NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[AccessBlaster]

Al Gore has single-handedly delegitimized your religion / pseudoscience with all of his failed claims and predictions. This is the legacy he has brought to the debate. He is the high priest, The Climate Guru.

 

[isladogs]

Al Gore has single-handedly delegitimized your religion / pseudoscience with all of his failed claims and predictions. This is the legacy he has brought to the debate. He is the high priest, The Climate Guru.

Oh dear....hardly worth replying to.
I'm not religious and the evidence isn't pseudoscience

Just for just a moment I thought it was going to be a serious response to :

provide a detailed critique of the scientific evidence on which the climate model recently provided by the UK Met Office was based. From that, perhaps you will be able to submit a factual refutation of its findings.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Its all in fun Colin.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Its all in fun Colin.

Well, it should be! But some are SO SERIOUS about it, I reckon if they had the power, they would actually hurt those with a contrary view. (From Dr Jordan B Peterson)

If that's the case, then I would suggest a suitable ecological execution device, a large concave mirror!

I saw a 2nd world war search light at a Spanish solar furnace facility.

The guide demonstrated its power by placing a lump of wood at the focus. Most impressive!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

I saw a 2nd world war search light at a Spanish solar furnace facility.

The guide demonstrated its power by placing a lump of wood at the focus. Most impressive!

A friend has one of them. It can melt anything at the focus, even a piece of brick.

I think they were an arc lamp.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For what it is worth, the ancient Greek philosopher Archimedes supposedly staged an attempt to ignite a ship by using highly polished metal shields as a multi-faceted mirror to focus sunlight on the sails. There was an episode of the series MythBusters where they tried - and failed - to do that.

https://mythresults.com/episode46

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, I have been chastised for not showing better references. Here is a video that DOES show (specific) references AND shows long-term cycles that CANNOT possibly be due to human industrialization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE

 

[AccessBlaster]

Well, it should be! But some are SO SERIOUS about it, I reckon if they had the power, they would actually hurt those with a contrary view. (From Dr Jordan B Peterson)

Both sides will never admits this but, everyone skews the data to fit their arguments. I clearly take liberties to needle, whilst the opposition denounces findings from climatologist who hold several degrees and are publish on the subject. Its total gamesmanship not science.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Part of the big argument is based on Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. Dr. Tim Ball called him down on it. It went to court. But Dr. Mann LOST the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug

It is an "inconvenient truth" that the "hockey stick" graph was a fraud.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And here is another example of an inconvenient truth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8fFpd-S-D4

In this case, the "sea level rise" data has been called into question. The author of this article seems to have some solid evidence of intentionally misleading us regarding sea level issues... or non-issues. I'm not even going to claim that the video shows proof of fraud. But it certainly calls into question a lot of the recent NASA headlines.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If NASA's data can be proven to be a hoax, regarding sea level. I predict they will stop sharing said data. It has to fit the narrative 100% or they will either threaten you or pull their own numbers.

Keep the herd moving in one direction, while they move the goal post in another direction. Classic government behavior.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here is an interesting take on the subject from James Corbett.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This next entry "calls a spade a spade" (and calls a fraud a fraud). It expressly deals with the lies of omission and obfuscation used to make the "hockey stick" graph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvngRiNl-9E

 

[AccessBlaster]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/431440-ocasio-cortez-in-face-of-climate-change-its-legitimate-to-ask-if-ok

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?” she said.

Does this directly correlate with less progressives in the future? Global Warming = less progressives.

The deniers will just keep breeding regardless of the pseudoscience.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This little video talks about the failed predictions of the global warming alarmists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvlbY21G9M

This also names the names of doom-sayers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYM0LZqBp_I

To those who insist that AGW or AGCC is real, here is your problem. When your models make predictions and those predictions fail to materialize, you run into the very serious issue that your model must be flawed. Remember, this is a BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE: When reality and math disagree, the MATH is wrong. Reality is always right. And we see so many failing predictions that we HAVE to doubt the models in use.

 

[Mark_]

Just a tidbit that shows why I've never been convinced carbon emissions are the ONLY thing causing climate change that humans do.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

If one eruption can cause notable global cooling for over a year, there are far to many things man is doing to concentrate only on one indicator.

Couple this with 10% of the planets surface being covered by agriculture and there are a host of other ways man can change weather patterns. The known effect urban areas have on surface temperatures (and by extension how that effects heat transfer to the atmosphere) means we should be looking at multiple causes and ways to mitigate each. After all, if the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, may as well make sure were looking to fix the right problem.

 

[Galaxiom]

Just a tidbit that shows why I've never been convinced carbon emissions are the ONLY thing causing climate change that humans do.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

If one eruption can cause notable global cooling for over a year, there are far to many things man is doing to concentrate only on one indicator.

Mt Pinatubo emitted vast quantities of Sulphur Dioxide and particulates into the stratosphere and caused cooling by absorbing radiation before it got through the atmosphere. The science behind this is very well understood and uses the same models as those modelling the effect of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change Deniers often falsely claim that one volcano emits more greenhouse gases than decades of human activity. The truth is that the total emitted by all volcanoes is on average only about one percent of what is emitted by humans.

Couple this with 10% of the planets surface being covered by agriculture and there are a host of other ways man can change weather patterns. The known effect urban areas have on surface temperatures (and by extension how that effects heat transfer to the atmosphere) means we should be looking at multiple causes and ways to mitigate each.

Please post a link to the modelling that demonstrates the effect of this on climate is greater than the effect of Greenhouse gases.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

uses the same models as those modelling the effect of greenhouse gases.

Ah, but that is the whole point, don't you SEE it? The models don't seem to be doing a good job. I don't know that I can offer a better model, but I learned a long time ago to not bet on a lame horse.

G, you don't want to hear this; you won't let yourself hear this. But our side of the argument has found too many cases where it looks like someone is "cooking the books" to get the result they want without regard for one of the BASE CONCEPTS of science - data-source consistency. When you compare apples and oranges, you frequently get a fruit salad, which usually looks like a non-homogeneous mess.

Michael Mann's infamous "hockey-stick" graph uses INCONSISTENT data sources and somehow whitewashes data in a way that I find unconscionable. I've seen comparisons of the data and to be honest cannot believe that his paper wasn't outright rejected over questionable data treatments. Mann has lost a lawsuit that he filed against someone for the slander of his work and I have seen too many reports that compare raw data vs what he posted. They don't agree at all. I have posted videos here where the data sources WERE referenced explicitly.

I remain a skeptic because I smell skullduggery. Pure plain and simple.

 

[Steve R.]

Mt Pinatubo emitted vast quantities of Sulphur Dioxide and particulates into the stratosphere and caused cooling by absorbing radiation before it got through the atmosphere.

Consider your wording. Cooling is not a result of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation, absorption results in heating. The cooling was the result of increasing reflectivity (albedo) from clouds. Furthermore, the stratosphere is part of the atmosphere's structure.

Note the Wikipedia citation:

The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation

 

[Mark_]

Please post a link to the modelling that demonstrates the effect of this on climate is greater than the effect of Greenhouse gases.

Well, please post a scientific study that shows there is NO effect from non-carbon emission that affect climate. Of course if you are unable to, your entire argument would then be rubbish, wouldn't it?

Yes, the volcano IS well understood. I think you missed the point.

If you focus entirely on what you are assuming is the proper response you miss that there could be other issues at play. As we KNOW there are other factors besides carbon emissions that impact the environment and the climate, seems rather silly to think only one item needs be addressed to fix the problem.