Gulf Stream

[Leftfield 2,702]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

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. 

Citation?

 

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

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. 

You've been asked this many times....to what do you attribute the warming climate?

Or do you deny the global temperature is increasing?

[homersapien 11,498]

49 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

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.

Wrong. 

First, All models show a range because neither the data or the model is precise. That's impossible.  (This is pretty much how all science-based predictions/models work - on probabilities. That's inherent to any research based on data collection.)

But you are wrong in any case.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/Study Confirms

Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Edited May 14 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Also, Sowell is an economist. Tell me why his opinion is more valid than thousands of climate scientists?

As he mentions in the video; the climate scientists have a financial interest in continuing their research.

[homersapien 11,498]

29 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

1) 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.

2) We all know what a feedback loop is.

3) 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.

4) Unsubstantiated claims and unverifiable computer models are garbage science used as propaganda for the ignorant, like yourself. 

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".)  

 

[autigeremt 6,775]

One day, physicists and meteorologists will finally come together and agree that polar shifts and magnetic fields affect climate shifts more than anyone ever imagined. While I am a firm defender of our natural resources, I do not put all the blame of our current climate crisis on the backs of humankind. I do agree that we have contributed to air, water and soil pollution and that it has a negative effect on our quality of life (Cancer, birth defects, etc.).

Edited May 14 by autigeremt

[Leftfield 2,702]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

As he mentions in the video; the climate scientists have a financial interest in continuing their research.

All of them? Thousands of scientists have been bribed into producing junk science just for financial gain? And nobody is blowing the whistle on it?

Who knew that percentage of scientists were so unethical? If so, why do we trust them for anything that doesn't provide them with a large financial incentive? 

As you so often accuse others of doing, why doesn't Sowell debunk the actual science, instead of attack the source of it?

If Sowell really believes there are little-to-no ethical scientists, then he's gone full conspiracy theorist, as have you.

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

One day, physicists and meteorologists will finally come together and agree that polar shifts and magnetic fields affect climate shifts more than anyone ever imagined. While I am a firm defender of our natural resources, I do not put all the blame of our current climate crisis on the backs of humankind. I do agree that we have contributed to air, water and soil pollution and that it has a negative effect on our quality of life (Cancer, birth defects, etc.).

When was the last polar shift emt?

Where did you get the idea it was associated with global warming?

Edited May 14 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

All of them? Thousands of scientists have been bribed into producing junk science just for financial gain? And nobody is blowing the whistle on it?

Who knew that percentage of scientists were so unethical? If so, why do we trust them for anything that doesn't provide them with a large financial incentive? 

As you so often accuse others of doing, why doesn't Sowell debunk the actual science, instead of attack the source of it?

If Sowell really believes there are little-to-no ethical scientists, then he's gone full conspiracy theorist, as have you.

It’s only human nature isn’t it.  Why would you think Boeing is defending its brand as furiously as it is?  It isn’t a conspiracy scientist (environmental scientist) further their cause.  It really is milking the cash cow of the government and they can feel good about it.

It is similar to DEI, there are people that have degrees in this industry and would never go against anything DEI related.  Are they unethical or are they building their industry at the tax payer expense?

[Leftfield 2,702]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s only human nature isn’t it.  Why would you think Boeing is defending its brand as furiously as it is?  It isn’t a conspiracy scientist (environmental scientist) further their cause.  It really is milking the cash cow of the government and they can feel good about it.

So the scientists that you present as a counter, are they ethical? If so, why are they the only ones? If not, why do you trust them?

 

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

29 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So the scientists that you present as a counter, are they ethical? If so, why are they the only ones? If not, why do you trust them?

 

What scientists have I presented as a counter?  If you are talking Boeing, they will lie with the best of them to deflect blame.  Watch dog groups have to hold their feet to the fire (the FAA).  

I didn’t trust Boeing when I flew them and I didn’t trust Airbus when I flew them. The only thing I had control over was flying the aircraft the way the manuals instructed and if something happened the union would have to be on my side because the manufacturer would place the blame on the pilot.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

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. 

[Leftfield 2,702]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What scientists have I presented as a counter?  If you are talking Boeing, they will lie with the best of them to deflect blame.  Watch dog groups have to hold their feet to the fire (the FAA).  

I didn’t trust Boeing when I flew them and I didn’t trust Airbus when I flew them. The only thing I had control over was flying the aircraft the way the manuals instructed and if something happened the union would have to be on my side because the manufacturer would place the blame on the pilot.

 

In a debate about global warming you think I'm talking about....Boeing?

I'm referring to all the posts you've been putting up with scientists claiming CO2 isn't the cause. Aren't they dependent on grants for research, also? Aren't they getting paid? Or do you think they're the only ethical ones?

[Leftfield 2,702]

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

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. 

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

[johnnyAU 3,668]

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.  

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

 

In a debate about global warming you think I'm talking about....Boeing?

I'm referring to all the posts you've been putting up with scientists claiming CO2 isn't the cause. Aren't they dependent on grants for research, also? Aren't they getting paid? Or do you think they're the only ethical ones?

Well, thanks for clarifying.  You seem to leave things up to the reader a lot.

Of course, they are either getting paid or getting grants, but they are not the cash cow climate change money from the government doles out.  Kind of like the resistance or another view that should be looked at.  Like the Great Barrington Declaration that was discredited by Fauci and team before it even had a chance to be discussed.

[Leftfield 2,702]

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

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. 

You make a lot of assumptions. Unfortunately for you, you're just as ignorant about my life as you are the environment. I happen to be employed, as an engineer, like you. If it makes you feel better to say you don't have the time to respond, hey, go for it. 

 

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

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.  

You're correct, natural variations do dominate climatic changes....normally. Everything you address above, though, has to do with the ocean. While certainly a huge part of the overall climate, you haven't addressed anything concerning radiation from the Earth's surface, nor have you addressed the release of radiation out of the atmosphere and into space. 

Can you account for the sudden spike in temperatures, which are novel in history? Do you have any citations of studies to prove what you assert? 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.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

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 

[Leftfield 2,702]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, thanks for clarifying.  You seem to leave things up to the reader a lot.

Um.....you mentioned Boeing, genius. In the paragraph of yours I quoted, there were three other sentences concerning what was actually being discussed. You being so scatterbrained that you can't stay on topic is no fault of mine.

 

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course, they are either getting paid or getting grants, but they are not the cash cow climate change money from the government doles out.  Kind of like the resistance or another view that should be looked at. 

So this confirms it....you think every climate scientist that posits global warming is corrupt. Every. Single. One. And you think any scientist against the prevailing opinion is not. 

There is no logic that can penetrate an utter belief in conspiracy such as this. 

 

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Like the Great Barrington Declaration that was discredited by Fauci and team before it even had a chance to be discussed.

And as if on cue, to prove my point.....both about being scatterbrained and a conspiracy theorist.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

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?

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So this confirms it....you think every climate scientist that posits global warming is corrupt. Every. Single. One. And you think any scientist against the prevailing opinion is not. 

There is no logic that can penetrate an utter belief in conspiracy such as this. 

I didn’t say that and you are just talking out of your a$$.

Edited May 15 by I_M4_AU

[Leftfield 2,702]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

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?

Not at all, nor have I ever implied that.

[Leftfield 2,702]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I didn’t say that and you are just talking out of your a$$.

When I asked you if scientists who oppose the mainstream are being paid, you said this:

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course, they are either getting paid or getting grants, but they are not the cash cow climate change money from the government doles out. 

You have made no qualifiers at any point to the effect that there are ethical climate change scientists that are included in the majority. Feel free to point them out if you have. So no, I'm not "talking out of my a$$", you're just showing yours.

So what percentage of ethical scientists do you think there are? If they are ethical, why do you dispute their studies? Can you discern the ethical studies from those that are unethical?

[homersapien 11,498]

14 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

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. 

[homersapien 11,498]

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Can you account for the sudden spike in temperatures, which are novel in history? Do you have any citations of studies to prove what you assert? 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.

Don't hold your breath waiting.

[homersapien 11,498]

14 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

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?

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

 

Edited May 15 by homersapien