. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of them have a common agenda and we saw it in 2016...lock her up, all aliens are evil rapists, corporate money knows best.
     
  18. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) compared to when?
    2) no.
     
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for answering.

    1) Just currently warming, but let's say compared to the average global temperature from 1900.

    2) Why do you believe humans are not having a significant (just to be clear, I am using that in the statistical sense, which basically means big enough that we can say their impact is not just statistical noise) causal impact on that warming?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  20. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) to small of a window to reach a conclusion either way.
    2) human industrialisation is also too limited in time to reach a conclusion. And since we know that there were periods of higher rise in temperature before said industrialisation, this blow a big hole in your theory. Funny enough, one of the coolest period in the last century was during WW2 where everybody had their industry working at 100% most of it coal based.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  21. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you see me post that somewhere? No, you didn't. You seem to think so, though.
     
  22. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are disputing that China and India are doing more to combat climate change solely because they are emitting more CO2 than the United States...

    #Logic
     
  23. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) What does too small of a window mean? I'm asking you to compare the average temperature from 1900 and today.

    2) No one is claiming that CO2 is supposed to create an immediate temperature feedback. So pointing out the short time frame where the temperature dropped (doesnt that contradict your first point?) doesnt break the chain of causation. Secondly, the amount of CO2 being emitted in the 1950s was lower than today.

    Also, the notion that we know of bigger temperature rises in the past begs the question...how do you know? It also begs the question of what was the cause and do those causes explain the current warming trend?
     
  24. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude, just post the link or a relevant paragraph or two. It violates fair use to copy the entire article like you keep doing.
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  25. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well let's look at the blog where you cut and paste most of your lies from that of former Fox weatherman and current Heartland Institute board member, Anthony Watts:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

    Of course it later came out that he had taken a further $44,000 a year for other projects as well as speaking at Heartland conferences and he is now on Heartlands board of directors.

    https://www.heartland.org/news-opin...e-anthony-watts-joins-the-heartland-institute

    Heartland of course being one of the biggest funders of climate denial and of money from fossil fuel interest like Koch bros:

    How about Willie Soon and David Legates both Heartland Associates as well as members of the Marshall institute:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/
     
    MrTLegal likes this.

Share This Page