Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

[Jack Hays]

Good, then you must have understood it. Now you can copy that portion, and explain.

There is no need for me to understand it, only to note their need to correct earlier work, as they are correcting now.

 

[Media_Truth]

There is no need for me to understand it, only to note their need to correct earlier work, as they are correcting now.

:lamo No need to understand :lamo You criticize scientists, with a link that talks about details of Mathematics, and you don't understand it.

If you even had a clue, you would understand that Mathematical and Scientific equations often have terms that are of little or no consequence. For example: y = Ax squared + Bx + Cx to the minus 4 power. One can negate the last term, because of an inconsequential addition.

So please explain why, in the formula you cited, there is consequence in the authors additions. Otherwise, just repeat your assertion that "you don't need to understand", and we'll know that your full of B*...

 

[Jack Hays]

:lamo No need to understand :lamo You criticize scientists, with a link that talks about details of Mathematics, and you don't understand it.

If you even had a clue, you would understand that Mathematical and Scientific equations often have terms that are of little or no consequence. For example: y = Ax squared + Bx + Cx to the minus 4 power. One can negate the last term, because of an inconsequential addition.

So please explain why, in the formula you cited, there is consequence in the authors additions. Otherwise, just repeat your assertion that "you don't need to understand", and we'll know that your full of B*...

The point is that their previous work required correction, as does their current work. The current correction requirement may indeed be more consequential, but the pattern has been established.
You can insult me all you want, but doesn't change anything.

 

[Media_Truth]

The point is that their previous work required correction, as does their current work. The current correction requirement may indeed be more consequential, but the pattern has been established.
You can insult me all you want, but doesn't change anything.

Yes, I will insult you. You choose to publish a link that has some Mathematical formulas, which supposedly support your denier rhetoric. And then you admit that you don't even know the relevance of the Mathematical formulas. Pathetic partisanship and incompetence.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, I will insult you. You choose to publish a link that has some Mathematical formulas, which supposedly support your denier rhetoric. And then you admit that you don't even know the relevance of the Mathematical formulas. Pathetic partisanship and incompetence.

The analogy is with the famous example of the talking dog. It doesn't matter what he says; the important thing is that he talks at all. In the earlier error in work by Resplandy and Keeling, it doesn't matter what the error was; the important thing is that they apparently have a problem of errors requiring correction. I have no idea whether the error in this case supports "denier rhetoric." The important point is that the error occurred.

 

[Into the Night]

If you even had a clue, you would understand that Mathematical and Scientific equations often have terms that are of little or no consequence.

Every term in an equation is significant.

For example: y = Ax squared + Bx + Cx to the minus 4 power. One can negate the last term, because of an inconsequential addition.

Every term in this equation is significant also.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's why the whole "Global Warming" frame of reference is fraudulent.


Secrets about the 1.5°C world temperature limit

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: There has been a daily drumbeat of dark climate news to accompany the IPCC’s new report, “Global Warming of 1.5 °C.” Millions of people are terrified that climate change will wreck or destroy the world. Here is some information they probably do not know, because journalists do not mention it.
“Paleoclimatological Context and Reference Level
of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement Long-Term Temperature Limits“

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.
Frontiers of Earth Science, 17 December 2017.​

Abstract

This paper is ungated, and well worth reading in full for anyone interested in climate change – one of the key policy questions of our time.
“The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 during the COP21 conference stipulates that the increase in the global average temperature is to be kept well below 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” and that efforts are pursued to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above “pre-industrial levels.” In order to further increase public acceptance of these limits it is important to transparently place the target levels and their baselines in a paleoclimatic context of the past 150,000 years (Last Interglacial, LIG) and in particular of the last 10,000 years (Holocene; Present Interglacial, PIG).
“Intense paleoclimatological research of the past decade has firmed up that pre-industrial temperatures have been highly variable which needs to be reflected in the pre-industrial climate baseline definitions. The currently used reference level 1850–1900 represents the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The LIA represents the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years when mean temperatures deviated strongly negatively from the Holocene average and which therefore are hard to justify as a representative pre-industrial baseline. The temperature level reached during the interval 1940–1970 may serve as a better reference level as it appears to roughly correspond to the average pre-industrial temperature of the past two millennia.
“Placing the climate limits in an enlarged paleoclimatic context will help to demonstrate that the chosen climate targets are valid and represent dangerous extremes of the known natural range of Holocene temperature variability.”. . . .

 

[Media_Truth]

Here's why the whole "Global Warming" frame of reference is fraudulent.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Secrets about the 1.5°C world temperature limit

[FONT=&]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. [/FONT]

[FONT=&]Summary: There has been a daily drumbeat of dark climate news to accompany the IPCC’s new report, “Global Warming of 1.5 °C.” Millions of people are terrified that climate change will wreck or destroy the world. Here is some information they probably do not know, because journalists do not mention it.[/FONT]
“Paleoclimatological Context and Reference Level
of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement Long-Term Temperature Limits“

[FONT=&]By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.
Frontiers of Earth Science, 17 December 2017.[/FONT]​

Abstract

[FONT=&]This paper is ungated, and well worth reading in full for anyone interested in climate change – one of the key policy questions of our time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 during the COP21 conference stipulates that the increase in the global average temperature is to be kept well below 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” and that efforts are pursued to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above “pre-industrial levels.” In order to further increase public acceptance of these limits it is important to transparently place the target levels and their baselines in a paleoclimatic context of the past 150,000 years (Last Interglacial, LIG) and in particular of the last 10,000 years (Holocene; Present Interglacial, PIG).[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“Intense paleoclimatological research of the past decade has firmed up that pre-industrial temperatures have been highly variable which needs to be reflected in the pre-industrial climate baseline definitions. The currently used reference level 1850–1900 represents the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The LIA represents the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years when mean temperatures deviated strongly negatively from the Holocene average and which therefore are hard to justify as a representative pre-industrial baseline. The temperature level reached during the interval 1940–1970 may serve as a better reference level as it appears to roughly correspond to the average pre-industrial temperature of the past two millennia.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“Placing the climate limits in an enlarged paleoclimatic context will help to demonstrate that the chosen climate targets are valid and represent dangerous extremes of the known natural range of Holocene temperature variability.”. . . . [/FONT]

WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage.

 

[Media_Truth]

The analogy is with the famous example of the talking dog. It doesn't matter what he says; the important thing is that he talks at all. In the earlier error in work by Resplandy and Keeling, it doesn't matter what the error was; the important thing is that they apparently have a problem of errors requiring correction. I have no idea whether the error in this case supports "denier rhetoric." The important point is that the error occurred.

Nothing but BS, Jack. You can't talk your way out of this faux pas. Just admit that it was poor judgement on your part, to post something with Mathematical formulas that you don't understand, and cannot explain.

 

[longview]

WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage.

If you do not like the fact that WUWT referenced a peer reviewed article, perhaps it would help
if the referenced paper were referenced by Harvard University,
Paleoclimatological context and reference level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Par

 

[Quaestio]

If you do not like the fact that WUWT referenced a peer reviewed article, perhaps it would help
if the referenced paper were referenced by Harvard University,
Paleoclimatological context and reference level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Par

LOL! That's not a 'reference' by Harvard University, that's their abstract/Journal search engine. It's not surprising that you are unfamiliar with searching Journal papers online.

The pseudoscience climate truther blog WUWT may cite Journal articles/papers but they usually misrepresent them. Not that the WUWT sheep would know or care.

 

[longview]

LOL! That's not a 'reference' by Harvard University, that's their abstract/Journal search engine. It's not surprising that you are unfamiliar with searching Journal papers online.

The pseudoscience climate truther blog WUWT may cite Journal articles/papers but they usually misrepresent them. Not that the WUWT sheep would know or care.

No the URL is from Harvard.edu, and it does show a finding of the paper in a journal.
So WHWT is not the only reference.

 

[Quaestio]

No the URL is from Harvard.edu, and it does show a finding of the paper in a journal.
So WHWT is not the only reference.

Look again. It's not a 'reference', it's a search result on Harvard's proprietary search engine.

Sheesh. You really don't know anything about searching for Journal articles/literature searches do you?

This is the search engine page where you put in the search parameters

SAO/NASA ADS Custom Query Form Tue Nov 13 08:32:19 2018

 

[Threegoofs]

Look again. It's not a 'reference', it's a search result on Harvard's proprietary search engine.

Sheesh. You really don't know anything about searching for Journal articles/literature searches do you?

This is the search engine page where you put in the search parameters

SAO/NASA ADS Custom Query Form Tue Nov 13 08:32:19 2018

Sure, he might know the basics, but he knows all the scientists studying this topic are wrong.

Dunning Kruger rears it’s ugly head again.

 

[Jack Hays]

WUWT - no thanks - don't need the High Schooler's biased garbage.

You can hide all you want, but the science will find you.

[h=3]Frontiers of Earth Science - Springer[/h]
[url]https://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/journal/11707
[/URL]

Frontiers of Earth Science publishes original, peer-reviewed, theoretical and experimental frontier research papers as well as significant review articles of more ...

 

[Jack Hays]

Nothing but BS, Jack. You can't talk your way out of this faux pas. Just admit that it was poor judgement on your part, to post something with Mathematical formulas that you don't understand, and cannot explain.

I'm quite proud of that post. The only faux pas is your exposure of your inability to follow the logic of the argument. You seem to be in over your head.

 

[Quaestio]

Sure, he might know the basics, but he knows all the scientists studying this topic are wrong.

Dunning Kruger rears it’s ugly head again.

He says some really dumb things sometimes that shows he just picks stuff up on the net and misapplies it. Like finding something online about how a CO2 laser works and then misapplying it to the earth's atmosphere. The usual Dunning Krugerites here who delude themselves that they are 'experts' even though they have no education, qualifications or experience in any field of science, all seem to do that.

 

[longview]

Look again. It's not a 'reference', it's a search result on Harvard's proprietary search engine.

Sheesh. You really don't know anything about searching for Journal articles/literature searches do you?

This is the search engine page where you put in the search parameters

SAO/NASA ADS Custom Query Form Tue Nov 13 08:32:19 2018

It only matters that the referenced paper did not originate from WHWT.
The Harvard search results shows that the paper is published.

 

[Media_Truth]

I'm quite proud of that post. The only faux pas is your exposure of your inability to follow the logic of the argument. You seem to be in over your head.

The Jack Logic - This is absolute proof that AGW is real:

 

[Jack Hays]

The Jack Logic - This is absolute proof that AGW is real:

View attachment 67244205

I see you are out of ammunition.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL! That's not a 'reference' by Harvard University, that's their abstract/Journal search engine. It's not surprising that you are unfamiliar with searching Journal papers online.

The pseudoscience climate truther blog WUWT may cite Journal articles/papers but they usually misrepresent them. Not that the WUWT sheep would know or care.

You just love putting inserting your foot in your mouth.

It does give the abstract of them paper. It also gives this link for the paper:

https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00104

Proof, once again, that you don't have a flying F.... of what you speak of.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe you should open the link Longview provided, and the one I provided, and see if the words of the abstracts match between the two.

I suggest you go as slow as needed to comprehend.

 

[Media_Truth]

I see you are out of ammunition.

Did anybody ever tell you that you're very much like Trump? When you are proven to be spouting another lie, you attack, and attempt to lie your way out of it. Either that, or you attempt to distract, by changing the subject. Common Trump tactics too.

 

[Jack Hays]

Did anybody ever tell you that you're very much like Trump? When you are proven to be spouting another lie, you attack, and attempt to lie your way out of it. Either that, or you attempt to distract, by changing the subject. Common Trump tactics too.

Except I don't lie.

 

[American]

It's not Armageddon. But, the ill effects are already present, and pretty easy to see.

Have you reduced your carbon footprint by eliminating the use of fossil fuel, or fossil fuel derived energy?