• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

Jack Hays said:
Rather than obsess over my understanding, I suggest you try to improve your own work. I'm confident you have not read the linked paper carefully, and it's not my responsibility to spoon feed it to you.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out you know as much about climatology as your average taxi driver knows about neurosurgery. Like Creationists, Anti-vaxxers,etc you form youropinion in abject ignorance. No wonder you're a AGW-denier. A fabulous demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

BTW, read your graph -- I was absolutely correct about TSI stabilizing in the 1950s. Ergo, 60% of the heating is obviously not from the sun since five separate studies (including former skeptic Richard Muller's B.E.S.T. study) all found the same 0.5C increase ABOVE the 1950-1980 baseline. So where he gets this 0.1% increase in solar irradiance is pretty mystifying.

But hey, thanks for supporting my points. I appreciate it.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
I'm just pointing out you know as much about climatology as your average taxi driver knows about neurosurgery. Like Creationists, Anti-vaxxers,etc you form youropinion in abject ignorance. No wonder you're a AGW-denier. A fabulous demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

BTW, read your graph -- I was absolutely correct about TSI stabilizing in the 1950s. Ergo, 60% of the heating is obviously not from the sun since five separate studies (including former skeptic Richard Muller's B.E.S.T. study) all found the same 0.5C increase ABOVE the 1950-1980 baseline. So where he gets this 0.1% increase in solar irradiance is pretty mystifying.

But hey, thanks for supporting my points. I appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Just excuses to avoid dealing with science outside your belief system.
I'm a historian, not a scientist, and the insight I find compelling is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The CO2 climate hypothesis is a product of 19th century physics. That paradigm is being displaced by the newer, bigger 21st century science of the solar/GCR flux hypothesis. Svensmark and Shaviv deal in concepts and ideas Arrhenius could not have imagined.
 
Jack Hays said:
Just excuses to avoid dealing with science outside your belief system.
I'm a historian, not a scientist, and the insight I find compelling is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The CO2 climate hypothesis is a product of 19th century physics. That paradigm is being displaced by the newer, bigger 21st century science of the solar/GCR flux hypothesis. Svensmark and Shaviv deal in concepts and ideas Arrhenius could not have imagined.
Click to expand...

LOL you don't even understand 3rd grade science like the EM spectrum. That's like offering opinions on neurosurgery without knowing what neurons do.

So do you go posting about other things you don't understand? WHY???
 
Jack Hays said:
You seem to have missed the point. As far as I'm concerned, I understand the question quite a bit better than you do.
Click to expand...

Oh you understand it better? WONDERFUL

So tellme, why are C3 and C4 pathways importantin understanding AGW?

*chuckle*
 
Suburban Jedi said:
The point is that you're making and offering opinions when you don't even have a 3rd grade understanding of the topic.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, I understand the topic quite a bit better than you do. It's not a science question; it's a history of science question.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
Oh you understand it better? WONDERFUL

So tellme, why are C3 and C4 pathways importantin understanding AGW?

*chuckle*
Click to expand...

Right now there's a frantic search/copy/paste going on.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
LOL nope, it plays arole in understanding the anthropogenic componentof atmospheric CO2

*chuckle*

So what is an isotope? (This is a elementary level question)
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. None of that is what this is about. I should have realized it was beyond you when you ran from the paleoclimate proxies topic.
 
Jack Hays said:
You still don't get it. None of that is what this is about. I should have realized it was beyond you when you ran from the paleoclimate proxies topic.
Click to expand...

LMFAO.Seriously??

You don't even know what isotopes are???? And you think you understand paleoclimatology when you don't know d13c/12c isotopic ratios??? (HINT, they're key to paleoclimatology as well).

Dude you don't even understand GRADE SCHOOL science,and then you ignorantly spout off about college level material.

:lamo
 
Suburban Jedi said:
LMFAO.Seriously??

You don't even know what isotopes are????

Dude that's GRADE SCHOOL science.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know, but you're out of place thinking you can give me a test, and you don't understand the issue. Such things are only important within the boundaries of your dying paradigm.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
LMFAO.Seriously??

You don't even know what isotopes are???? And you think you understand paleoclimatology when you don't know d13c/12c isotopic ratios??? (HINT, they're key to paleoclimatology as well).

Dude you don't even understand GRADE SCHOOL science,and then you ignorantly spout off about college level material.

:lamo
Click to expand...

To be fair I am not exactly sure if I have the correct definition of what a isotope is.

My best guess: they are molecular building blocks?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
To be fair I am not exactly sure if I have the correct definition of what a isotope is.

My best guess: they are molecular building blocks?
Click to expand...

The answer is easily found.

i·so·tope
/ˈīsəˌtōp/
nounCHEMISTRY
plural noun: isotopes

  • each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element.

 
Suburban Jedi said:
LMFAO.Seriously??

You don't even know what isotopes are???? And you think you understand paleoclimatology when you don't know d13c/12c isotopic ratios??? (HINT, they're key to paleoclimatology as well).

Dude you don't even understand GRADE SCHOOL science,and then you ignorantly spout off about college level material.

:lamo
Click to expand...

I did some reading about the 13c carbon isotope. That is some tricky analysis. I imagine that a Climatologist could spend a lifetime studying 13c/12c isotope ratios. It gets especially complex, with uptake of heat by the ocean. I put up no pretence of understanding it in detail, but it sure makes me appreciate the work of Climatologists. Thanks for sharing these insights.
 
Suburban Jedi said:
LMFAO.Seriously??

You don't even know what isotopes are???? And you think you understand paleoclimatology when you don't know d13c/12c isotopic ratios??? (HINT, they're key to paleoclimatology as well).

Dude you don't even understand GRADE SCHOOL science,and then you ignorantly spout off about college level material.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are too uninformed to be in the discussion.

[h=2]PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies[/h]Oct 24, 2018 – 1:57 PM
The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

  • even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
  • the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann’s CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (2008), but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to “avoid” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann’s CENSORED directory.
PAGES2K references: PAGES (2013) 2013 article and PAGES (2017) url; (Supplementary Information).
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you are too uninformed to be in the discussion.

[h=2]PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies[/h]Oct 24, 2018 – 1:57 PM
The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

  • even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
  • the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann’s CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (2008), but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to “avoid” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann’s CENSORED directory.
PAGES2K references: PAGES (2013) 2013 article and PAGES (2017) url; (Supplementary Information).
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Huh, you don't know isotopes. Gee, what a surprise

Here's another: When a photon is absorbed by an electron, what happens to the electron,and the photon?

*chuckle*
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. I know, but you're out of place thinking you can give me a test, and you don't understand the issue. Such things are only important within the boundaries of your dying paradigm.
Click to expand...

Huh don't know Grade school science.

Here's another: Why is the reaction H20 + Co2 important?

*chuckle*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom