Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And here's a very simple and very funny refutation of brighton's sea ice claims.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> Shooting your massively uninformed mouth off again, I see:

    "Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist,"
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, of course it isn't. It is very funny, but only because it is so transparently fallacious and disingenuous.
    Why does that graph start in 1980? Could it be because sea ice was increasing before then, disproving the AGW narrative?

    And why does it stop in 2014, six years ago? Could it be because sea ice has increased since then, disproving the AGW narrative?
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. You have cause and effect reversed, in classic AGW fashion: the fact that it is fake is why I don't like it.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Magic is by definition not natural.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. None of them is causing the warming seen in data altered to match the theory that CO2 drives temperature variation. That warming -- which is the only global warming I can see in at least the last decade -- is being caused artificially, and we know quite specifically by whom: NASA and NOAA fraudsters.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have provided evidence, and you know it.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Natural factors are by definition not magical.
    Then there is nothing of interest in your theory that CO2 drives temperature, and no empirical evidence for it.

    And just out of curiosity, if CO2 is not the principal cause of post-industrial warming, what is, and when and how did it stop working?
    <yawn> OK, Mr. Actual Science: if CO2 is not the principal cause of post-industrial warming, what is, and why is it no longer causing warming, so that you have to invoke CO2?
    :lol: How on earth do you keep a straight face?
    If being reduced to constantly just makin' $#!+ up makes you good...
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
     
  5. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, lets focus on YOUR C H E R R Y P I C K I N G. You pick the part of the curve that shows the Summer low, but the Winter highest ice volume shows many years of less ice than 2012 at the maximum point which is much more telling about the ice volume than a fluke extra warm late Summer!!!!!

    [​IMG]
     
  6. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or more honestly because that was when SATELLITE data began!!!!
    And obviously sea ice has actually DECREASED since 2014, disproving all your hogwash[​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Meteorologists aren't climate scientists either.

    Stop clinging to your delusions of competence. Let it go.

    That's good. Admitting that you can't face me or any rational person in debate is it is the first step towards your long recovery from conspiracy madness.

    I know it hurts, realizing that you were bamboozled by a cult and that your whole life has been a lie. Just remember, we're here for you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Garbage. They are as much climate scientists as the pal-review fraudsters you rely on.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Except we are not here for you, and you will not be forgiven when your cult's dishonesty and destructiveness are definitively exposed by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it isn't. Your claim is just objectively false. The satellite data actually go back to 1973. NASA just hides the pre-1979 satellite data because they falsify the AGW fraudsters' CO2-wags-the-ocean-temperature-dog narrative:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-c...Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-5.53.39-AM-down.gif

    The pre-satellite data also confirm that arctic sea ice varies in a multi-decade non-periodic cycle, also falsifying the CO2-wags-the-ocean-temperature-dog narrative:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-c...Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-6.12.59-AM-down.gif

    See? You have been conned. How does it feel to be playing the sap for these lying frauds?
    More garbage. Readers are invited to confirm for themselves that the March 2014 and 2020 points are virtually identical.
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, your claim is objectively false, because the hard data says so. 1979 was just another point on the decline slope, so your conspiracy theory is bogus and fraudulent.

    https://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html

    [​IMG]

    There's better data out there than the ancient sources that you and your cult rely on. Refusing to use the best data available is a sure sign of a pseudoscience devotee, and you always refuse to use the best data.

    Mirror time.

    You were conned by lying frauds. That's not debatable by any honest person, so you'll try to debate it, but you'll fail and just dig deeper.

    At this point, you can demand that your cult masters tell you why they lied to your face and left you humiliated. Or, alternately, you can run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots with gusto, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.

    We all know you'll choose the latter option.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  11. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just denier's conspiracy hogwash!
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview
    Since 1978 Micowave Sounding Units (MSU) measure radiation emitted by the earth's atmosphere from NOAA polar orbiting satellites. The different channels of the MSU measure different frequencies of radiation proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Channel 2 mainly measures tropospheric temperatures, while Channel 4 measures temperatures in the lower stratosphere. The analysis of the satellite temperature record represented here begins in 1979.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, no. We're talking about satellite sea ice photos, not satellite IR measurement of atmospheric temperatures.
     
  13. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://nsidc.org/nsidc-monthly-highlights/2018/10/modern-sea-ice-satellite-record-turns-40
    The dawn of a sea ice time series
    On October 25, 1978, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) began its mission aboard the Nimbus-7 satellite, launching the modern sea ice satellite record. SMMR was more advanced than ESMR, and used multiple microwave frequencies to more accurately observe concentration, or the percentage of sea ice covering a given area, and extent, or how much of the ocean is covered with at least 15 percent sea ice. In addition, SMMR was capable of distinguishing younger, thinner ice from older, thicker, and more resilient sea ice. In the 1980s, NASA contracted with NSIDC to archive and distribute the resulting sea ice data. This data later became part of the NASA Snow and Ice Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) at NSIDC.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that claim is false. I already showed you the actual hard data. What you have cited is not hard, observed data at all, but fabricated data.
    No, that's just false. YOUR OWN SOURCE admits that the graph you posted is not observed data at all, but data adjusted to agree with AGW anti-CO2 hate propaganda:

    "Earlier records, compiled from ice charts and other sources exist, but are not consistent with the satellite record. Here, a method is presented to adjust a compilation of pre-satellite sources to remove discontinuities between the two periods and create a more consistent combined 59-yr time series spanning 1953–2011. This adjusted combined time series shows more realistic behavior across the transition between the two individual time series and thus provides higher confidence in trend estimates from 1953 through 2011."

    https://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html
    The graph you have offered was FABRICATED to be consistent with AGW anti-CO2 hate propaganda. The data were DELIBERATELY ALTERED to show "more realistic" behavior, where "realism" was defined as consistency with the CO2-tail-wags-the-ocean-temperature-dog narrative. The data were DELIBERATELY ALTERED to create a linear trend, and remove its actual cyclical behavior. The graph you have offered is a TOTAL FRAUD.
    :lol: Where "better" means, "more consistent with the proved-false AGW narrative." I get it.
    The best data available is actual observations, which is exactly what I showed you. What you have offered is not actual observations at all, but data adjusted to agree with your proved-false theory.
    No. I just refuse to use the fraudulent data you cite: data deliberately and fraudulently altered to agree with a falsified theory.
    No. I showed you the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS. All you have offered is "data" altered to agree with your false theory. Calling fraudulently altered data "better" than the actual observations is disingenuous to say the least.

    At this point, you can demand that your cult masters tell you why they lied to your face and left you humiliated. Or, alternately, you can run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots with gusto, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.

    We all know you'll choose the latter option.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ahem. You apparently missed the use of the indefinite article: "a" sea ice time series, not "the" sea ice time series.

    GET IT???

    Wait, what?? So, your own source says ESMR was the satellite sea ice observation instrument that PRECEDED SMMR....?

    Oh, dear. Read, Ed, and try to learn from your humiliation:

    "To this instrument, clouds were not obstacles and daylight was not necessary.


    A series of aircraft research flights in 1967 and 1970 demonstrated its potential. The flights over Arctic sea ice in a NASA aircraft showed the strong contrast between the ice-free ocean and sea ice when observed at microwave wavelengths.


    The instrument, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), launched into space aboard the Nimbus 5 satellite on December 10, 1972."


    https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/four-decades-of-sea-ice-from-space-the-beginning/

    Got that, Ed? 1972.

    You are destroyed. Nothing you can possibly say even matters any more, because you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished. YOUR OWN SOURCE proves me right and you wrong.
     
  16. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You dishonestly left something out!
    ESMR was a single-frequency instrument that showed potential because it could monitor sea ice in darkness and through clouds, but the resulting data were plagued by technical glitches that were laborious and time-consuming to resolve.
    From your own link:
    Some of the images ESMR provided were sharp. Others had “fuzzy” pixels or obviously flawed radiation data, recalled Jay Zwally, a senior scientist at Goddard. In 1974, Zwally, a physicist who had been Program Manager for Glaciology and Remote Sensing at the National Science Foundation, came to NASA’s Goddard campus attracted by the potential he saw in ESMR for year-round, global observations of sea ice.

    “We never found the cause of the intermittent glitch – there was speculation that maybe there was a little piece of solder inside the instrument that would occasionally short out something, which would cause the data to be uncalibrated,” Zwally said.

    So the data YOU depend on was known to be faulty, no surprise there.
    We didn't get accurate satellite data until 1978-79.
     
  17. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which, due to these things called "clouds" that are almost always present, are quite unreliable. But then, you have to use data that sucks and ignore the good data, because all the good data says you're peddling fraud.

    Again, it's a hallmark of pseudoscience to discard the good data entirely because that data contradicts you, and that's what you always do. I thank you for being such a consistent example of a pseudoscience cultist, and for always confirming my points.

    Your cult is collapsing due to the hard evidence, not to mention the disgusting behavior of the cultists. I mean, what normal people want to be associated with the bitter death-worshiping cranks of the denier cult? All of your work pushing propaganda has been in vain. You've wasted years of your life in a failed hate-campaign against reality. I can see why you're grumpy. However, you're going to have to accept reality eventually, so why not now? Just take a break from the hate, and from the lying on behalf of men who consider you to be part of their loyal cadre of Useful Idiots.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??? This, from you??? :lol: You FLAT-OUT DENIED that there were any satellite sea ice data before 1979, even though YOUR OWN SOURCE said there was.
    But nevertheless produced plenty of accurate, valid data showing sea ice increased rapidly from the early 1970s -- which is not surprising, as there was genuine universal scientific consensus that the world had been cooling for decades -- cooling that NASA/NOAA have now dishonestly erased to make the data match the CO2-drives-temperature narrative.
    No, your claims continue to be false. The faulty data were easily identified and removed from the ESMR record, leaving perfectly good and valid data showing increasing sea ice in the 1970s, as in the graph I posted, which you and NASA now pretend never existed.
    False. The inaccurate data from ESMR were easily identified and removed, leaving accurate satellite sea ice data showing a rapid increase in sea ice in the 1970s, data that lying anti-CO2 hate propaganda fraudsters at NASA how hide and pretend never existed. And you are doing your best to help them.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earlier optical polar satellite photos from the 1960s were not very useful, but ESMR began providing microwave data that passed through clouds starting in 1972. Not 1979. Those data showed a rapid increase in arctic sea ice in the 1970s, which NASA now conceals and pretends it never knew about in order to support the CO2-drives-temperature fraud.

    Again, it's a hallmark of pseudoscience to discard the good data entirely because that data contradicts you, and that's what you always do. I thank you for being such a consistent example of a pseudoscience cultist, and for always confirming my points.

    Your cult is collapsing due to the hard evidence, not to mention the disgusting behavior of the cultists. I mean, what normal people want to be associated with the bitter death-worshiping cranks of the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria cult? All of your work pushing propaganda has been in vain. You've wasted years of your life in a failed hate-campaign against reality. I can see why you're grumpy. However, you're going to have to accept reality eventually, so why not now? Just take a break from the hate, and from the lying on behalf of men who consider you to be part of their loyal cadre of Useful Idiots.
     
  20. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hogwash! How can data be accurate when it is incomplete????
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very easily. Indeed, all of statistics is based on the fact that incomplete data from a random sample can provide an accurate picture of a whole population. And it's not like no faulty data from the newer satellites is ever thrown out. There's just relatively less of it.
     
  22. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except they were never able to solve the problem of the corrupted data, and you do not know how much was corrupted and how much wasn't. And I highly doubt the uncorrupted data supports your conspiracy theories.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The corrupted data was obviously wildly wrong, and was identified and removed.
    I posted the graph proving it does.
     
  24. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A fake graph made by the deniers at fake science site "real climate science." No wonder you didn't link to your source. Real Climate Science is rated as a Quackery level pseudoscience website.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the data and graph are from NOAA, as it says right on the graph.
    I did.
    "Rated" that way, is it? By whom? On what basis?
     

Share This Page