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

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
clearly you are retarded, and a liar, since scientific polling does exist.



that's not how scientific polling works, moron.





hope NOAA is good enough for you.




and just to piss you off, some skeptical science.




CO2 and temps move in basically lockstep.

and you are a retarded white supremacist.

wow, you brought some substantive claim to the table.
amazing.

well lets examine this shit:

co2 levels have been rising
the temp has been rising in fits and starts over a long period of time

if these two are related, then when co2 rises, temps should rise, and as your grap demonstrates that appears to be the case.

BUUUUT

in the past, it has been much hotter and much colder than it is now.

co2 levels during the little ice age were not much different than the "pre-industrial baseline" yet despite this, it got cold as fuck , then after it got colder, co2 levels dropped a little, but just a little cuz the even was short

look: graphs:
little ice age temp chart:

from the Right Wing Think Tank PBS: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/timeline.htm

lookit that. between 1400 and 1700 it got cold as fuck!
what was CO2 doin during this period?


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

NOT causing warming apparently
right in the middle of the event, co2 concentrations fell off, yet despite shockingly low Co2 levels, it started getting warmer again

if the assumptions are correct, then co2 levels should have fallen BEFORE the cooling, and risen BEFORE the warming
they clearly did not, ergo, co2 didnt cause the last large shift in climate.

co2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, during times when it was cold as fuck, and warm as fuck , and co2 didnt lead any of these events. it followed them

lets try a new theory:
water vapour is 5x more powerful at trapping heat than co2
water vapour is found in the atmosphere 100x more abundantly than co2
water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere are fairly consistent
changes in co2 seasonally, annually and over the long term are following temperatures, not leading them
thats what dr salby was arguing but you didnt bother to listen to his presentation.

also it turns out...
the sun has been putting out more energy every year, year after year since the end of the little ice age
mars has now begun experiencing "global warming" despite it's terribly thin atmosphere and much greater distance from the sun
the sun, for the last 100 or so years, has been putting out 1-2% more BONUS energy ever year, in addition to the maunder predictions

maybe the SUN is causing some, or even most of the warming we are experiencing, and maybe co2 isnt involved much at all.


but the primary assumption of the IPCC is that co2 is doing it, previously it was doing all of it, now they say it is doing "~51%" and the more "confidence" you need in their claims, the lower that "~51%" gets.

whats the confidence in the "More Than Half" assertion? 75-90%
whats considered statistically valid in a research trial? +/- 0.05
Edit: not 0.05%, but +/- 0.05 which is 5%. fucking typos

so their numbers dont meet the expectation of confidence to be valid, they are at best, educated guesses.

and if the primary assumption is wrong, the whole premise for their models, which led to the conclusions are wrong.
 
Last edited:

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
did kynes just solve the global warming crisis while i was out playing golf?

that guy is amazing. think of all the time 34 national academies of science have spent reaching the opposite conclusion.

and it has all been peer reviewed by an apache junction drunkard.

well done, you guys!
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
did kynes just solve the global warming crisis while i was out playing golf?

that guy is amazing. think of all the time 34 national academies of science have spent reaching the opposite conclusion.

and it has all been peer reviewed by an apache junction drunkard.

well done, you guys!

You couldnt get it more wrong if you believed in man made global warming....

Oh wait...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You couldnt get it more wrong if you believed in man made global warming....

Oh wait...
kinda sounds like what you were saying about a romney win based on your own delusions not too long ago.

have 34 national academies of science ever been simultaneously wrong about anything?
 

kinetic

Well-Known Member
I just wanted to touch base again with this thread and let you all know I paid $2.19 for a gallon of milk today. Picked up two mangos for $5, and a loaf of from scratch Italian bread for $1.75, I like to slice it myself.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
I've said it several times in multiple threads on this latest manufactured crisis. Temperature increases precede CO2 increases, always have, always will.

Then the zealots (looking for a new enviromental drum to beat) embraced Fat Al's little propaganda flick and magically the relationship reversed.

I always get asked for citations, this time the resident Eco-Loons provided the citations for me.

Time to find a new "cause" for the liberal doofuses and harpies to shriek about. What the fuck will you people do with yourselves when we actually discover a viable "green" energy technology and implement it?

You know who's gonna ultimately get it done, don't ya? That's right, big energy corporations, the same ones we have now. Run by big money Republicans. All the latest prattle won't amount to jack shit.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I've said it several times in multiple threads on this latest manufactured crisis. Temperature increases precede CO2 increases, always have, always will.

Then the zealots (looking for a new enviromental drum to beat) embraced Fat Al's little propaganda flick and magically the relationship reversed.

I always get asked for citations, this time the resident Eco-Loons provided the citations for me.

Time to find a new "cause" for the liberal doofuses and harpies to shriek about. What the fuck will you people do with yourselves when we actually discover a viable "green" energy technology and implement it?

You know who's gonna ultimately get it done, don't ya? That's right, big energy corporations, the same ones we have now. Run by big money Republicans. All the latest prattle won't amount to jack shit.
tell us again how it's all a "hoax", smart one.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
tell us again how it's all a "hoax", smart one.
No need. I've been watching you and the boys get your asses handed to you for about 80 pages now. You'll never admit it, but to those watching and not commenting, you look like massive head trauma victims trying to debate the superiority of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time baby.

Step into my office,
Why?
Cause your fuckin' fired.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
yeah looks like none of the "Rigorous Troofified Science Superheroes" could find any sign of evidence to refute the observations, nor could they locate my uncorrected citation error.

but then they werent really looking at the material presented, they were looking a their agenda crumbling, and then just panicked.

well here it is:
it turns out, HEAT causes Co2, rather than Co2 causing heat.
watch the presentation above and gaze in wonder at science evolving.

also, i made a fundamental error myself, accepting the tautology that Co2 is concentrated in the temperate zones (where fossil fuel emissions happen) and neither bucky nor pada (the self proclaimed experts) noted it, despite their thirst to prove me wrong.



http://www.imk-asf.kit.edu/english/1048.php

whops, that graphic is of Methane and Co2 aggregate emissions.

THIS is the satellite map of co2 concentrations:




ohh shit. now it's even worse.

damn what they doin in sub saharan africa and the amazon basin to make all that evil co2?

ohhh right. NATURAL co2.

from heat, decaying plant matter and termites!

i bet those swamps, jungles, bacterium, and termites are all just planted there by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers to conceal the Troof.


maybe the Heartland Institute hacked the satellites?

how about carbon monoxide? thats an industrial pollutant right?

that cant be made naturally in any large amounts, cuz that shit comes from cars...



damn.

maybe methane?




yeah thats more like it.
europe and the US are nice and yellow with a hint of red

aww damn. south america and africa are STILL fucked up.

well im sure that THIRTY FOUR NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMIES cant be wrong, no matter how wrong they look.

i bet the satellites themselves are climate deniers, yeah, they are sending down fake data because they dont want to face the TROOF
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member


and in a few days, when the next Global Warming Thread appears, pada, bucky and ginchie will trot out the same "evidence" which has failed so miserably in this one, as if it's fresh new flapjacks hot off the IPCC's griddle.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I'm going to discuss it with some others (hopefully, today). If I am wrong, they will point out the fault. So far, no one here has done so, and I don't expect anyone to, either. Unless they have some quantum chemistry background.

Lol quantum chemistry background? Don't make me laugh

Protip: if your in your mum's basement looking at a graph funny and thinking you've overturned 100 years of scientific knowledge that "co2 cannot by definition cause warming" then your probably overestimating your own abilities by orders or magnitude

Look at that I didn't have to use any chemistry quantum or otherwise to tell you that
This doesn't preclude CO2's importance in the "carbon cycle", but the hoopla about it being a relevant GHG-- as far as climate temps are concerned-- is now more doubtful in my eyes.
Lol as if your eyes are worth paying attention to
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
water vapour's greenhouse effect is 5x that of Co2, mole for mole, and that is AFTER "baselining away" ice snow and ocean albedo effect, evaporative cooling, effects, etc etc etc etc.
5x more effective than co2 is the MOST CONSERVATIVE (and by that i mean lowest) estimate of it's "adjusted" greenhouse power


Water vapour's concentration in the atmosphere is 100x that of co2 NOW
the concentration of water or co2 two weeks from now, or 6 months or 5 years is irrelevant to it's power to trap IR radiation and heat. \
if it is a red herring, then why are you not simply disproving these assertions with your mighty AGW ninja skills?
A red herring just needs to shown as such I have no need to argue against your frothy proclamations about water vapour....


you brought it up, because i brought it up, in response to you bringing it up in a thristy ass desperate attempt to get a response from me?
yeah, youre retarded.

YOU are the one who injected yourself into this discussion, you are the one who, (in your very first foray into this thread) smugly asked "who are you arguing with" and then pretended to be offended by my telling you who i was arguing with and why.
If I was you I'd go back and check as my first post in this thread was directed at heckler and you replied to me with "ghar water vapour, ghar frothy, ghar nitrogen is greenhouse gas, ghar frothy"

This being the intrawebs it's all there for people to check up on

Post 1395 ;)
ohh so youre not actually attempting to insult me, you are simply incapable of preventing your lips from flapping, and unable to make those flapping noises take a substantive form.
I think you need to educate yourself on what a personal insult actually is....

Here if you want I'll dumb it down for you to understand

You can insult people without being personal!!!

It really is that simple


yep. as substantive as ever, which is to say, you havent dipsroved any of the assertions made in this thread, you havent even ATTEMPTED to dispute any assertion
Cart before the horse you have once shown your assertions to be true...

Unroll you do I can just sit back and laugh at all the floundering around that you guys do (see bellow)
save one obvious (been up too late) error which was only HALF wrong, since nitrogen may not trap IR radiation, it STILL HOLDS HEAT
Still have absolutely no idea about the very basics of greenhouse gasses Keynes?
 

Ra$p0tin

Well-Known Member
kinda sounds like what you were saying about a romney win based on your own delusions not too long ago.

have 34 national academies of science ever been simultaneously wrong about anything?
There is always a first time. There was a time when people thought the earth was flat and not round too.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Oh and Keynes you do realise that burning any fossil fuel releases 2 greenhouse gasses?

CO2



And



H2O......

You know water vapour....


I'll let you chew over that snippet before you next gnash your teeth over "water vapour"
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Water vapour also reflects sunlight as well as absorbing infrared

However water vapour is self regulating (you know the natural cycle that ends with rain)
Yet all this is nothing but a red herring an attempt by you to get us to "look over there"

Now and again? Keynes why your too modest...


I brought it up because you mentioned it in a post from me
personal insults? Yeah that you feel personally insulted by my posts does not mean I have posted "personal insults"

Howl....
Water vapor does not reflect sunlight. Clouds do, but they're not vapor. "self regulating" is incorrect. tho there is a natural cycle. As there also is with co2. Yes, I know, that's heresy to the AGW church. But switching from "global warming" to "climate change" was heresy, too.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Keep parroting that bullshit claim, it doesn't make it more true the more you say it

I've already shown evidence that says the majority of scientists lean left, that includes, especially in STEM fields

You deny it. All you have is "that's not a scientific poll!", then I ask "how would you suggest we determine the political affiliation of scientists scientifically?", then you say "it shouldn't matter what their political affiliation is!" .... then why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place in some retarded attempt at failed smugness as if to say "conservatives do all the real math and science, all the hard work, leftists do the bullshit science that nobody cares about and isn't real science". Everybody who is reading this right now can see right past all your bullshit...

You brought it up, I showed you you're wrong, you cry foul and kick over the checkerboard. That's why nobody likes playing with you (nobody agrees with you)
(Clearly wrong.)
 
Top