Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[Into the Night]

Poor sad angry little man impotently beating his dead horse again.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Science isn't billionairs, Senators, or oil companies. You still ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Making up numbers and using them as 'data' won't work,

 

[Into the Night]

I took a look at one. It argues that temps in Japan other heavily developed land areas are also elevated by urbanization. Not surprising, nothing new and hardly meaningful.

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

 

[Into the Night]

You're a craven dumbass.
Your statements'
"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

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

Now begone- or you'll be reminded ad infinitum.

Continuing to show your illiteracy of geography and your use of buzzwords won't get you anywhere, Moonbat.

 

[Into the Night]

This is where you make a mistake, at least in part. Man-made climate change is the issue at hand, and it is critical to know what percentage it contributes. If the percentage is small, then the problem is small and not worth upending societies and economies to fix it. If it is large, then those costs need to be weighed and action taken.

Climate cannot change.

No gas or vapor has the capability to increase the temperature of the Earth. There is NO percentage that any gas or vapor contributes. You cannot create energy out of nothing. There is no problem, not even a 'small' one.

Right now, the government consensus is the latter because that increases the power of government.

This is very true. Government has no profit motive. Their motive of success is justifying itself to solve a problem. If they have to create the 'problem' to 'solve', they will do it.

I am highly skeptical that's the case as it is government making a self-serving claim based on what amounts to questionable science.

There is no science being used by the Church of Global Warming, whether it's a government organization or a Believer like Poorboy.

That is, we don't know enough about global climate to be upending society and economics over it, particularly on a very short timeframe (a decade or two).

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'.
Climate cannot change. It has no temperature either.

I also see that with past results and predictions, that those calling the loudest for change have been far more wrong than right. That doesn't give me any confidence that what they call for now is justifiable. What undermines Gorebal Warming, as I call it, is that. Those calling for massive change can't predict the climate or weather a month from now, let alone decades into the future. Their calls should be taken with a large bag of salt.

There is no climate to 'predict'. Climate cannot change. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. There is no such thing as a global climate.

The problem with the Church of Global Warming is manyfold:

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
* It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content of Earth. These are both problems in statistical math, which the Church ignores.
* It is not possible to measure how much CO2 in the air occurs because of Man's activities.
* No gas or vapor (including CO2) has the capability to warm the Earth. The effect on that count is ZERO. This is in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics, which the Church ignores.
* No gas or vapor has the capability of reducing entropy...ever. The Church ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics, attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. It's as if they want to say that if you turn off a light switch, the energy is instead stored in the wire and you don't need the power company anymore.
* Climate has no values associated with it. There is nothing that can 'change'. Climate has no temperature. Climate has no precipitation. There is no such thing as a global climate. The Church tries to use 'climate' to mean 'global warming', because their message got old and they try to rebrand it using the word 'climate' improperly.
* The Church likes to use the word 'forcing' a lot. No gas or vapor is a force.

As you have already noted, NONE of the Gloom and Doom these idiots predict has happened, despite the fact that they've been predicting it since the mid 70's that the Gloom and Doom will happen in ten years.

The government has made this religion a state religion (which violates the 1st amendment, of course). The Church tries to use NASA, a government agency, as 'sCiEnCe', and that the same agency can magickally somehow measure the temperature of the Earth. NOAA is no better.

Note that the 'solution' is always the same: Marxism and tyranny.

 

[Into the Night]

I love it when they say 'this is a fact, and no one can refute it'. Except that someone always refutes it, meaning that the poster was, of course, illogical and wrong.

'They' is YOU, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

This is where you make a mistake. If the percentage is small but growing then it will only get worse.

The percentage is ZERO. It will STAY ZERO. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Look at the charts in the articles and you will see the largest increase has been in the last 50 years when the natural forcings have not been the largest contributor.

No gas or vapor is a 'force'. There are no 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

The percent from the last 150 years may be lower than current attempts to calculate it

There is no 'calculation'.

but even these articles show that the anthropogenic forcings are increasing over time and will continue to increase unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

Buzzword fallacy. No gas or vapor is a force.

The funny thing is, the models accepted by the IPCC

Random number generators mean nothing, regardless of who they are accepted by.

have been more accurate than Soon and Lindzen. And yet here you are saying we should ignore those that are the least accurate not realizing that it is the people you want to follow that are the most wrong.

It is not possible to be 'wrong' about what cannot be measured, other than to state you somehow magickally know the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

I err on the side of proven results. The IPCC has been largely wrong on their predictions for the last 30 + years.

Very true!

The same sort of scientists that are leading the Gorebal Warming charge

Priests aren't scientists.

are the ones that demanded we end CFC use because of the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole.

Yes...they are the same priests in both religions; the Church of the Ozone Hole and the Church of Global Warming. Both stem from the Church of Green...also the same priests.

Well, we did at great cost and the goddamned hole is still there, just as big, and the CFC's are gone and the hole was supposed to be too.

The 'hole' does not exist in the summer of that pole...only the winter, when there is no Sun to generate the ozone. This is naturally occurring seasonal cycle. The 'hole' size varies depending upon the upper air winds in the area.

Seems they got that one wrong. In fact, they get a lot of stuff wrong, and I certainly don't see some existential crisis that needs solving this very moment. Aside from that, those screaming for zero carbon the loudest are also usually those that want specific, impractical solutions to the problem forced on the public regardless of cost.

Yup. Remember that Marxism and tyranny I discussed?

For what we've squandered on wind and solar we could have gotten 10 times better results going nuclear with natural gas back up and been done with that issue, for example. But those that are leading the Greentard charge want political and economic power first, solutions second.

This the problem:

Energy markets ought to be free and unfettered. Let people buy what form of energy they want.
ANY attempt to manipulate it or control it is just fascism or even communism (if they try to own sections of that market).

In other words, Marxism and tyranny.

 

[Into the Night]

Then why are you taking the word of Soon and Lindzen since they accept much of what the IPCC says?
They accept it because the evidence is there and any arguments to the contrary fail to match the evidence.

There is no data. There is no 'evidence'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

If the globe's average temperature has not changed can you explain why the average time for ice in is later in the year and ice out is earlier in the year in the lakes of the entire northern hemisphere?

It isn't. You are hallucinating again, Poorboy.

Did the calendar change instead of the average temperature?

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

Did the temperature at which water freezes change?

It can, depending on conditions. I guess you don't know how ice skates and sleds work.

The problem with your argument IBDaMann is that we can see the changes without needing to measure the temperature.

You can't see anything, Poorboy. You are just making shit up. Attempted proof by contrivance.

 

[IBDaMann]

If the globe's average temperature has not changed

Poor wording ...

No human has shown any discernible change to the earth's average global equilibrium temperature that isn't forthwith accounted by Earth's proximity to the sun. Ergo, no human has any rational basis for believing that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow changing. This does not preclude anyone from having a religious basis for holding beliefs about an impending apolocolypse on earth.

can you explain why the average time for ice in is later in the year and ice out is earlier in the year in the lakes of the entire northern hemisphere?

Sure I can ... right after you explain why you believe this crap that you just made up on the spur of the moment.

The problem with your argument IBDaMann is that we [believers and worshipers] can [convince ourselves that we see] the changes [if we avoid science and math].

I get it. This is why no warmizombie or climate lemming ever provides any sort of rational basis (i.e. science, math, logic, repeatable observation, etc.) to support any claims whatsoever. Further, all such believers and worshipers completely avoid all discussion of "margin of error," "instrumentation tolerance" and "statistical validity" because they all know that there exists no valid data on the matter, nor do any of them even understand what is required to acquire a statistically valid dataset because doing so would force them to face the reality that no human has ever measured Earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any useful margin of error.

You know the phrase: Honesty is the best policy, because then you don't have to keep track of all the lies in order to remain consistent. Your religion has let the lies get way out of control and now none of your congregation can even speak with plausibility. Notice that none of your ilk can present any sort of legitimate case for Global Warming, Climate Change, greenhouse effect, ocean acidification, disappearing ice, etc., that isn't discarded immediately because of obvious, egregious errors on its face. All any warmizombie or climate lemming has, which you illuminated in your post, are desperate demands that others explain something that cannot be clearly articulated.

So, now it's my turn. Why should any rational adult believe in Global Warming or Climate Change? If you'd like, we can save time by stipulating that you stammer insistently "becauth itth thettled thienth!" and then I ask you to provide this "science" of Climate, at which point you spew a bunch of gibberish that seems to work on the scientifically illiterate. I then point out that it is all gibberish and you proceed to post links to websites from which you lifted the gibberish, and I explain the egregious errors in the underlying assumptions, the errors in the science and the very bad math. You then begin to hurl invectives and ad hominem, and you either flee or you embark on the "greenhouse semantic shuffle."

So, I'm presenting you with two choices: 1. explain why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming or Climate Change in such a way that we don't repeat what I just explained above, or 2. just jump to your profession of profound belief in "greenhouse effect" physics violations so that I can pick you apart.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah- you're another attention-seeking masochist.

Begone.
I'm attention-seeking masochist intolerant.

You are describing yourself again, Moonbat. You are AGAIN saying you are intolerant of yourself.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The percentage is ZERO. It will STAY ZERO. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor is a 'force'. There are no 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

There is no 'calculation'.

Buzzword fallacy. No gas or vapor is a force.

Random number generators mean nothing, regardless of who they are accepted by.

It is not possible to be 'wrong' about what cannot be measured, other than to state you somehow magickally know the temperature of the Earth.

And there it is. Into the Night saying that a temperature measurement is just a random number when he claimed he never does that. We don't have to measure the temperature of the earth. We simply measure the temperature at hundreds of locations and then see what that trend is for over 100 years. Then we can average those changes to see if there is a trend. This is basic statistical analysis.

But enough with that.

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy is constantly used by Into the Night to make himself look smarter than he actually is. He is unable to discuss the science so just accuses everyone of fallacies without explaining why something is a fallacy.

Readers of this thread should be warned that Into the Night is an idiot that has learned a couple of scientific terms and then completely ignores their meaning. He actually knows nothing about the Stefan Boltzmann law or how it works. He only brings it up because it is an obscure scientific law that few people know about. He is unable to do the math involved with the law and does not understand that according to the law different materials have different emissivities.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ah- you're another attention-seeking masochist. Begone.

Aaaah, you are tipping your king after only three moves. Am I getting better or do you just suck at this?

 

[Into the Night]

The science can be settled

It is not possible to prove any theory of science True.
It is not possible to prove ANY theory True, including a nonscientific theory.

Science is never 'settled'. New theories of science are created all the time, and others get falsified.

The earth is round

This has been known since ancient Greece. You just figure that out just now? Oh...and not a theory of science.

We are seeing warming over the last 100 years. (No skeptic can deny this and be credible.)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You don't get to declare 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Both of those things exist

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy.

and no one can refute them with any science or facts.

I already did. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. That is a theory of science, Poorboy.

The only argument seems to be to simply say, "it isn't settled."

No, Poorboy. The argument is that you are trying to create energy out of nothing, and make shit up.

The exact why of the warming of the earth isn't settled to exact percentages but there is little question that can be raised as to possible causes. Burying your head in the sand by claiming, "It isn't settled." isn't science.

Your religion is not science, Poorboy. Science is NEVER 'settled'. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and statistical mathematics.

Your problem seems to be that when scientists disagree with the skeptics and point out the problems with their arguments, you think that is trying to silence questioning. It is a simple case of pointing out they have no valid arguments supported by facts or science.

Blatant lie. Several people here have already shown you the theories of science you are trying to discard.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It isn't. You are hallucinating again, Poorboy.

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

It can, depending on conditions. I guess you don't know how ice skates and sleds work.

You can't see anything, Poorboy. You are just making shit up. Attempted proof by contrivance.

Loading…

www.uvm.edu

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Emerging unprecedented lake ice loss in climate change projections - Nature Communications

Many lakes on Earth are covered by seasonal ice, and as lake ice loss has been increasing, it is ever more important to quantify this. Here the authors present a fully coupled lake ice model projection as a part of the new CESM2 large ensemble modelling project and show that unprecedented lake...

www.nature.com

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Widespread loss of lake ice around the Northern Hemisphere in a warming world - Nature Climate Change

Up to 35,000 lakes in the Northern Hemisphere may be at risk of intermittent winter ice cover at 2 °C warming, reveals an observation-based study. This would affect 394 million people reliant on lake ice for ecosystem services.

www.nature.com

I know perfectly well how ice skates and sleds work. They don't change the temperature at which ice on the lake melts under normal atmospheric pressure. I have presented only a sampling of the many scientific papers that show the trend in ice out on lakes. It seems to be you that is hallucinating when you claim I am making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

And there it is. Into the Night saying that a temperature measurement is just a random number when he claimed he never does that.

I'm not trying to claim to know the temperature of the Earth, Poorboy. Don't try to gaslight me! It won't work!

We don't have to measure the temperature of the earth.

Yes you do.

We simply measure the temperature at hundreds of locations

Math errors:
* Failure to declare boundary.
* Failure to declare variance.
* Failure to calculate margin of error value.
* Failure to declare unbiased dataset.
* Failure to select by randN.
* Failure to normalize by paired randR.

and then see what that trend is for over 100 years.

Base rate fallacy.

Then we can average those changes to see if there is a trend.

Math errors as above. Base rate fallacy.

This is basic statistical analysis.

You are ignoring statistical math.

But enough with that.

Attempted proof by math error. Attempted proof by fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy is constantly used by Into the Night to make himself look smarter than he actually is. He is unable to discuss the science so just accuses everyone of fallacies without explaining why something is a fallacy.

Redefinition fallacy (fallacy fallacy). Denial of logic.

Readers of this thread should be warned that Into the Night is an idiot that has learned a couple of scientific terms and then completely ignores their meaning.

You are describing yourself, Poorboy. You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.

He actually knows nothing about the Stefan Boltzmann law or how it works.

r = c*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity', which is a measure on how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

That is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It works. It still has not been falsified. It is a theory of science. You just want to ignore it.

He only brings it up because it is an obscure scientific law that few people know about.

Nothing obscure about it, Poorboy. Complexity fallacy.

He is unable to do the math involved with the law and does not understand that according to the law different materials have different emissivities.

WRONG. There is no 'materials' factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot add such a factor and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
ALL materials radiate and absorb light the same way. Emissivity has no 'material' factor.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

 

[Into the Night]

Aaaah, you are tipping your king after only three moves. Am I getting better or do you just suck at this?

The latter. Don't get me wrong, you're pretty good! It's just that Moonbat doesn't know which way is up.

 

[Into the Night]

Loading…

www.uvm.edu

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Emerging unprecedented lake ice loss in climate change projections - Nature Communications

Many lakes on Earth are covered by seasonal ice, and as lake ice loss has been increasing, it is ever more important to quantify this. Here the authors present a fully coupled lake ice model projection as a part of the new CESM2 large ensemble modelling project and show that unprecedented lake...

www.nature.com

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Widespread loss of lake ice around the Northern Hemisphere in a warming world - Nature Climate Change

Up to 35,000 lakes in the Northern Hemisphere may be at risk of intermittent winter ice cover at 2 °C warming, reveals an observation-based study. This would affect 394 million people reliant on lake ice for ecosystem services.

www.nature.com

Graphs of random numbers are meaningless. I've already told you this, Poorboy.

I know perfectly well how ice skates and sleds work. They don't change the temperature at which ice on the lake melts under normal atmospheric pressure. I have presented only a sampling of the many scientific papers that show the trend in ice out on lakes. It seems to be you that is hallucinating when you claim I am making shit up.

You obviously don't know how ice skates and sleds work.

Science is not a paper. Science is not a book, magazine, journal, society, academy, website, government agency, degree, license, certification, university, college, course, proof, or mathematics.

You deny mathematics, particularly statistical and probability mathematics, but also random number mathematics.
You deny several theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's the sort of envirotard drivel the radical Left puts out:

Capitalism can’t overcome the laws of physics

You can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. That should be a commonplace idea. And that inevitably means facing up to the necessity of putting an end to capitalism in favor of an economic sy…

systemicdisorder.wordpress.com

Dr. Rammelt advocates a “radically different pathway”: degrowth. He defines degrowth as “a socio-economic transformation aimed at reducing and redistributing material and energy flows, with the goal of respecting planetary boundaries and promoting social justice.” Although he does not give a name to a post-capitalist system other than one of “degrowth,” such a sustainable system would have to be one that not only stays within the planet’s physical limits but provides enough for everybody. The material basis for everybody to have enough to eat and a place to live comfortably already exists; such a distribution is impossible under capitalism, where, again, production is performed for a small number of people to accumulate massive amounts of money with little left for everybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

We couldn't confirm it until you provided the sources.
Now... Let's start to look at the papers and see if they confirm your initial claim.

First paper.

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century. Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with...

www.mdpi.com

First of all we have to accept the authors at their word and accept that they started with an assumption and then tried to prove it.
we emphasize that for simplicity, we have explicitly assumed for this paper, like AR6’s climate model hindcasts, that the main “natural” drivers of global temperature change are changes in (1) TSI and (2) volcanic forcing.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Volcanic gases are not 'forcings'.

Even with that assumption they found that anthropogenic warming must be occurring.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

we found that simply substituting an alternative solar forcing dataset to that considered by AR6’s climate model hindcasts can substantially increase the amount of the 1850–2018 warming that can be explained in terms of natural forcing from 21% to 70% of the long-term warming implied by the “rural and urban” series and 87% of the “rural-only” temperature series.
The final result is that this paper doesn't undermine the consensus on anthropogenic warming. If anything it confirms anthropogenic warming and only calls into question whether that contribution is the 70% also found by these authors or the 20-30% in their results using selective temperature data and TSI data.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

This was the claim in the original post
"Three new peer-reviewed papers,

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

published in major prestigious scientific journals...

Science is not a journal or a magazine.

completely undermine the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming."

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Is the claim of man made global warming completely undermined if it contributes 30% of the warming vs 70%?

What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

I don't think so and I don't think any rational person would think that. This paper does not completely undermine any claim about man-made global warming. It confirms that man-made global warming exists but only raises questions about how much it contributes.

ZERO. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.