johnnyAU

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

97+% of all climatologists and related scientists in geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, etc. in the world are all participates in this hoax.

Again, citing the bogus consensus. It's all you have. 

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

When we post something to back up what we're saying, all you say is "wrong," but you don't even try to back up your arguments.

No you don't. You make unsubstantiated claims like I pointed out earlier. You have no argument.

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

The ones who have been presented in this discussion as examples are. 

 

Prove it. And then prove the scientists you have quoted/cited aren't continually funded by green $$ as long as they produce "acceptable" results.

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

So this confirms it....you think every climate scientist that posits global warming is corrupt

Turn the question around on you. Do you believe the myriad of scientists and engineers that are skeptical are all funded by fossil fuel companies and are thus unethical?

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I happen to be employed, as an engineer, like you.

Well, that is my error if I recall you stating you were retired. I apologize. Some folks are here so often that it appears to be the case even if it isn't 

Just now, Leftfield said:

I notice you never answer when I ask you to provide citations, or for a cause of temperature increases. Why is that?

You don't notice. You are here like other retired folk much more often than the rest of us gainfully employed folk. We simply cannot afford the time to constantly post like some of you. 

Natural variations, oscillations etc...and the sun of course, dominate climatic changes. The oceans are warmed primarily by solar radiation, with some influx of volcanic activity. Variations in cloud cover (which are not modelled adequately) gate the incoming radiation.  Downwelling long wave IR from CO2 cannot penetrate more than a few mm into the ocean surface. That energy from the thin skin is quickly taken away via convection. Only the sun contributes to the upper oceanic warming, and subsequent heat transfer to the air above. It isn't the other way around.  

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Wrong. Wrong and Wrong.

1) That is the basic question Climate scientists started asking when they first became aware of the possibility.

2) You apparently didn't.

3) Is this a joke?  You have obviously done zero reading on this. 

I hate to provide my go-to source for beginners, but you need to at least start somewhere.  I sure as hell don't have time to spoon feed you references like I am tutoring a child.

https://skepticalscience.com/

4)  Well, well.  I can tell by this irrational, emotional response that you have no more arguments - at least ones that can't be easily refuted.   You have simply decided to deny facts because you want to. You're completely unteachable.  What a waste of time you've been.

(But I love the irony that you call me "ignorant".)  

 

You are as ideologically blind as anyone I've ever encountered. And yes, you are ignorant if you believe the swill you propagate.

No, we don't KNOW what the climate sensitivity is for the doubling of CO2. It's an estimation based on unverifiable assumptions.

CO2 is claimed to feedback to warming, but there is not substantiated evidence that the effect is significant.

Skeptical science is something you believe is a valid source, but it is propaganda at best.

I've read every reference you have ever read or provided here. The vast majority is garbage, but funded garbage nonetheless. You have never provided FACTS, but it is clear you believe them to be facts as most cultists do. 

My kids will be just fine, as will their children, and theirs. What makes me grin, is that you are so spineless that you decided not to procreate and still virtue signal about it. Our society will be much better off without the weak minded progenies you would have left behind for the rest of us to prop up. We thank you for your service. 

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Climate scientists can predict how much warming additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause.  Valid scientific theory is predictive.  It's the very basis of modeling. 

Predict incorrectly. The models clearly show considerably more warming than is actually occurring. Why? Because of the assumed climate sensitivity due to doubling of CO2 baked in the models are too high. 

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

2) Had there been no increase in the release of CO2 as a result of the industrial age and population growth, temperature would not have increased since then. (Or at least it would be consistent with the natural geologic, epochal time frame, which practically amounts to the same thing.)

What Leftfield is describing is called in climate science an "amplifying feedback loop":

You, or anyone else for that matter, have no idea what the temperature would be without CO2 increases since the dawn of the industrial age. We all know what a feedback loop is. However, there is no real scientific data showing the climate to be significantly altered due to increases of CO2 above the signal of natural variability. Unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable computer models are garbage science used as propaganda for the ignorant, like yourself. 

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc

Finally a true statement. However, you immediately jump to claims immediately afterwards. You have no idea how much CO2 amplifies warming, and you have no idea when the current warming would have started without increases in CO2.  

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know how much Trump means to you.  Why not address the material rather than the source?

Because he can't refute anything Dr. Happer has to say, and he knows it.

7 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

but obviously they’re in the less than 4% of all scientists category.

BS

LOL. No the arguments against AGW haven't been  "debunked". That's not the case no matter how much you believe it and scream it to the top of your alarmist lungs. So pathetic. 

For those who have never done it, get out and try it next year. It's a good time for a good cause. I think it's gone on now for around 12 or 13 years. I've personally done it at least 6 times, and brought my family to do it at least 2 of those years. It's a good way to reconnect with old friends, make new ones, relive old memories, exercise, have a little fun and give back to communities in need. You also get to witness arguably the best ambassador for a state or university we'll see in our lifetimes.  

WDE

Looks like most, if not all, of those ACE peaks are correlated with ENSO events, which makes sense. 

She's an idiot, like many of the cultists

Coleman is a calm, highly intelligent voice of reason. We need more folks like him. Unfortunately, those traits have become an anomaly in our society. 

10 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i am so sorry johnny i thought you were a maga.................

No worries. I'm no MAGA, but I was technically referring to the Biden administration here. Although, in retrospect it could be applied to the whole of congress at this point and I expect the next administration, regardless of which candidate prevails. 

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Delusional and dishonest would be no change from the current administration.

You forgot incompetent...and in at least one case,  incontinent.  

Seal levels have been rising at an average of 2-3 mm/year since we began thawing from the ice age 11,000+ years ago. No amount of carbon taxes, political blustering or hyperbolic articles will do anything to slow it down. 

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

   

It's like you're a child just discovering emojis. Perhaps you and Biden can go grab some ice cream together. 

On 3/23/2024 at 2:29 PM, homersapien said:

I'd choose Biden's puppeteers over Trump any day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

Well, of course you would. I'd expect nothing different from you. I'd choose the exact opposite. Anything is better than the circus in charge at the moment. We're walking the tightrope, and we're losing time at a break-neck pace.

I'd MUCH rather have 2 very different options to choose from, but this is how far we've fallen. Three consecutive elections with ridiculous choices and no signs of improving. 

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I have  BS and an MS from Auburn University, have published papers in scientific journals and hold 8 patents.  What is your science background?

BSME from Auburn University, PE, 30+ years in industry, partner in 2 companies, 1 science, 1 engineering, designed/installed instruments (and referenced by several scientific papers) at multiple universities/companies in US.  And no, my name isn't "Johnny". 

What is your discipline?

11 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

You may be right and I tend to agree. And the entire  gop is now trumps puppets.  Low iq subservient minions.  

As I’ve said. Crappy options. Pick your poison.

That's 3 elections in a row with crap options. When will it end?

Biden is a puppet, and that was the intention from day one. If anyone seriously thinks he's in charge of anything, there's really no hope for you at this point. 

Over-posting garbage is rhetoric of cultists. Spouting the same unscientific gibberish over and over isn't proof of anything, even if your belief in it is paramount. 

There isn't and never has been "consensus" on the magnitude of human influence on climate change because it is an unquantifiable measure. You have no legitimate science that backs up any direct correlation between emissions and climatic change. The mere existence of any attempt of trying to claim it without such proof is absolutely an indication of their own personal ignorance of the matter. 

To have any opinion, even though vetted through Nobel Prize winning scientists who happen to be leaders in the field of radiative physics, that is contrary to the overarching narrative brands you as a "denier" shows you exactly the mentality you are dealing with. Blind in scientific ignorance and ideology.  Homer regurgitates but doesn't understand an iota of what he absorbs. It is the level of willing submission that we are faced with these days. Political science over real, quantifiable science...by any means necessary.