Climate Change - Yet another UN report

[Yakuda]

You made a claim now back it up. Oh that's right you can't like most of the other shit you guess at. Thanks for making my point

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What??? Did you just have a stroke?



The scientists don't have that problem. They know it can't be explained wholly by natural forcings and only when human forcings are put into the equation does it work.

Here's my favorite example from the IPCC. This is a set of graphs showing what it looks like if you try to recreate the warming over the last 150 years using just natural forcings and if you use human forcings. You can see the ONLY way the data makes sense is if you use human forcings:

Except you don't have any scientific background. So listening to you means ignoring the only tool that works.

Actually, I know enough to know that those graphs are meaningless without a source showing the data they used to arrive at those conclusions. My bet is that they're the result of bad statistical analysis and cherry picked data. The IPCC has been so wrong, so much, I could get better predictions from a tarot card reader or run-of-the-mill psychic.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You made a claim now back it up. Oh that's right you can't like most of the other shit you guess at. Thanks for making my point

You don't seem to understand: I couldn't care less about you.

As such I am not going to do anything!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Actually, I know enough to know that those graphs are meaningless without a source showing the data they used to arrive at those conclusions.

I believe it is in the IPCC (this one is from AR3 I think, so it's a bit older).

My bet is that they're the result of bad statistical analysis and cherry picked data. The IPCC has been so wrong, so much, I could get better predictions from a tarot card reader or run-of-the-mill psychic.

There's like a zero percent chance you would be able to sit in judgement of the data processing or statistics used in this graph.

 

[Yakuda]

You don't seem to understand: I couldn't care less about you.

As such I am not going to do anything!

Oh course you care you keep responding. Stop pretending

The fact is you climate nuts want it both ways. I gave you just one example of a failed prediction. You're quick to dismiss it but it was a prediction based on the assumptions. So in the front end everyone was on board to put up the sign as a warning of the threat of climate change. When you're wrong you're sure to tell us not to pay attention to one failed example of your assumptions.

Tell me again how little you care about me in your next reply. Lmfao

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Oh course you care you keep responding. Stop pretending

The fact is you climate nuts want it both ways. I gave you just one example of a failed prediction. You're quick to dismiss it but it was a prediction based on the assumptions. So in the front end everyone was on board to put up the sign as a warning of the threat of climate change. When you're wrong you're sure to tell us not to pay attention to one failed example of your assumptions.

Tell me again how little you care about me in your next reply. Lmfao

 

[Yakuda]

Lmfao good dog.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Like you know any of this stuff. You're hilarious.

Stop posing.

 

[Into the Night]

Still one of my favorites

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

Yeah. I thought was pretty funny too!

 

[Into the Night]

Actually I do! The key feature of the Second Law that IntotheNight doesn't know is it only applies to closed systems.

Earth is a closed system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. Everywhere. All the time.

That's his largest error.

Nope. Yours. You are obviously going to try to compare two different systems as if they are the same system again, or just argue semantics over what a 'system' is. You discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You cannot reduce entropy...EVER.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

And Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth since we are NOT a blackbody radiator only.

You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law AGAIN. It applies to all bodies...everywhere...including the Earth.

We have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere which cause our surface temperature to be about 30degC higher than it would be on average based solely on the S-B calculation.

There is no 'S-B calculation that results in temperature. Unit error. You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law AGAIN.
There is no 'should be' temperature. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. You just denied statistical mathematics and the 1st law of thermodynamics AGAIN.

Oh, and "statistical mathematics"? I'd be willing to bet most of my paycheck that he couldn't do statistics on a dataset let alone actually understand time-series analyses.

You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.

IntoTheNight just likes to think he sounds smart. All you need to do is ask him what he means by these things and you'll see he hasn't a clue. He won't even actually answer them...he'll just make up more fake fallacies and apply them.

The fallacies you make are very real. YOU are the one that makes them. You can't blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.

Hopefully you aren't equally benighted.

Why should he? He isn't making any fallacy like you are.

Discard of science.
Discard of statistical mathematics.

Paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm no genius and that's not something I'm embarrassed by but when I see shit like what glacier national park did it makes me question everything supposed "geniuses" say. I know they all think they're hot shit so they spout out every kind of alarm hoping the ignorant sheeple will just follow along but their alarms end up being nothing but the little boy crying wolf. The wolf may actually show up one day but people eventually tune out the warnings since the alarms ere too numerous and wrong to count, and no doubt the smart ones will blame everyone else but yourselves for their failure. I notice all too often "geniuses" confuse education with intellect.

It is not 'genius' to succumb mindlessly to the Church of Global Warming.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Earth is a closed system.

Hilarious! You ever hear of the SUN?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. Everywhere. All the time.

Wrong.

There is no 'S-B calculation that results in temperature.

Given that the equation SOLVES FOR "T" (temperature) that's kind of interesting you think that.

 

[Into the Night]

That's why it is best NOT to go with one event.

Yet you do exactly that! Paradox.

Look at the totality of the science from the last 60 years or so.

There is no branch of science called 'climate' or 'climate change'. Science has no theories about phrases you cannot define. Science is not random numbers being used as 'data' or even data.

The vast, vast, vast majority of it says AGW is real.

You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* you cannot trap light
* you cannot trap heat
* you cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* you cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* you cannot create energy out of nothing.
* no magickal gas has the capability to warm the Earth or to falsify any of these three laws.
* it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth (or any other planet).
* it is not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth (or any other planet).

You don't have to be a genius but betting against the house is the worst possible approach to keeping yourself safe.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.

Popular outlets are not going to give you the science.

There is no branch of science called 'climate' or 'climate change'. Science has no theories about what you cannot define.

They are going to sell you stories that shake you up a bit. Every time I see someone attribute a recent horrible storm to AGW I cringe because that's not how statistics works.

You deny statistical math.

But in total the signs are getting worrying.

Ah...the Holy Signs of Global Warming again...

Glaciers ARE retreating.

What about the glaciers that are advancing?[/QUOTE]
Argument from randU fallacy.

Multi-year sea ice IS getting smaller in the Arctic.

It is not possible to measure the total ice and snow in the Arctic.

The earth IS warming.

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

And right now the only factor that can adequately explain the warming is if we include human forcings as about 51% of the impact.

There is no such thing as 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Define this 'impact'. Buzzword fallacy.

The flip side of that is when someone who doesn't know any science thinks they know the truth simply because they think being uneducated is the route to intellect.

You are describing yourself. Religion is not science.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yet you do exactly that! Paradox.

There is no branch of science called 'climate' or 'climate change'. Science has no theories about phrases you cannot define. Science is not random numbers being used as 'data' or even data.

You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* you cannot trap light
* you cannot trap heat
* you cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* you cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* you cannot create energy out of nothing.
* no magickal gas has the capability to warm the Earth or to falsify any of these three laws.
* it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth (or any other planet).
* it is not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth (or any other planet).

You don't have to be a genius but betting against the house is the worst possible approach to keeping yourself safe.

Popular outlets are not going to give you the science.

They are going to sell you stories that shake you up a bit. Every time I see someone attribute a recent horrible storm to AGW I cringe because that's not how statistics works.

But in total the signs are getting worrying.

Glaciers ARE retreating.

Multi-year sea ice IS getting smaller in the Arctic.

The earth IS warming.

And right now the only factor that can adequately explain the warming is if we include human forcings as about 51% of the impact.

LIke your bird avatar you just come on threads and shit all over the place. How boring your act is.

 

[Into the Night]

There as many wrong as there are right. Sonic I live in Arizona i.bettr out my house up on stilts right?

I agree that global warming is happening. What I dont agree with is why it's happening and what if anything can actually be done about it. The worse thing that could happen or some might say the best thing the could happen is we kill ourselves off. The planet will keep spinning and the climate will keep changing with or without us.

Again the smart ones assume so much of people they perceive as uneducated. Its like shooting fish in a barrel with you people. That means it's almost too easy show how self absorbed the smart one are.

So you agree with the Church of Global Warming...then you try to condemn it. Where is all this extra energy to warm the Earth coming from?

 

[Into the Night]

LIke your bird avatar you just come on threads and shit all over the place. How boring your act is.

Like your other socks, you just spend your time insulting people and chanting and hallucinating.

 

[Into the Night]

The scientists don't have that problem.

High priests of the Church of Global Warming deny and discard science, just as you do.

They know it can't be explained wholly by natural forcings and only when human forcings are put into the equation does it work.

There is no equation. There is no such thing as 'natural forcings' or 'human forcings'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Buzzword fallacies. Argument from randU fallacy. There is nothing to 'explain'.

Here's my favorite example from the IPCC. This is a set of graphs showing what it looks like if you try to recreate the warming over the last 150 years using just natural forcings and if you use human forcings.

Random numbers are not data. Buzzword fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies.

You can see the ONLY way the data makes sense is if you use human forcings:

Random numbers are not data. There is no such thing as 'human forcings'.

Except you don't have any scientific background.

You are describing yourself.

YOU are the one trying to create energy out of nothing. That's ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Why? I don't understand what your question is in relation to.



I don't know. But it's not science.



I wouldn't know. Janitor? Assistant Glory Hole Attendant? I don't know. I just know it's not science.

You don't even know what 'science' is. It is YOU ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics in that last post. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

You have show me. I don't have to assume anymore.

Attempted dox.

He doesn't have to show you anything.

 

[Into the Night]

I couldn't care less what you think about anything. You don't have any science background. Prove me wrong. Tell me what you area is. Maybe you're an expert on male reproductive systems.

You are describing yourself again.