"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Water John

Berties, you're right the posters name is a giveaway.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

One troll has ye in thrall lads, the twain will never meet despite your honourable efforts. He/she/it flourishes by a captive audience...

Such a cautiously vague post it's difficult to know if you agree with Akrasia's premature character assassination of a former UN climate chief or if you endorse George Lee's fake news, but either way, it's nice to meet you.

dense

Water John wrote: »

Berties, you're right the posters name is a giveaway.

Is Water John something to do with toileting?? And Berties whatever, do ye really need to start scraping the bottom of the barrel by having nothing else to resort to except analysing usernames??

dense

dense wrote: »

Is Water John something to do with toileting?? And Berties whatever, do ye really need to start scraping the bottom of the barrel by having nothing else to resort to except analysing usernames??

Thanks for playing, you have just won a substantial sum courtesy of a long lost Nigerian prince.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for playing, you have just won a substantial sum courtesy of a long lost Nigerian prince.

As expected, we're non the wiser about whether you're actually a fan of fake news or not, although I'm confident in saying you are, having ignored the opportunity to say you're not.



We're told fake news abounds these days and that everyone abhors it.
Not so, some depend on it for their agenda.


Whether they genuinely do not have the capacity to discern between reality and fiction or are simply pretending to be confused, they are content to be so either way, in case their peers, who also cannot or are just simply refusing to make the distinction, shun them.


Groupthink in action. Witness it.

Witness the lack of integrity which prevents normal people from admitting that it was stupid to describe Christiana Figueres as having been bought off and corrupt and that it was similarly stupid to ignore George Lee being caught out hyping up non existent record breaking temperatures.

Or, don't be a witness, just turn a blind eye to it and be a part of fake news.

dense

dense wrote: »

As expected, we're non the wiser about whether you're actually a fan of fake news or not, although I'm confident in saying you are, having ignored the opportunity to say you're not.



Fake news fans abound these days.


Whether they genuinely do not have the capacity to discern between reality and fiction or are simply pretending to be confused, they are content to be so either way, in case their peers, who also cannot or are just simply refusing to make the distinction, shun them.


Groupthink in action. Witness it.

Witness the lack of integrity which prevents normal people from admitting that it was stupid to describe Christiana Figueres as having been bought off and corrupt and that it was similarly stupid to ignore George Lee being caught out hyping up non existent record breaking temperatures.

Or, don't be a witness, just turn a blind eye to it and be a part of fake news.

Watch out for imitation leather.

Akrasia

Water John wrote: »

Berties, you're right the posters name is a giveaway.

Water John

Trump the scientist says now, if climate change is happening, it will bounce back.
Well that's alright then. We're going from it doesn't exist to it might be happening but everything will be fine.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Water John wrote: »

Trump the scientist says now, if climate change is happening, it will bounce back.
Well that's alright then. We're going from it doesn't exist to it might be happening but everything will be fine.

A la Akrasia's post a few pages back.

dense

https://risingup.org.uk/XR/rebel.php


Uprising pencilled in for the end of the month.

I mentioned how there was a smell of uprising from the socialist rantings about how no one was taking their climate issues seriously.

Well, in the UK, they're planning on heading out on the streets and being naughty and getting arrested for their cause.


You'd swear Akrasia had written their memo, (up as far as the bit about making personal sacrifices, which we know are pointless), because it has all the ingredients:

It is clear that the political system has completely failed us – it shows a total lack of urgency and is backing policies based on wishful thinking.

Scientists made clear the implications of continued carbon emissions in 1990, CO2 in the atmosphere has since increased by 60%. You might say then, that those who govern us intend to kill our children and are presently engaged in a crime against humanity. In any democratic society citizens have not just the right, but also the duty, to rebel against tyranny.


From the 31 October citizens of this country will commit repeated acts of disruptive, non-violent civil disobedience. There will be mass arrests.

We demand the UK declares a state of emergency, takes action to create a zero carbon economy by 2025, and creates a national assembly of ordinary people to decide what our zero carbon future will look like.

We are willing to make personal sacrifices. We are prepared to be arrested and to go to prison. We will lead by example, to inspire similar actions around the world. This requires a global effort but we believe it must begin in the UK, today, where the industrial revolution began.

More on the same lefty uprising here:

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/23/extinction-rebellion-diary-1-so-it-has-come

dense

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.

According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C).

That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).

https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

BalcombeSt4

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Climate change has become one of the causes that the liberal left have attached themselves to. Like most issues these people become attached to it has become a sort of cult. Anyone who even questions the consensus is labelled a 'denier' There are climate scientists in top US colleges who complain that funding is only given to scientists who accept human caused climate change and some are even afraid to voice their opinion for fear of the backlash.

It's also a cause the conservative left and the liberal right have attachments to.

BalcombeSt4

dense wrote: »

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.


https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

Plus it snowed once somewhere so how can it be getting warmer?

Those lefty-libtard-cuck-muck-pinky-yellow-bellyed-commie-socialist-scum-democratic-consvertaive-progressives are just so silly sometimes. At least you & me know the truth a?

WinnyThePoo

WesternZulu

dense wrote: »

Amid claims of recent hottest years being made, I offered the poster making the claims the chance to back them up.

They came back with a batch of made up numbers they didn't understand, and with no source.

You can understand their refusal to show the actual annual global average temperature figures for the recent years they were claiming had been so hot.

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018

dense wrote: »

If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

20 years ago NASA was saying that the average global temperature was 15°C, today their figures say that it's 14.9°C.

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.

This drop in temperature over the last 20 years is in the midst of apparently relentless global warming and the many retrospective upward temperature adjustments for the period.


https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/



https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.



The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

There you go again Akrasia. Reading the full sentences. Don't you know that's what they want you to do? You're supposed to pick the words and figures you want in isolation and then spin them to fit your own narrative.

dense

WesternZulu wrote: »

Ah you're just cherry picking now. The fact that there were hot years in the past is not a validation against global climate change.

The global average temp is increasing. There are years that are hotter than more recent times but the trend line is undoubtedly rising:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1918-2018?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2018


No one wants to get rid of the greenhouse effect. You have to be trolling.

Why would anyone want to get rid of it??? Wouldn't it be too cold?

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[4] Le Treut H.; Somerville R.; Cubasch U.; Ding Y.; Mauritzen C.; Mokssit A.; Peterson T.; Prather M. Historical overview of climate change science (PDF). Retrieved 14 December 2008. in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007

The page you linked to shows a graph of anomalies, not average yearly global temperatures.

The pages I linked to show that in spite of alleged global warming and alleged climate change from C02 emissions, the average global temperature for 2017 was estimated at 14.9°C, which is extremely close to what it apparently should be, 15°C.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

No they didn't. The baseline figure prior to 1980 was 14c. It's on the exact sentence you quoted. How did you not see this? You either do not understand enough to be arguing about this, or you're just deliberately trolling now.



The global average temperature on the original 1951-1980 baseline was 14c. The 14.9c that you bolded referred to the current temperature.

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

dense

dense wrote: »

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

There you have it folks, Kelkin popcorn remains the standard-bearer. We now turn to Steven Seagal for a closing statement: "What I say is law."

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The average global temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" according to NASA, in research published in 1981, was 288k.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

According to NASA in 2017 the average global temperature was still 288k.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

I'll let you explain to the readers what 288k in Celsius is.

So much for global warming.

Wow, you must have been up all night looking for a nugget that you can twist to suit your narrative. The Hansen paper from 1981 was using 'a simple model' to test the greenhouse effect. The 'simple model' put in close enough estimates for the radiative forcing, the radius of the earth, and the global average temperature.

The figure in the paper is given as ~288k
Do you know what the ~ means in this context? it means approximation.

It means it's close enough for the purpose of the model. By 1980 the temperature anomaly was already about 0.25c above the baseline so take that as 14.25c and convert it to Kelvin, that equals 287.4k.

All your late night googling has found you a mention of an approximate temperature used for a simple model that was 'inaccurate' by .1 of a kelvin.

Any comment on your previous post where you were completely wrong?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Wow, you must have been up all night looking for a nugget that you can twist to suit your narrative. The Hansen paper from 1981 was using 'a simple model' to test the greenhouse effect. The 'simple model' put in close enough estimates for the radiative forcing, the radius of the earth, and the global average temperature.

The figure in the paper is given as ~288k
Do you know what the ~ means in this context? it means approximation.

It means it's close enough for the purpose of the model. By 1980 the temperature anomaly was already about 0.25c above the baseline so take that as 14.25c and convert it to Kelvin, that equals 287.4k.

All your late night googling has found you a mention of an approximate temperature used for a simple model that was 'inaccurate' by .1 of a kelvin.

Any comment on your previous post where you were completely wrong?

I'm sorry for bursting your bubble but this claim from someone who's been making up figures for the last few pages, and who thinks an ex UN climate chief working for an oil company makes them corrupt, along with your fretting about the carbon footprint of the tomato in your club sandwich, saying I'm wrong having just demonstrated that the "approximate" global temperature in 1981, 288k is the same as today's, 288k, is a bit of a stretch.

But let's use your latest groundbreaking methodology:

Akrasia wrote: »

The two other links you show saying the temperatures are 15c refer to the current temperatures in the year those articles were written.

In 1981 there was 340.36 ppm atmospheric CO2 and you said the average global temperature was ~ 288k.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

According to your own theory, increasing atmospheric Co2 by another 66ppm has had "approximately" NO effect, because the earth's average global temperature in 2017 was, surprise, surprise, 288k.


https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.htm



Solid theory Akrasia.

Akrasia

How many papers did you have to skip past while you were googling before you found a single mention of global average temperature in the 1980s that suited your narrative?

This is your methodology dense. You wade through thousands of pieces of data that say the opposite of what you believe until you find one nugget of data that you can twist into a justification for your warped version of reality.

A paper in 1981 that used approximate data to construct a simple model that used 188k instead of 187k in the calculations does not invalidate the thousands of studies using the 1950-1981 baseline as 14c

This is not how science works.

Global warming is increasing at a rate of about .15c to .2c per decade since the 1970s, so given a temperature in 1981 of about 14.25c, and a temperature anomaly in 2017 of 14.9c, this is a warming of 0.65c over a period of 36 years which is exactly in line with the warming measured by climate scientists

kneemos

Climatologist types feel compelled to big up their claims for some reason.

That's all I know about it.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You wade through thousands of pieces of data that say the opposite of what you believe until you find one nugget of data that you can twist into a justification for your warped version of reality.

There is one person here with a warped version of reality and it is the person who cannot handle basic facts, as demonstrated by how you dealt with JFK and Christiana Figures a page or two ago.


You are now attempting to wash your hands of your own methodology and I don't blame you.

You have been waffling on attempting to get punters to fall for the hoax UN calls to prevent a 1.5°c warming above something you have no idea about.


I seriously wouldn't like to be sitting down and looking at a tomato on a plate and fretting about its impact on "global warming".

It is an unhealthy obsession, and one that is affecting your ability to deal with facts rationally.


Stop fretting about it, stop trying to whip others into a frenzy about and start realising your fretting is based on models that are being programmed for maximum exposure by earth scientists who can't belive their luck that their musings are still being taken seriously by anyone.

Edit: Nice cartoon.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

There is one person here with a warped version of reality and it is the person who cannot handle basic facts, as demonstrated by how you dealt with JFK and Christiana Figures a page or two ago.


You are now attempting to wash your hands of your own methodology and I don't blame you.

You have been waffling on attempting to get punters to fall for the hoax UN calls to prevent a 1.5°c warming above something you have no idea about.


I seriously wouldn't like to be sitting down and looking at a tomato on a plate and fretting about its impact on "global warming".

It is an unhealthy obsession, and one that is affecting your ability to deal with facts rationally.


Stop fretting about it, stop trying to whip others into a frenzy about and start realising your fretting is based on models that are being programmed for maximum exposure by earth scientists who can't belive their luck that their musings are still being taken seriously by anyone.

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

There's only one person trying to whip people into a frenzy too.

maccored

We're fecked no matter according to this:

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/10/new-outlook-on-global-warming-best-prepare-for-social-collapse-and-soon/

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from the person claiming that climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

And, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has said they share my view about not going all in for the alarmist position.



We really should reconsider that denialist stance if we care about future generations apparently.



What's your own reason for not being an alarmist?

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

And, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has said they share my view about not going all in for the alarmist position.



We really should reconsider that denialist stance if we care about future generations apparently.



What's your own reason for not being an alarmist?

There is a massive, massive middle ground between "we're all fecked in a few years" and "this is all made up by those pesky UN socialists".

I'm not going to bother elaborating on my position any further than that, because you'll twist it beyond recognition and keep bringing it up for around 20 pages. I'm sure you'll try to do the same with this post as it stands but a) I've tried to keep it short enough that you have limited scope to work with and b) anyone reading this thread can see what you're at anyway.