Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[Red1966]

You are a dumbass. The Sun has been extensively measured for decades, the solar activity has remained constant the entire time while global temperatures have increased.

Pretty much seals the deal on your solar irradiance theory..

Yeah, that really shows "the solar activity has remained constant the entire time". You don't understand how science works.

 

[BigNBushy]

It's less than 2%

I thought it was 3, but I didn't want to be wrong, so I rounded up to 10.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are a dumbass. The Sun has been extensively measured for decades, the solar activity has remained constant the entire time while global temperatures have increased.

Pretty much seals the deal on your solar irradiance theory..

look at your graph, then look at the graph from "Skeptical Science" which CLAIMS to be sourced from the IPCC

and a graph from the ACTUAL IPCC report 4 (the purported source for the "skeptical science" infographic bullshit

why dont any of them match?

ask the climate frenzied touts.

 

[Harrekin]

Has anyone found even one peer reviewed paper about the physics behind the CO2 induced Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect?

I know absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, but anyone else any luck?

Ive been looking, and see nothing describing the supposedly observable mechanism in physics terms, only hecklers paper which uses maths to disprove it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

And you dont at all see a problem with using inferential statistics on a data set that measures CO2 levels and applies them to the world in general...on top of a volcano?

Personally, and it might just be me, but I wouldve assumed measuring CO2 levels above a volcano would result in moar than a few outliers...

Our Freindly Neighborhood Polar Bear discussed my own similar doubts.

it turns out they got a pretty good handle on how to get reliable measurements.

dont ask me for the details, Neer blinded me with (actual) science and made me a mona loa believer.

their numbers are pretty reliable, but they dont make much in the way of ATTRIBUTION claims

it seems CO2 really is going up (but not nearly as fast as "south pole air flask" data claims) but they dont neccessarily insist it all comes from humans burning fossil fuels

 

[Doer]

Has anyone found even one peer reviewed paper about the physics behind the CO2 induced Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect?

I know absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, but anyone else any luck?

Ive been looking, and see nothing describing the supposedly observable mechanism in physics terms, only hecklers paper which uses maths to disprove it.

Not that I have seen, But, watch the droids shoot the messenger,

- Russia sucks
- this website sucks
- solar forcing sucks

www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/10/2103-peer-reviewed-study-contribution-of-the-greenhouse-effect-of-carbon-containing-gases-to-global-warming-turns-out-to-be-insignificant-by-s-v-avakyan-writing-for-the-herald-of-the-russian/

 

[BigNBushy]

You don't have to measure the volcanic emissions.

We know what naturally occurring atmospheric co2 looks like.

We know what man made fossil fuel released co2 looks like.

Take many measures throughout the entire planets atmosphere, look for concentrations of each, then divide.

It's just that simple.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes they are, you deny it;

"We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:

-The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.

-All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.

-Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

you blithering fool.

they are confident that their MEASUREMENTS of atmospheric CO2 are accurate, and free from contamination by that particular volcano's emissions and random outliers

they are also confident that their estimates of the ONE extensively studied volcano's emissions are pretty accurate

they DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER make any claim about confidence in global estimates of total volcanic (much less geologic) CO2 emissions

once again you turn a clear unambiguous statement from a trustworthy source into a LIE by falsifying their statement and adding your own dumptruck full of bullshit onto their coattails

you are shameless.

 

[Padawanbater2]

why dont any of them match?

ask the climate frenzied touts.

"They don't match"?

 

[Dr Kynes]

"They don't match"?

you think they do?

shit, why am i even bothering to argue with somebody who just turned a trustworthy source into a fountain of lies?

 

[Padawanbater2]

you think they do?

You can't talk past facts, no matter how much you want..

 

[Red1966]

You don't have to measure the volcanic emissions.

We know what naturally occurring atmospheric co2 looks like.

We know what man made fossil fuel released co2 looks like.

Take many measures throughout the entire planets atmosphere, look for concentrations of each, then divide.

It's just that simple.

How is volcanic co2 different than fossil fuel, human breath, and fart co2?

 

[Padawanbater2]

How is volcanic co2 different than fossil fuel, human breath, and fart co2?

Learn to science, dumbass. It's heavier

 

[Pinworm]

 

[travisw]

View attachment 3170921

It nice to see this climate debate really starting to get somewhere.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You can't talk past facts, no matter how much you want..

since these are asserted to be OBSERVED temps, taken from the same source data, they should be IDENTICAL, not merely vaguely similar in their trend

i have never disputed the clear UPOWARD trend in temps, i dispute their cause.

you naturally cant argue that issue without resorting to outright fabrications and citing graphs that have been fucked over, re-interpreted to fit the agenda, and hammered into the desired shape by each succeeding tout.

meanwhile, you take clear statements from the good folks at the mona loa OBSERVATORY and translate their assertions into wild speculation and unsupported claims

why the caps on OBSERVATORY?

cuz they make OBSERVATIONS

in order for their statements of their OBSERVATIONS to mean what you claim they would have to change their name to The Mona Loa SPECULATORIUM

 

[Dr Kynes]

View attachment 3170921

and the circle of life continues.

 

[WORDZofWORDZCRAFT]

View attachment 3170921

I can't even hate

 

[UncleBuck]

yes, the cartoon which purported to be sourced from the 2007 eia report, (which did NOT make the claims stated), but you retort with "wiki-wisdom" which is once again WRONG!

Wikipedia's assertion for 2010 (from your "supporting link", which was not about 2007 at all):

US: 4,433.057 million metric tonnes
World: 31,350.455 million metric tonnes

the EIA's assertion for 2010:

US: 5,636.739 million metric tonnes
World: 31,502.374 million metric tonnes

why the discrepancy? only the wikipedos know for sure.

the wikipedos claim to have gotten their data from the EIA in the first place, so the mystery deepens,

31 billion tonnes is so close to the 6 billion tonnes that you initially claimed.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why dont the climate change believers ever talk about the real source of global warming? You know.. the Sun??? Because right now it appears to be starting a 200+ year cycle that is going to cause cooling. And it is already happening and demonstrable in pacific ocean temperatures.

you'd better go let these climate scientists know about the existence of "the sun", right after you get done correcting cartographers for drawing a big body of open water next to iran.

fucking idiot.