Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

[Tim the plumber]

Huh don't know Grade school science.

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

*chuckle*

What has Cobalt got to do with it?

If you are going to slagg off people for not knowing much science you should be able to understand the difference between CO and Co.

 

[Tim the plumber]

LMAO, failing even grade school chemistry.HILARIOUS

Here's another: If a star moves away from earth at several thousand miles per second, what happens to the light waves-- and the color of the star?

*chuckle*

They are very very slightly red shifted.

The large red shifts seen in the spectra of distant galaxies are not the result of movrement away as such but of the stretching of spacetime.

You should try harder to keep up with popular science.

 

[Tim the plumber]

LOL Jack didn't even understand isotopes,which is grade school level material.In fact,so far he's failed pretty much every science question I've asked him.Sad --yet also pretty darned funny.

View attachment 67244494

I look forward to you explaining the v=fl thing.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

I encounter a lot of people on the internet who claim to be far better qualified than they are.

Can you, to avoid the unfortunate ideas of negativity that plague my thinking, show that you have more than the slightest clue about physics.

Can you tell me what v=fl (l for lambda) refers to and why it is?

I'm just an average guy who paid attention in science class. The PROBLEM with Jack and the vast majority of AGW-deniers is that they don't even understand things like the Greenhouse effect. He has no idea how it works. He doesn't understand isotopes, so he doesn't understand the d13c/12c isotopic ratio. He posted about TSI, but his OWN GRAPH undermined his claim,and he still didn't get it. And he didn't WANT to get it.

I'm FINE with skepticism and a lack of knowledge. But I will ridicule willful ignorance because it's richly deserved.

As for your question,it has to do with the frequency of light,but as I'm not a physicist and not willfully ignorant,I'll admit I don't know. Please explain it and how it has relevance to climatology.UNLIKE AGW-deniers,I try to LEARN things and admit when I don't know them.

So areyou an AGW-denier? Please explain why. I have to work today,soI look forward to your reply around 800 PM EST.Have a good day.

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you really want to claim the 'high ground' by using a pseudoscience conspiracy blog post by the grand poohbah of of dishonesty and kookiness Tim Ball? The author of a fake graph claiming the "current global temperature" is MINUS 32C? LOL!

Mr Sky Dragon Slayer (natural 'greenhouse' effect denier) himself?

Really?

Why of course you do!

It's just another datum in the body of evidence.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I'm just an average guy who paid attention in science class. The PROBLEM with Jack and the vast majority of AGW-deniers is that they don't even understand things like the Greenhouse effect. He has no idea how it works. He doesn't understand isotopes, so he doesn't understand the d13c/12c isotopic ratio. He posted about TSI, but his OWN GRAPH undermined his claim,and he still didn't get it. And he didn't WANT to get it.

I'm FINE with skepticism and a lack of knowledge. But I will ridicule willful ignorance because it's richly deserved.

As for your question,it has to do with the frequency of light,but as I'm not a physicist and not willfully ignorant,I'll admit I don't know. Please explain it and how it has relevance to climatology.UNLIKE AGW-deniers,I try to LEARN things and admit when I don't know them.

So areyou an AGW-denier? Please explain why. I have to work today,soI look forward to your reply around 800 PM EST.Have a good day.

There are no deniers of AGW here who are not mad.

I am a Skeptic. That is my position is that I see no problem with a slightly warmer world. I frequently ask for anybody to explain how the predicted worste case scenario will actually cause any significant trouble. I demand that specific locations and specific problems be explained and as yet nobody has come up with anything better than the area of Maple syrup production moving North a bit.

v = fl is the equasion of a wave. Velocity equals frequency times wavelength. Sort of by definition. If you are on an oil rig and measure the way a wave goes by then the time it takes for the next peak to appear after the last is the inverse of the velocity and the distance between the peaks is the wavelength.

 

[Threegoofs]

There are no deniers of AGW here who are not mad.

I am a Skeptic. That is my position is that I see no problem with a slightly warmer world. I frequently ask for anybody to explain how the predicted worste case scenario will actually cause any significant trouble. I demand that specific locations and specific problems be explained and as yet nobody has come up with anything better than the area of Maple syrup production moving North a bit.

v = fl is the equasion of a wave. Velocity equals frequency times wavelength. Sort of by definition. If you are on an oil rig and measure the way a wave goes by then the time it takes for the next peak to appear after the last is the inverse of the velocity and the distance between the peaks is the wavelength.

Again... somehow you missed the entire IPCC report last month specifically addressing why 0.5 degrees C warming will have widespread significant effects.

‘Skeptics’ would take the time to read it. ‘Deniers’ whine about not having people explain it to them, and then repeatedly pretending they have never heard of it just weeks after being informed it exists.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Again... somehow you missed the entire IPCC report last month specifically addressing why 0.5 degrees C warming will have widespread significant effects.

‘Skeptics’ would take the time to read it. ‘Deniers’ whine about not having people explain it to them, and then repeatedly pretending they have never heard of it just weeks after being informed it exists.

I keep asking you to show me how it actualy shows what any of the issues will do in any particular place. That you are so clearly unable to do so tells me yet again that you have not been able to read it and because nobody else has been able to do it I conclude that it is not in there.

 

[Threegoofs]

I keep asking you to show me how it actualy shows what any of the issues will do in any particular place. That you are so clearly unable to do so tells me yet again that you have not been able to read it and because nobody else has been able to do it I conclude that it is not in there.

It’s literally the TITLE OF THE REPORT.

“Global warming of 1.5°C


An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf

And your position is that it’s not relevant because..... I haven’t told you about it.

An actual ‘skeptic’ would read it and learn.

You are a denier. And apparently pretty ****ing lazy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And?

Water has higher specific heat than air. What did you expect? Oh right, you don't have any idea what "specific heat" means.

BONUS QUESTION: What is the value of water's specific heat compared to air?

LOL... Believe as you want... LOL...

 

[Media_Truth]

It’s literally the TITLE OF THE REPORT.

“Global warming of 1.5°C


An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf

And your position is that it’s not relevant because..... I haven’t told you about it.

An actual ‘skeptic’ would read it and learn.

You are a denier. And apparently pretty ****ing lazy.

It should be pointed out that this IPCC Special Report is discussing the absolute lowest-modelled forecast of ECS. This is the model that all the deniers on this thread have been adhering to - the Curry-touted model. Lewis and Curry (2014) at 1.64 and Lewis (2016) at 1.54. All the other models have ECS ranges between 2 and 4.5, with an average of 3 deg C, for a doubling of CO2.

So it would behoove Deniers to study this Special Report, because it is the MINIMUM we can expect, per their Denier heroes.

 

[Media_Truth]

LOL... Believe as you want... LOL...

Not much of an answer...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not much of an answer...

His post wasn't worth a response, like most of yours. Sheer confirmation bias.

 

[Media_Truth]

His post wasn't worth a response, like most of yours. Sheer confirmation bias.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree, and he sounds like quite an educated scientist to me. But I get it, that you don't like educated scientists, because we can call out your bluffs.

 

[Media_Truth]

I am a Skeptic. That is my position is that I see no problem with a slightly warmer world. I frequently ask for anybody to explain how the predicted worste case scenario will actually cause any significant trouble. I demand that specific locations and specific problems be explained and as yet nobody has come up with anything better than the area of Maple syrup production moving North a bit.

You want to look at the Working Group 2 results of the IPCC reports. That's the group that outlines the ramifications of Climate Change. The WG2 report for AR5 won't be available until Sept of 2019. The following table from AR4 (2007) summarize the consequences. There are many details, by area and I suggest you look at those on your own, as it is too expansive.

IPCC WGII - AR4

Here is a table in the summary. But again, for further details, you'll have to go to the actual report.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It’s literally the TITLE OF THE REPORT.

“Global warming of 1.5°C


An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty”


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf

And your position is that it’s not relevant because..... I haven’t told you about it.

An actual ‘skeptic’ would read it and learn.

You are a denier. And apparently pretty ****ing lazy.

When the thread I started about the IPCC's 5th assesment report was happening I and others waded through various chapters of it.

You were very noticable for your total absence. It was all too much for you.

Given that clearly you have no clue what this latest garbage from the IPCC says and cannot possibly cite any bit that tells us anything new I know you have not read it nor are you capable of reading it.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It should be pointed out that this IPCC Special Report is discussing the absolute lowest-modelled forecast of ECS. This is the model that all the deniers on this thread have been adhering to - the Curry-touted model. Lewis and Curry (2014) at 1.64 and Lewis (2016) at 1.54. All the other models have ECS ranges between 2 and 4.5, with an average of 3 deg C, for a doubling of CO2.

So it would behoove Deniers to study this Special Report, because it is the MINIMUM we can expect, per their Denier heroes.

Think you would have noticed I use the top end of the IPCC;s predictions.

Still no trouble expected.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I have a Bachelor of Science degree, and he sounds like quite an educated scientist to me. But I get it, that you don't like educated scientists, because we can call out your bluffs.

What science?

This should be good...

 

[Tim the plumber]

You want to look at the Working Group 2 results of the IPCC reports. That's the group that outlines the ramifications of Climate Change. The WG2 report for AR5 won't be available until Sept of 2019. The following table from AR4 (2007) summarize the consequences. There are many details, by area and I suggest you look at those on your own, as it is too expansive.

IPCC WGII - AR4

Here is a table in the summary. But again, for further details, you'll have to go to the actual report.

View attachment 67244513
View attachment 67244514

Still not able to look at actual specific examples of how any particular place will be affected.

Fail.

 

[Media_Truth]

When the thread I started about the IPCC's 5th assesment report was happening I and others waded through various chapters of it.

You were very noticable for your total absence. It was all too much for you.

Given that clearly you have no clue what this latest garbage from the IPCC says and cannot possibly cite any bit that tells us anything new I know you have not read it nor are you capable of reading it.

Very interesting comment, considering the WG2 part of AR5 isn't due to be released until Sept of 2019. :roll: You asked for something, and I gave it to you. You respond with typical unscientific Denier rhetoric.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Very interesting comment, considering the WG2 part of AR5 isn't due to be released until Sept of 2019. :roll: You asked for something, and I gave it to you. You respond with typical unscientific Denier rhetoric.

You have failed to select a single place. A single aspect of a warmer world. Then show how that will happen, the aspect, the bad thing after the warming, the mechanism. Then show supporting science.

I will not bother reading generalised graph predictions based of drivel burried away below the availible words.

 

[Threegoofs]

You have failed to select a single place. A single aspect of a warmer world. Then show how that will happen, the aspect, the bad thing after the warming, the mechanism. Then show supporting science.

I will not bother reading generalised graph predictions based of drivel burried away below the availible words.

It’s really weird how you have one, specific burning question that you ask over and over and over.

And then, when it’s pointed out where that question is asked, in great detail, you either disparage the person answering your question with fantastical ideas that somehow, the person hasn’t read it (why the **** does that matter anyway? ) or when people point out the multiple things, you dismiss it as too much information.

These are the actions of a denier, not a skeptic. A denier dismisses or ignores all information that contradicts his established viewpoint, and you keep doing that repeatedly.

It’s quite sad, really.

 

[Threegoofs]

Still not able to look at actual specific examples of how any particular place will be affected.

Fail.

There you go. He stated ‘details are in the paper’, and your criticism is that there’s no details shown, despite answering exactly your question.

Deniers gonna deny.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It’s really weird how you have one, specific burning question that you ask over and over and over.

And then, when it’s pointed out where that question is asked, in great detail, you either disparage the person answering your question with fantastical ideas that somehow, the person hasn’t read it (why the **** does that matter anyway? ) or when people point out the multiple things, you dismiss it as too much information.

These are the actions of a denier, not a skeptic. A denier dismisses or ignores all information that contradicts his established viewpoint, and you keep doing that repeatedly.

It’s quite sad, really.

Your inability and failure to reply each time makes it more plain.

You will only convince any spectators that there is no answer.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There you go. He stated ‘details are in the paper’, and your criticism is that there’s no details shown, despite answering exactly your question.

Deniers gonna deny.

BRING OUT THE DETAILS!!!

Let's see them. Explain them. It should be an ideal opportunity for you lot to make your case!