15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:18 am

All of which, Jim, does not make you right. The reality is that there is enough energy trapped by greenhouse gases to cause the world to warm up. My earlier three points still hold correct.

1. The world is warming.
2. It is due to human activity.
3. It has serious consequences, making it important that humans do what we can to reduce the impact and adapt to that which we cannot mitigate.

As long as you deny any of the above three points, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:All of which, Jim, does not make you right. The reality is that there is enough energy trapped by greenhouse gases to cause the world to warm up. My earlier three points still hold correct..


All of which simply showed Lance is grossly ill-informed about climate science.

All of which provided solid evidence, supported by basic physics, for an alternative explanation that our climate may have very low sensitivity to rising CO2.

No skeptic argues that the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.

In reality there is more heat in just the upper 10 feet of the ocean than there is stored in the entire atmosphere.

In reality top oceanographers from MIT and Harvard have argued that the oceans have not reached equilibrium with current climate conditions, and the deep oceans are cooling, losing heat stored back in the warmer millennia of the Holocene.

In reality there is absolutely no consensus that the current warming is a bad thing. The observed consequences have been that CO2 fertilization has promoted greening while the warming since the Little Ice Age has lengthened the growing season, and less Arctic ice haas increased ocean productivity.

Assertions that global warming has hurt the biosphere have been thoroughly debunked. Assertions to the contrary are simply bogus assertions. For example:

http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate- ... ffect.html

http://landscapesandcycles.net/bumblebe ... hange.html

http://landscapesandcycles.net/noaas-ar ... ience.html

http://landscapesandcycles.net/pika-not ... ring-.html

http://landscapesandcycles.net/blind-po ... chers.html
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:26 am

Noticeably, Jim, you refer to the same crackpot web site for all your references. Why not try something reputable, like NASA, or a reputable university ?

Both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have good web sites discussing global warming, and their message is quite different to your crackpot bull-shit reference.

Your reference is made even less reputable by your own contribution to it. Your bias is extreme.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Noticeably, Jim, you refer to the same crackpot web site for all your references. Why not try something reputable, like NASA, or a reputable university ?


More stupid diversions. Why not argue the evidence? Because you can't! All the evidence in the referenced essays is supported by peer reviewed literature with links and citations. If you can't refute the evidence, you are just engaging is more dishonest deception.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have good web sites discussing global warming, and their message is quite different to your crackpot bull-shit reference.

Your reference is made even less reputable by your own contribution to it. Your bias is extreme.


Despite revealing numerous times, by your own bogus remarks, that you are totally ill-informed about climate science, you arrogantly deny the experts referenced in those essays. Lance you continue to be dishonest and engage in nothing but ad homs whenever you are incapable of arguing the facts those experts published. Opinions on a university website, does not disprove the science provided by the experts that do the research and found the deep oceans are cooling. Here are links to 2 papers by the Harvard and MIT oceanographers that argue the deep oceans are cooling!!!!

The only "crackpot bull-shit" is yours Lance, and you continue to show, despite your ignorance, you will arrogantly attack others who know far more than you.

Read their papers and learn some real science from the experts.


1. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 14-00550.1

from their abstract: The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere.

2. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... D-13-096.1
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:42 am

For Finagle Sake,, Jim, cut the crap. Those references merely say that heat distribution in the ocean is slow. Not news.

But your own references show what is going on. You are a nut case crackpot who has written a book about your nut case crackpot ideas. The thing is that people tend to get entrenched in their own ideas when they take a stand. You have taken a stand in favour of nut case crackpottery about global climate change. You oppose what the true climate scientists are saying, and there is no way we can alter your mind, which is now fixed by a form of cerebral cholesterol. I think my arguments are kinda pointless, since you will always find your own rationalisation for opposing what real scientists are saying.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:52 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I think my arguments are kinda pointless, since you will always find your own rationalisation for opposing what real scientists are saying.



ROTFLMAO Lance is whining because I disagree with him, because I am entrenched??? ROTFLMAO. As evidenced in this thread

1. Lance has been proven to be a liar with no integrity, like Bobbo falsifying what I actually say and claim

2. Lance, like Bobbo have been shown repeatedly to be ignorant of the basic science, and which I have corrected them many times. They suggest I oppose real scientists, when Lance and Bobbo have shown they are incapable of distinguishing good from bad science. MY beliefs are based on real scientists' evidence and I provide the links to back that up. Lance and Bobbo have never linked to an actual scientific paper.

3. Lance and Bobbo's arguments, being devoid of real science, rely only denigrating psychobabble as Lance does here again.

I feel totally justified in not trusting the arguments ignorant, abusive liars. I would be a fool if I did.


Lance Kennedy wrote:For Finagle Sake,, Jim, cut the crap. Those references merely say that heat distribution in the ocean is slow. Not news.


Here is another example of LAnce's abusive double-speak. Lance attacked my reference to the evidence by MIT and Harvard oceanographers as "crackpot bull-shit reference."

But when given the links to their published research, Lance then tries to divert attention from their results that said there is a deep ocean cooling trend

The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere.


Because Lance does not understand science he suggests all they were saying was heat distribution is slow. ROTFLMAO,Their point that Lance desperately avoids discussing, is they caution good scientists that at least in part, temperatures now being recorded in the ocean's upper layers are the result of heat stored during warmer millennia and just now ventilating. Only crackpots argue everything is due to CO2.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You are a nut case crackpot who has written a book about your nut case crackpot ideas.


Its a badge of honor to be called a crack pot by abusive ignorant liars who think they are arguing science by denigrating the messengers.

My book has been reviewed by over 40 phD's, with some calling it a masterpiece and others saying it made them skeptics, so I can see why Lance is so desperate to denigrate without ever having read it, similar to the way he denigrated the MIT/Harvard oceanographers. I have spent my career advocating for wise environmental stewardship, monitoring wildlife and restoring habitat. I am now a "muckraker" of bad science, and Im fascinated by how some sheeple will abandon all integrity to lie and misrepresent the issues in order to blindly cling to their belief built on a false understanding of bad science.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:50 pm

Say Lance: excellent series just started on our Public Tv here in USA called Habitable Planet. A co-production of Harvard, Smithsonian, NOAA, and NASA.

https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/

First show was on this morning. All about how co2 absorbs infra-red and redirects some of it back to Earth, just as you instructively first posted. Turns out...Earth is NOT IN the Goldilocks zone....given our distance from the Sun and the output of the sun...we should be frozen over at Minus 18 Celsius..........but at 316ppm the co2 kept the Earth pleasant for those adapted to that temp. but in the last 200 years...we have added co2 to the atmosphere up to 403ppm last I heard.

I suppose Jimbo once again perused the information available and has decided that 315ppm is a low sensitivity that describes its action as taking Earth from Frozen to our Garden of Eden?

Silly Hooman.

Show two was new info that I need to watch again about how Hurricanes might be driving world climate...which conflicts with current theory as it being a product of climate. Just goes to show how complicated the interactions are......

things are heating up for good old Naturally Occurring Snowball Earth........................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:07 pm

Earlier in the thread, Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not give a damn about people attacking me. But it is worth noting that these attacks come from people who claim they are not into ad hom attacks. This is total hypocrisy, and something they should be deeply ashamed of. I do not care, and if small minds are made to feel special in this way, go for it.

And "go for it" he did:
Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . You are a nut case crackpot who has written a book about your nut case crackpot ideas.


What were you saying about small minds?


Lance Kennedy wrote: The thing is that people tend to get entrenched in their own ideas when they take a stand.


Wow. The pot is calling the kettle black.

:roll:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:43 pm

Jim

Perhaps my words nut case and crackpot were over the top. But the situation is clear. You took a stand for pseudoscience, by opposing the consensus of climate scientists. I will give you a little credit. You have clearly put a lot of time and effort into this, and have done a lot of research. Unfortunately, it is also clear that your research follows the rule of confirmation bias. You have selected any and every piece of data that supports your false ideas, and have rejected any and every piece of data that supports the climate consensus.

I have not done that level of research into global warming, and my expertise is in another area, meaning I cannot do a stand up debate with you purely on the science. But that does not matter, since I am very aware of what the majority of climate scientists have determined. Your opposition to that very solid group of scientists is sufficient evidence that you are not presenting good science.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I suppose Jimbo once again perused the information available and has decided that 315ppm is a low sensitivity that describes its action as taking Earth from Frozen to our Garden of Eden?



The Frozen earth "scenarios" are highly debated and there is no consensus if such interpretations are real. However it is glommed onto by those invested in the silly belief CO2 drives climate.

Here is why the earth's water offers a better explanation for our mild warmer climate that prevents a snowball earth.

1. Water's heat capacity is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere's.

2. The oceans are tremendous heat reservoirs that modulate climate as observed today.

3. The infrared re-emitted by CO2 cannot penetrate the ocean surface beyond the first micron and is mostly reflected. Solar radiation penetrates over 100 meters deep, warming a million times the volume of the ocean relative to any possible CO2 effect.

4. Before photosynthesis increased oxygen and thus ozone, the more highly energetic UV rays abundantly reached the earth's surface and penetrated deeply into the oceans, warming the oceans 1000s of times faster than CO2's back radiation ever could or can.

My experience has been that CO2 alarmists uncritically glom on to the highly questionable CO2 scenario. But I could be wrong.

So Bobbo, strut your critical thinking skills! Why doesn't water control the climate? Why would the earth be more sensitive to CO2 than water???
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have not done that level of research into global warming, and my expertise is in another area, meaning I cannot do a stand up debate with you purely on the science. ....

Your opposition to that very solid group of scientists is sufficient evidence that you are not presenting good science


More Orwellian doublespeak. As you admit you do not know climate science. Yet you revert to bullsh*t denigration against any interpretation that challenges you to critically examine your paranoid obsessions.

As you demonstrate, the "situation is indeed clear", YOU lack the knowledge and critical thinking skills to agree or disagree with anything I post or that other scientists claim. You can only parrot what you SUSPECT to be the consensus.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim

Perhaps my words nut case and crackpot were over the top.


What do you mean, "perhaps"? Are you implying you still have some level of uncertainty on that point?


Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . it is also clear that your research follows the rule of confirmation bias.


Once again, the pot calls the kettle black.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:28 pm

Jim Steele wrote: You can only parrot what you SUSPECT to be the consensus.

The consensus is stated in the IPCC reports and has been confirmed as accepted by 97% of qualified CLIMATE scientist as per a literture research that was confirmed at least once.

Not only qualified scientists universally accept AGW by co2 as the reality we see today but ALSO 100% of Scientific Based Professional Organizations, finally to include all the Petro/Industrial Ones, also agree with the IPCC statements of causality.

Snowball Earth: Distance from Sun + Sun's Output would put us at 0 Degrees F. Got an unlinked source to dispute this?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:33 pm

Jim Steele wrote: So Bobbo, strut your critical thinking skills! Why doesn't water control the climate? Why would the earth be more sensitive to CO2 than water???

Because water like every other element of the climate equation has been evaluated and as a broad brush the status quo ante-industrial fossil fuel burning was stable, so it wasn't "driving" anything. Now......want to add or subtract the amount of water on Earth?===eventually a large enough change either way WOULD drive climate change.

Its not the sensitivity but the change in the amount present of co2 and water that is relevant. ie: co2 increasing/doubling by next century whereas water is basically the same.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The consensus is stated in the IPCC reports and has been confirmed as accepted by 97% of qualified CLIMATE scientist as per a literture research that was confirmed at least once.


To quote Crichton, "
the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels


The 97% consensus has been debunked numerous times. Oreskes (a political activist- not a scientist) searched abstracts for the words "global warming", if the paper did not explicitly reject CO2 driven warming she assumed, the authors agreed. That is totally BS. As we always taught our science students, the abstract provides an overview of what was explored and the salient results. 99% of Oreskes papers were not examining the effect of CO2, so agreement with or against CO2 warming is something they would never insert into their abstract unless forced to by a gatekeeping editor. If you read scientific papers (and via your own admissions I know you never do) most researchers examining different weather/climate responses will say they CANNOT determine if the changes was natural or CO2 induced.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Snowball Earth: Distance from Sun + Sun's Output would put us at 0 Degrees F. Got an unlinked source to dispute this?


Another dishonest (or perhaps just ignorant) response. I never challenged that the distance from the sun and the sun' output regards how much heat the earth receives. The question is how does the earth accumulate and store heat. Bobbo's blather suggests it is solely due to CO2. I provided well established physics suggesting the oceans provide the key to heat accumulation that prevents a snowball earth.

If Bobbo can't even recognize that the accumulation of heat is the key that we are debating, NOT the distance from the sun, there is no hope he'll ever understand the science of climate change.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Now......want to add or subtract the amount of water on Earth?=.


Damn you really are clueless regards the science!!!

It's never about the amount of water. Again you reveal your scientific impotence.

Its about how and when the oceans can absorb, accumulate and ventilate heat. CO2 is irrelevant in the sense it doesn't store heat to any degree. Again the ocean's heat capacity is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. Just the upper 10 feet of the world's ocean has stored more heat than the entire atmosphere.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:30 pm

Ha, ha.........argue long enough..............and the feet of clay leave a muddy track.

Silly Hooman. Have an eighth grader explain what a variable is to you.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:33 pm

I do not think anyone has said that heat retention is SOLELY due to CO2. Heat retention is due to a range of factors. Where CO2 is special is that it is the current major (but not only) cause of warming.

Interesting comment, Jim, you made about before photosynthesis, though, implying greater heat take up by the oceans back then. This might help to explain why water was liquid in a time when the sun's output was less.

But, Jim, you belittle the 97% of climate scientists that Bobbo referred to, when you talk of ocean energy uptake. Surely you realise that all those scientists are fully able to quantify this effect and allow for it? Is it not arrogant to imply that the worlds greatest climate scientists are so silly they do not allow for the obvious?

The fact that I do not fully understand the intricacies of climate does not mean I have to assume the experts are wrong. Indeed, I will take their expert views over yours any day. Especially when the global rise in temperature and sea level are both clear and apparent.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:But, Jim, you belittle the 97% of climate scientists that Bobbo referred to, when you talk of ocean energy uptake.



ROTFLMAO. More Lance stupid dishonest psychobabble. My arguments are based on evidence published by climate scientists.

It is you and Bobbo who belittle those scientists by completely butchering the science basics they present. If we were to believe your and Bobbo's erroneous interpretations as representing what the scientists are claiming, then climate scientists would also look like idiots.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:15 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not think anyone has said that heat retention is SOLELY due to CO2. Heat retention is due to a range of factors. Where CO2 is special is that it is the current major (but not only) cause of warming.


Lance you really need to back up your clap trap before dispputing what I present. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

First CO2 is just hypothesized to the current cause of warming. Heat ventilating from the oceans is erroneously attributed to CO2 warming

Second, Bobbos"snowball" scientists actually do argue CO2 drives the changes

From the website Bobbo linked to https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/ ... 1&secNum=5

Proponents of the Snowball Earth theory believe that Earth became so cold during several glacial cycles in this period that it essentially froze over from the equator to the poles for spans of ten million years or more. But ultimately, they contend, the carbon-silicate cycle freed Earth from this deep-freeze state....

How would a Snowball Earth thaw? The answer stems from the carbon-cycle thermostat discussed earlier.

Even if the surface of the Earth was completely frozen, volcanoes powered by heat from the planet's interior would continue to vent CO2. However, very little water would evaporate from the surface of a frozen Earth, so there would be no rainfall to wash CO2 out of the atmosphere. Over roughly 10 million years, normal volcanic activity would raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations by a factor of 1,000, triggering an extreme warming cycle (Fig. 10). As global ice cover melted, rising surface temperatures would generate intense evaporation and rainfall. This process would once again accelerate rock weathering, ultimately drawing atmospheric CO2 levels back down to normal ranges.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:19 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:........argue long enough.....blah blah blah blah


More evasive irrelevant bob blather. ROTFLMAO

I've had far more intelligent discussions with 8th graders than with Boobo
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:23 pm

OK Jimbo===========>you have not responded to my critical thinking response as you requested. some Factor "X" could be the most impactful/reactive/sensitive/powerful actor in climate science...say Methane or water vapor for instance..........but if for the past 200K years the amount of the stuff or the percentage of it in the atmosphere has remained constant, then how does it become a driver of climate change?

Your turn.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Jim is a classic case of a person making a statement and then sticking to it come hell or high water, regardless of the fact that the majority of experts disagree. This is not unusual, and it is very human. The others who do this are the extreme environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. When they say something like 'genetically modified food will kill you', then the fact that 25 years of such consumption never killed anyone does not change their minds. Plus, of course, extreme religious groups. It is a kind of very normal human stupidity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:07 pm

Well Lance, I agree that is the track record before us. "Inflexible" is what I call it, or "unable to argue other than repeat their original position." If pushed, "they" will start to roll eyes, post QED, cartoons, or drop into ab hominem.

For some reason...........hot gas comes to mind. Yes, destructive hot gas that does no one any good.

As you brought it up, I think that "landscape" website that Jimbo refers to when he links at all "may be" of his own creation. Atleast, seems a few years ago when I followed some of his links, I got articles by him that were posted there. Do you think his articles have been peer reviewed????????????????????????

Heh, heh. When a non-scientist like myself can see the mile wide holes and inconsistencies and lack of support for "every position he has posted in this forum"......imagine what an actually qualified scientist would do??????????? ((Hint: exactly what they have done: ignore him.))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OK Jimbo===========>you have not responded to my critical thinking response as you requested. ......but if for the past 200K years the amount of the stuff or the percentage of it in the atmosphere has remained constant, then how does it become a driver of climate change?

Your turn.



You are so climate stupid you fail to recognize when you were given an answer.

Its about how and when the oceans can absorb, accumulate and ventilate heat.

The amount of water in the ocean does not make a difference.

The oceans can ventilate stored heat and cause a far greater change in climate than CO2.

Learn about the Dansgaard_Oeschger events where due to ventilating ocean heat, temperatures rose 10C in decades when there was no change in CO2.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:33 pm

Jim

There is no doubt that the oceans are important in climate. There is also no doubt that the experts are fully aware of this and that they disagree with you anyway. The world is warming. Sea levels are rising. These things are running in parallel with greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere. The experts believe this is cause and effect, and they have calculated that the end result will be nasty, unless we can do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

No matter how many web sites you have set up, or books you have written, you are not such an expert and your opinions do not count.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:41 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim is a classic case of a person making a statement and then sticking to it come hell or high water, regardless of the fact that the majority of experts disagree.



ROTFLMAO Lance repeatedly fails basic science so he repeats ad nauseam his bogus claim that the majority of experts disagree with the basics I keep trying to educate Lance and Bobbo about. Despite several requests neither have provided a single published paper that specifically disagrees with a word I have said.

The hilarious part is, all the experts would be totally embarrassed by the way Lance and Bobbo's have presented distorted science, and then attribute it to them the experts.

And Bobbo knows nothing suggesting I am ignored, but Bobbo always talks despite not knowing. Numerous experts have emailed me in response to essays I have posted and agree with my analysis. However I'll guarantee the experts will ignore Lance and Bobbo's blather!

What I found so fascinating here Is the gross lies and Ill-informed science that gets presented by paranoid alarmists and their absurd lengths they go to defend what they just do not understand.

Slandering Sou has tried the similar shams as Bobbo and Lance to falsely denigrate what I factually report. Here's one example showing she was shown to be very wrong by an expert whom begrudgingly acknowledged I was correct.

Read it here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/ ... wn-petard/
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:44 pm

Jim

Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. As I said before, the experts disagree with your assertion that global warming is not a serious problem. I am not talking about your bits and pieces of science. I am talking of your assessment of the seriousness of the problem. That is where the experts disagree with you.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:51 pm

Jim Steele wrote: The oceans can ventilate stored heat and cause a far greater change in climate than CO2.

.........and what stimulates the oceans to do so? Magic?==>or do you summon these effects by your will power alone????? So........climate change is due to the Dansgaard_Oeschger effect and not co2 huh?

You are a very silly person.

But for grins.......I'll google Dansgaard_Oeschger and see if you are obviously wrong in the first paragraph or not.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Here is an example of Lance's experts who said rising CO2 will cause less snow in the fall. Should we question their understanding?

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:55 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard ... hger_event

The processes behind the timing and amplitude of these events (as recorded in ice cores) are still unclear.........The events appear to reflect changes in the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, perhaps triggered by an influx of fresh water.


In other words: you got nothing.

Silly rabbit.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Please do not misrepresent what I have posted. As I said before, the experts disagree with your assertion that global warming is not a serious problem. I am not talking about your bits and pieces of science. I am talking of your assessment of the seriousness of the problem. That is where the experts disagree with you.



Just Lance blather. For the umpteenth your bather is absolutely meaningless until you can please post a link to the paper by the experts that you refer to
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:57 pm

Jim Steele wrote:Here is an example of Lance's experts who said rising CO2 will cause less snow in the fall. Should we question their understanding?

Image

Link? ................of course not.

Goes to "The Analogy" Error you like to Trump with. Just as valid too. Any localized short term event predicted incorrectly shows the entire field of science to be wrong.

Rather silly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:03 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event

The processes behind the timing and amplitude of these events (as recorded in ice cores) are still unclear.........The events appear to reflect changes in the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, perhaps triggered by an influx of fresh water.


In other words: you got nothing.

Silly rabbit.



Damn bob! you are so stupid you don't even realize wiki's account supports exactly what I say. They show how circulation changes in ocean currents can cause global climate change without any CO2 change.

It disproves your argument that only CO2 has caused climate change. It shows your argument that only CO2 has changed is stupid and unsupported by the experts.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:06 pm

Has any change in Ocean Currents been reported?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:09 pm

Jim Steele wrote:It disproves your argument that only CO2 has caused climate change. It shows your argument that only CO2 has changed is stupid and unsupported by the experts.

No one has said that except YOU. Just above, I stated if amounts of methane or water vapor or amount of water on Earth changed significantly that it too could drive climate change.

Silly rabbit. You appear to be losing your tether.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11379
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:09 pm

Increased snow is not surprising. One of the consequences of a warmer atmosphere is more moisture in that atmosphere, which means more is available to fall as snow. Warm moisture laden air moves into somewhere where it is colder, and the moisture falls as snow. However, there is still warming. That is shown by the reducing ice cover around the Arctic.

Are you now trying to deny global warming, Jim?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:10 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Link? ................of course not.



Damn you are certainly a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

Like all the others facts I educate you about, you can't grasp the simplest of facts. You still refuse to realize the link is embedded in the graph. ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14419
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:11 pm

.....and i tell you each time that it is not.

But, have it your own way. Just more Fake News?
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 15,000 scientists in 184 countries warn about negative global environmental trends

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:11 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Increased snow is not surprising. One of the consequences of a warmer atmosphere is more moisture in that atmosphere, which means more is available to fall as snow. Warm moisture laden air moves into somewhere where it is colder, and the moisture falls as snow. However, there is still warming. That is shown by the reducing ice cover around the Arctic.

Are you now trying to deny global warming, Jim?


Lance you don't know what your "experts" are claiming ! Are you now denying your own experts who said less snow in the fall?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: istellabot [Bot] and 1 guest