Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
waldo said:
just a C&P Locutus... nothing to say yourself? That's quite the source! Wingnut "Tim Ball" writing an article sourced from WTFIUWT! :mrgreen:

But hey now, what kind of a title is that for the article, hey Locutus? Why, it's the IPCC that actually states, "Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one." But Locutus, what is that 'Tim Ball' writing about... cause, like, uhhh.... he's one of the infamous "Sky Dragons" who disavow the Greenhouse Effect! Given that background reference, why would 'Tim Ball' care about any of the GHG's? What's he up to there, hey Locutus?

of course, 'Tim Ball' fails to offer distinction between feedback and forcing... fails to indicate the positive feedback influence that water vapour has on CO2... fails to speak to the very short life "residence time" for water vapour (in the hours and days period) versus that of CO2 (typically in the 100 years to as long as 1000 years period), etc..

The Water Vapor Feedback



warning alert: taxi, there are graphs following... proceed with caution!

taxi, your misleading use of "manipulated" is noted. Of course, you're completely out of your element here. The earlier highlighting (the Koch Brother sponsored) Muller's Best Project is, again, a reinforcement of the credibility of other surface temperature data sets and their respective processing... it highlights that your BS "manipulated" slag carries no weight/substance.

of course, those "manipulations" you speak of are well documented... in fact, published papers have been written to formally show the rationale and related science behind any adjustments to the raw data made. Those papers stand and have not been over-turned on challenge. More pointedly, not that long ago in another CC thread, I put up the following graphic to highlight just how little effect the adjustments have; in this case, NOAA/USHCN:



taxi, you clearly couldn't grasp an earlier CC thread discussion concerning Arctic warming and the issue of limited station availability... I just checked that you did partake in it; obviously it went beyond your comprehension ability... even as simple as the discussion was. I keyed on one of the latest (peer-review published) processing initiatives that reinforce the extent of Arctic warming... this Guardian article provides a high-level interpretation:

as was shown earlier by member Tonington, York University hosts an interpretive application that allows all manner of temperature trend calculation... even you could run it, taxi... even you! If you ran it, you also could bring forward this following result that reflects upon the "Cowtan/Way" processing that the above linked Guardian article speaks to: have a go, taxi..... you'll see you can get a result just like this:

Click to expand...

Of course when caught in a lie the globull warming truthers would say it is important to lie to get the message out. It is simply impossible to get an honest outcome with manipulated data. The tree huggers and anti fish farm clowns tried this decades ago. You fail once again.

waldo said:
say what? I answered Walter's question... is there a problem? Oh wait, I expect you must think Walter's (and other's) ongoing routine of repeatedly posting weather updates while offering up some dumbass "good thing it's only weather" type comment is informative. Is that right? But hey, hundreds of like posts playing off some "confusion" over weather vs. climate... presuming to imply "some others" make selective interpretations of weather vs, climate... that's on par for the level of input azz-clown deniers revel in!



thanks for your moderation... perhaps you should call for more drywall images? I mean, after all, a real moderator, not that long ago, went to lengths to clean up several of these related threads... went to lengths to erase all the 'drywall (and like drivel)' posts, in an attempt to bring some semblance of respect for the board and it's rules back. Perhaps if that had been your time/effort, member Locutus, you wouldn't be so cavalier in your now (and past) encouragement for..... drywall images? Of course, I appreciate it's a difficult balance for you cause you so seek validation from the clubhouse BROs!



you just won't let it go! Ever since I suggested you clearly weren't a liberal/Liberal, that you most certainly were a Harper Con supporter, you've been following me from thread to thread with your drive-by slags. Get over it!



do you need to be hand-held... to the nth degree? I put up the NASA definition directly and.... also said:

​
put hey, let me do what you guys apparently... can't do! :mrgreen:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
​
of course, it's very surprising that all you experts here flaunting your denial, don't even know the official definition of weather vs. climate! Imagine that.
Click to expand...

SO the truthers have based all their dire predictions on weather. As per this definition.
 
Zipperfish

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Walter said:
They've never denied GHG's.
Click to expand...

Whatevs. If you try to find where Anthony Watts actually stands on global warming, you'll find out that he's actually very very sneaky. He lets his comments page and guest speakers do the talking for him. Anthony Watts has never even denied Anthropogenic Global Warming--he just denies every single shrede of evidence that supports it. He accepts it in theory, but denies it in practice.

This is why the denier argument has evolved from GW to AGW to CAGW. Theya re slowly hedging their bets. At first, it was no global warming. Then it was OK, clearly it's gettibng warmer but it's got nothing to do with us. Now it's "OK, maybe we have something to do with it, but ti won't be catastrophic."

It's so transparent, I'm amazed people can't see through it. But it's like the anti-vaxxers. Can't talk no sense to those folks.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,878
122
63
Zipperfish said:
Whatevs. If you try to find where Anthony Watts actually stands on global warming, you'll find out that he's actually very very sneaky. He lets his comments page and guest speakers do the talking for him. Anthony Watts has never even denied Anthropogenic Global Warming--he just denies every single shrede of evidence that supports it. He accepts it in theory, but denies it in practice.

This is why the denier argument has evolved from GW to AGW to CAGW. Theya re slowly hedging their bets. At first, it was no global warming. Then it was OK, clearly it's gettibng warmer but it's got nothing to do with us. Now it's "OK, maybe we have something to do with it, but ti won't be catastrophic."

It's so transparent, I'm amazed people can't see through it. But it's like the anti-vaxxers. Can't talk no sense to those folks.
Click to expand...
Typical Liberal response, jello, diversion, strawmen.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,021
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
We have to wait for the next Solar Cycle 10 years from now to see if it kicks global warming back into gear, by then well have a full, 30 YEAR CLIMATE data without warming.

That is IF solar cycles return to historic intensities.

Global temperatures will resume their long term growth trend within five to 10 years ending the so called pause in global warming, a leading climate scientist has predicted.

The pause – which on some measures has gone on since the mid-1990s - continued into 2014 on the basis of global temperature data released last week by US space agency NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US.

However, the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will grow sufficiently to overcome the combined impact of various natural climate cooling factors, journalists on a telephone news conference were told last week by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

There is evidence that volcanoes and a slightly dimmer Sun have acted to cool the Earth recently and so offset the warming impact of greenhouse gases, according to Schmidt, widely seen as a strong advocate for the case that humans are causing climate change. But Schmidt said that he did not expect the global warming pause – which he referred to as the hiatus - to persist
Click to expand...

Pause Over Within 10 Years Says NASA's Schmidt
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Zipperfish said:
Whatevs. If you try to find where Anthony Watts actually stands on global warming, you'll find out that he's actually very very sneaky. He lets his comments page and guest speakers do the talking for him. Anthony Watts has never even denied Anthropogenic Global Warming--he just denies every single shrede of evidence that supports it. He accepts it in theory, but denies it in practice.

This is why the denier argument has evolved from GW to AGW to CAGW. Theya re slowly hedging their bets. At first, it was no global warming. Then it was OK, clearly it's gettibng warmer but it's got nothing to do with us. Now it's "OK, maybe we have something to do with it, but ti won't be catastrophic."

It's so transparent, I'm amazed people can't see through it. But it's like the anti-vaxxers. Can't talk no sense to those folks.
Click to expand...

Watts is the epitome of denier stooopid! Watts trips over himself regularly... cause all the regular 'Watts-watchers' revel in replaying his idiocy across the blogosphere. Watts' big-time failures with temperature anomalies are legion... this coming from the guy who presumed to tout the failings of all surface temperature datasets... to quite literally charge NOAA with fraud! Of course, Watts had to eat crow on all accounts, particularly after NOAA issued a formal publication to debunk Watts' idiocy! And that only happened because that particular idiocy percolated on up to the mainstream media... and NOAA's hand was forced in order to protect the public's interpretation of the integrity of the surface temperature records/processing. However, the best reflection on Watts and his acolyte followers is the time Watts got called out on yet another of his nonsense articles... called out within the comments section to the point he couldn't recover and his only recourse was to claim he was conducting a "social experiment". That's right; Watts actually claimed he purposely talked nonsense just to see the impact it would bring forward!!! :mrgreen: And, of course, his regular lappers just accepted it and carried right on as if nothing had happened! Classic!
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
taxslave said:
Of course when caught in a lie the globull warming truthers would say it is important to lie to get the message out. It is simply impossible to get an honest outcome with manipulated data. The tree huggers and anti fish farm clowns tried this decades ago. You fail once again.
Click to expand...

no - again, all data adjustments to the raw data have been formally published to document the rationale/science behind them. Please step forward to show the formal publications that have successfully challenged the related science, the related papers that reflect on those adjustments... sure you can taxi, sure you can! As I put forward in the previous post (a short while back) where you played this "manipulated data" nonsense, I also put up the following graphic that shows an example comparison between adjusted and raw data... c'mon taxi, just look at the significant difference between the two! Of course, you could step-up taxi... you could showcase your vast knowledge/expertise... you could actually show/present something that speaks to the difference you suggest adjustments to the raw data make... you could challenge those adjustments as to why they're done! You could do all that taxi... or you could just continue with your regular unsubstantiated statements... and your drive-by act. Your choice taxi, your choice!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom