Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[Into the Night]

Reading not your forte?

Inversion fallacy. You can't write either. You really should learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

Clearly more mine than yours if you didn't understand the post I made. LOL. Look, I don't have a lot patience today so I'm going to leave you be. You aren't worth the effort right now. Maybe later.

Cut and pasting is not thinking.
Speaking in Liberal has no meaning.
Cliche fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[moon]

There is no statistic. There is no data. Define 'climate change'. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

A striking case of scientophobia. This fool may well be a danger to himself.

Give him a canoe and a Swedish compass.




Haw, haw..............................haw.

 

[Nordberg]

Global warming is scientific. Ice cores show the weather for as far back as 800,000 years. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data...tion,change abruptly under some circumstances. We can compare the atmospheric conditions of the past with today's.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Cut and pasting is not thinking.
Speaking in Liberal has no meaning.
Cliche fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

I have barely spoken to you yet I have 10 replies from you.

Get. A. Life.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you're here to hear yourself talk. You don't have any technical background and you don't display any technical knowledge of this topic so your points are exactly valueless.

Sorry if you were confused.

'Expert' worship. Science isn't 'experts'. Science is not any degree, certification, license, or any other sanctification. You are describing yourself. You are here to hear yourself talk.

Now let's get back to the 'technical knowledge':
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's laws. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.

You are ignoring statistical mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. It is not possible to measure all storm activity on Earth. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.

You can't even define what 'climate change' even means. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. I really don't blame Uncensored2008 for mocking you. You deserve it.

 

[Into the Night]

Climate alarmists can't even prove that there is a positive feedback loop mechanism at work.

There isn't any. This is strictly another buzzword.

Without it the warming is relatively mild for a doubling of CO2 concentration,

WRONG. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth, not even by a single degree. No gas or vapor has this capability. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

and requires something else to scare the horses.

No. The Church of Global Warming (including believers like you) has a range of radicalism in it. Most want to 'scare the horses'.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria/

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. To speak out against it is to be condemned as a 'Satan'...a person who's sole purpose is to 'pollute' and 'destroy the planet'.

 

[Into the Night]

Nic Lewis has done much work in this area and published many papers on the subject of climate sensitivity.

Important new paper challenges IPCC’s claims about climate sensitivity
Posted on September 20, 2022 by niclewis | 185 Comments
by Nic Lewis

Official estimates of future global warming may be overstated.


A brief summary in press release style of my new paper (written in the third person)

One of the most important conclusions of the recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) was to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since 1979, the likely range (66% chance) of climate sensitivity has been between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. This range has remained stubbornly wide, until the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range to be between 2.5°C and 4.0°C.

A new paper by independent scientist Nic Lewis published in the journal Climate Dynamics challenges the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 about climate sensitivity. Lewis’ analysis reduces the magnitude of climate sensitivity by one third, relative to the range provided by the IPCC AR6. These results suggest that future global warming in response to fossil fuel emissions could be significantly less than has been assumed by policy makers.

In 2015, the World Climate Research Programme convened a Workshop aimed at reducing the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. The Workshop ultimately resulted in publication of a report (a 92 page paper) by many of the participants that thoroughly assessed all lines of evidence (Sherwood et al, 2020). A key result of this paper was to reduce the likely range of climate sensitivity values to 2.6 oC to 3.9 oC. While Lewis was an invited participant to the 2015 Workshop, he was not a coauthor on this paper. The Sherwood et al. paper strongly influenced the IPCC AR6’s assessment of climate sensitivity.

Lewis’ paper critiqued the methods used in the Sherwood et al. paper, finding significant errors, inconsistencies and other shortcomings. Lewis remedied these shortcomings and also revised key input data, almost entirely to reflect more recent evidence. The results of Lewis’ analysis determined a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7oC for climate sensitivity. The central estimate from Lewis’ analysis is 2.16 oC, which is well below the IPCC AR6 likely range. This large reduction relative to Sherwood et al. shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates are to input assumptions. Lewis’ analysis implies that climate sensitivity is more likely to be below 2 oC than it is to be above 2.5 oC.

The lower estimates of climate sensitivity determined by Nic Lewis have profound implications for climate models and projections of warming for the 21st century. Climate models used in the IPCC AR6 had values of climate sensitivity ranging from 1.8oC to 5.6oC. The IPCC AR6 judged that some of the climate models had values of climate sensitivity that were too high. Hence the AR6 selected only the climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity to be used in projections of 21st century climate change. Lewis’ analysis indicates that a majority of climate models used in the IPCC AR6 have values higher than the likely range.

Nic Lewis has authored ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. Lewis’ latest paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/20/...enges-ipccs-claims-about-climate-sensitivity/

There is no such thing as 'climate sensitivity'. Buzzword fallacy. Cut and pasting of scripture.
Nic Lewis is not a scientist. He denies and discards science.

 

[Into the Night]

Imbecile! Your solution is NOT to diminish the pollutants or the deforestation/urbanization, but to increase artificial fertilizer as a constant band-aid?

What 'pollutants'??? What 'deforestation'??? What 'urbanization'?? The total area covered by cities is only 0.6% of the surface of Earth. He isn't talking about 'artificial fertilizers'.

For your education: ...

Summarily discarded as off topic spam.

Anyone with a rational, objective mind who can read carefully comprehensively can easily see through your repetitive, myopic drivel. In addition, that you can't resist throwing in your obsessive racism as some sort of validation for your ignorance just confirms the erroneous basis of your screed.

Now you wander into random phrases and incoherency. There was no racism. There is no 'screed' described.

You're the perfect Big Dumb Dog mascot for corporate flunkies, MAGA mooks and racist rabble. Carry on.

More random phrases and incoherency. What is a 'corporate flunky'? MAGA isn't a person.

You really should learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry to inform you, but the consensus of valid, well documented scientific evidence proving climate change

Science isn't 'evidence'. Science does not use consensus. Science isn't 'documentation'. Science has no proofs. Define 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on meaningless buzzwords.

is NOT hinged on the few predictive books (that proved wrong) from the 1970's or some generalized sayings from Greta Thurnberg.

Random incoherent phrases.

I'll ask you a question that I asked the late Queen of England's former Scientific Advisor a couple of years ago; Are you saying that over 2 centuries of increasing industrial exhaust, car exhaust (i.e., smoke stacks), deforestation and urbanization has only a negligible effect on the eco-system?

Define 'eco-system'. What 'deforestation'? What 'urbanization'? What 'industrial exhaust' are you concerned about? What car exhaust are you concerned about? Cars don't have smoke stacks. 'Smoke stacks' in most modern mills don't even emit smoke.

You are not discussing any science. Only religion. You are obviously a believer in the Church of Green; another fundamentalist style religion. Yes, the Church of Global Warming stems directly from the Church of Green.

 

[moon]

'Expert' worship. Science isn't 'experts'. Science is not any degree, certification, license, or any other sanctification. You are describing yourself. You are here to hear yourself talk.

Now let's get back to the 'technical knowledge':
You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's laws. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.

You are ignoring statistical mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. It is not possible to measure all storm activity on Earth. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.

You can't even define what 'climate change' even means. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. I really don't blame Uncensored2008 for mocking you. You deserve it.

There isn't any. This is strictly another buzzword.

WRONG. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth, not even by a single degree. No gas or vapor has this capability. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

No. The Church of Global Warming (including believers like you) has a range of radicalism in it. Most want to 'scare the horses'.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. To speak out against it is to be condemned as a 'Satan'...a person who's sole purpose is to 'pollute' and 'destroy the planet'.

There is no such thing as 'climate sensitivity'. Buzzword fallacy. Cut and pasting of scripture.
Nic Lewis is not a scientist. He denies and discards science.

What 'pollutants'??? What 'deforestation'??? What 'urbanization'?? The total area covered by cities is only 0.6% of the surface of Earth. He isn't talking about 'artificial fertilizers'.

Summarily discarded as off topic spam.

Now you wander into random phrases and incoherency. There was no racism. There is no 'screed' described.

More random phrases and incoherency. What is a 'corporate flunky'? MAGA isn't a person.

You really should learn English.

Science isn't 'evidence'. Science does not use consensus. Science isn't 'documentation'. Science has no proofs. Define 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on meaningless buzzwords.

Random incoherent phrases.

Define 'eco-system'. What 'deforestation'? What 'urbanization'? What 'industrial exhaust' are you concerned about? What car exhaust are you concerned about? Cars don't have smoke stacks. 'Smoke stacks' in most modern mills don't even emit smoke.

You are not discussing any science. Only religion. You are obviously a believer in the Church of Green; another fundamentalist style religion. Yes, the Church of Global Warming stems directly from the Church of Green.

Scientophobic rat droppings.

Haw, haw..............................haw.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A striking case of scientophobia. This fool may well be a danger to himself.

Give him a canoe and a Swedish compass.




Haw, haw..............................haw.

Right, because "science" requires recitation of dogma, never questioning consensus.

Those who don't grasp chromosomes and the concept of gender and think carbon dioxide is a pollutant fancy themselves as "true followers of syanse.."

So, since you are a dedicated Gaia cultist, why aren't you Russians deindustrializing to "save the planet?"

How much CO2 did you dump into the atmosphere with your invasion of Ukraine? A fuckload more than my air conditioner did.

Somehow I doubt you are sincere in caring about the planet...

 

[Into the Night]

And your first two sentences here give a blatant example of your sheer ignorance regarding the subject being discussed.

You are not discussing. You are preaching.

Just how on God's green Earth do you think "climate" comes about?

The word 'climate' first appeared in the English lexicon around the 1600's, coming from the French word 'klim' which means 'to lean'. Climate is a subjective description of prevailing conditions, such as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'mountain climate', etc. It has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change. A desert climate will always be a desert climate, even if there are fewer deserts. Climate has no temperature. No rainfall. No value of any kind associated with it.

I mean besides how the sun hit's the Earth during it's rotation?

The Sun doesn't hit the Earth (fortunately!). Earth is in a stable orbit.

When your TV meteorologist explains weather patterns, notice how he incorporates moisture and dry air and such into his forecasts?

Yes. He discusses weather. Weather consists of temperature (a value), humidity or dew point (a value), wind speed and direction (both values), cloud cover and height(s) (a value), barometric pressure (a value). Climate has not values, weather does. Climate cannot change. Weather does.

How cloud cover affects duration of temperature?

Temperature is not a duration.

That goes along with rain & snow, ya know.

Precipitation is not a temperature.

Ever watch a Nature or Discovery show?

TV is not science or meteorology or climate.

When they describe living in desert area or rain forests?

I've lived in both.

One has deadly heat during the day and near freezing cold at night.

Heat has no temperature. The largest desert in the world is in Antarctica. Doesn't get particularly hot there. Southwest American deserts near the coast have fairly moderate temperatures due to the proximity of the ocean. Deserts inland (and other inland land as well!) can have a wide temperature range during the daily cycle. There is no stabilizing effect from any nearby ocean, and such areas are also subject to mountain wave compression effects. Las Vegas is a good example of this.

The other has intense humidity that only decreases some at night.

Humidity in an area generally doesn't change much.

Why, BECAUSE OF THE LACK OR ABUNDANCE OF PLANT LIFE!

Deserts have a lot of plant life. You just don't want to see it. It has grasses, flowers, succulents, cactus, trees, and a variety of wildlife living there. The most sparse desert is in Antarctica, where grass coverage is thinner than any other desert.

As I write this, my local news is reporting about the intense number of tornadoes ripping through the southern states.

Did you know that this is normal weather for that region? It's called 'tornado alley' for a reason.

....this just after reports of devastating winter snow storms in the midwest earlier this year.

Winter tends to bring snow in the midwest. Perhaps you were unaware of that.

These have been increasing in length and intensity in the last decade or more.

It is not possible to measure all storm activity.

You have intense severe droughts in places like Colorado,

Colorado is currently experiencing flooding.

land slides in California

California got some extra rain this year. The terrain generally consists of sand, rocks, and a few blades of grass to hold it together. They always get land slides when it rains a lot there. This happens every so often.

(along with forest fires).

Brush fires, actually. Not caused by weather. It's caused by arson, and the fact that the SDTC no longer does any brush control. So...it burns every year instead.

Of course, no one points out that man made damns,

'Dam' is spelled without the 'n', dumbass. Learn English. Do you prefer man-made dams, or ones made by animals, such as beavers?

suburban landscaping

You don't like landscaping. You don't like attractive plantings and lawns. Gotit. You complain about the lack of plants, then you complain about too much of them. Which is it, dude?

and such contribute to that.

Landscaping does not contribute to building a dam.

Remember, when you remove vast areas of forests

What vast areas of forests? Did you know that grass is the far more prevalent plant and far more capable of absorbing CO2? It literally grows anywhere, even in Antarctica.

and such and replace them with hear reflective & enhancing concrete & glass,

I assume you mean 'heat'. Heat cannot be reflected. Heat cannot be 'enhanced'. Heat has no temperature. It's obvious you have no idea of what 'heat' even means or how it's defined.

you affect the climate.

Climate cannot be affected. It does not change.

City & industrial air pollution

What 'pollution'? Be specific.

affects plants and tree (if you're not old enough to remember, look up "acid rain").

What???? You are still worried about sulfur dioxide emitted from coal plants?????!? No, these plants have scrubbers now, and the sell the collected sulfur to industry. They even turn a tidy profit by installing such scrubbers. So-called 'acid rain' hasn't been a problem for almost 50 years!

I could go on, but hopefully you'll put your pride aside and get up to speed on the subject (objective, honest research beyond what you want to hear). THINK, son, THINK before you post.

Take your own advice. You are horribly out of date, worrying about 'acid rain'. You apparently even think the Sun is going to hit the Earth!

 

[Into the Night]

Tell the imbecile that there is no such title as Queen, or indeed King of England. Her correct title, simplified here, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England has not been a separate sovereign state since 1707.

England is currently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nobody is talking about the Queen or King of England except you.

I guess you just like to rant about random topics.

 

[Into the Night]

We have never had anthropogenic global warming before, Mr. Mayor.

Buzzword fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Now we have- and you are a mere Denier, a dwindling band of self-serving capitalists whose lies exceed Holocaust Denial in their crass stupidity.
My advice to you is to stay anonymous. These people will get around to looking for the culprits;

Now issuing threats?

I always said Democrat morons would start the war.

 

[Into the Night]

CO2 is not a pollutant, moron.

Quite right. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It's presence is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth. All plant life depends on it and even some beneficial bacteria depend on it.

 

[Into the Night]

You are a relic, a representative of a failed corporate era. The worse it gets, the more likely that new legislation will come for you.
Better keep your other skin to hand.

Corporations still exist, moron. It is just one form of organizing a business. There is no 'era' here.
The worse what gets????

 

[Into the Night]

A striking case of scientophobia. This fool may well be a danger to himself.

Give him a canoe and a Swedish compass.




Haw, haw..............................haw.

'Scientophobia'?????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!

 

[Into the Night]

Global warming is scientific.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Science has no theories about what you can't define.

Ice cores show the weather for as far back as 800,000 years.

Ice cores do not show weather or temperature.

We can compare the atmospheric conditions of the past with today's.

Ice cores do not show weather or temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

I have barely spoken to you yet I have 10 replies from you.

Get. A. Life.

Lie.