Climate continues to change.

[Klinkster]

Why can't you answer the question?

Brain broken?
No answer? cause there isn't one?

They have not.
It's not published.

Is your Google broken? I already told you to look up climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity to radiative forcing agents. Scientists already have/are doing the work you've asked for.

 

[Hal9000_]

Your theory. YOU explain how it scales.

And then PREDICT what will happen.

I'll wait.

Not my theory. An experiment which (on a small scale) verifies that increased CO2 in a volume of air traps heat.

No prediction necessary. More CO2 always increases heat in the system.

 

[Klinkster]

So....that's the theory.

Where's the proof?

Not my theory. An experiment which (on a small scale) verifies that increased CO2 in a volume of air traps heat.

No prediction necessary. More CO2 always increases heat in the system.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Why can't you answer the question?

Brain broken?
No answer? cause there isn't one?

They have not.
It's not published.

It must suck to be as intellectually incurious as you are.

 

[phrodeau]

https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif

Ah, I see now how totally at odds the NOAA dataset is from the rest of them. Must be all those weather stations they have near barbecue pits.

I may never trust NOAA ever again.

 

[Klinkster]

It must suck being a stupid know-it-all arrogant prick who doesn't know if his ass is punched or bored.
Yes....that would be you.

It also must suck, knowing you can't answer the question.

Must also suck, being named cunt von skidmark.....

It must suck to be as intellectually incurious as you are.

 

[Klinkster]

Again....you are showing your stupid.

I see no correlation between PPM of CO2, and deltaT.
Is there some part of this question you do not understand?
Maybe all of it?

Ah, I see now how totally at odds the NOAA dataset is from the rest of them. Must be all those weather stations they have near barbecue pits.

I may never trust NOAA ever again.

 

[Que]

Again....you are showing your stupid.

I see no correlation between PPM of CO2, and deltaT.
Is there some part of this question you do not understand?
Maybe all of it?

There's got to be some special form of myopia that causes certain people to generally speaking believe that correlation always points to causation, but the become incurious when correlation does not coincide with their favorite causation.

I don't think he even understands the question.

 

[Klinkster]

And, as far as warming, you also fail to admit, like NOAA did:
They tweaked the numbers, and 'adjusted' the data. (their words, not mine)
They had over 300 weather stations, that were transmitting, and they were recording, bogus data from, that was skewed.
Those stations next to incinerators, ones that were in the woods, that burned down, ones that were in the desert, but were now surrounded by buildings, parking lots......

So....they lied.
Means their data....is a lie.

Where is the correlation, between CO2, and deltaT?

Ah, I see now how totally at odds the NOAA dataset is from the rest of them. Must be all those weather stations they have near barbecue pits.

I may never trust NOAA ever again.

 

[Que]

I'd be more likely to believe the "expanding Earth" theory.

Accretion of mass in turn increasing gravity.

Or, does increasing gravity due to unknown forces cause increase in mass??

You didn't really answer the pertinent question implied by my query:

When, in your view, did human activity first begin the process of thawing the Earth?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Not my theory. An experiment which (on a small scale) verifies that increased CO2 in a volume of air traps heat.

No prediction necessary. More CO2 always increases heat in the system.

Your theory: "Anthropogenic climate change is a verifiable theory."

You have not proposed an experiment that proves this.

Oh, ok. Any theory is verifiable in the sense that "I theorize that the moon is actually made of cheese." Since it's a theory, it's verifiable that I have this theory. Is that your argument? Because it makes more sense than all the other blather in this discussion.

Or is the proof the statement above that "scientists said so" a few posts back?

 

[Klinkster]

I really can't figure it out......ignore the question, and throw bullshit out there.

Maybe they don't know what deltaT is?
No idea.....no need to guess. They are smarter than everybody else....they tell us.

No hope....it's rectal glaucoma I think. That's when the optic nerve is connected to the asshole, and it gives them a shitty outlook on life.

Or....it's just good old fashioned stupid.

There's got to be some special form of myopia that causes certain people to generally speaking believe that correlation always points to causation, but the become incurious when correlation does not coincide with their favorite causation.

I don't think he even understands the question.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It's not bullshit, dumbass. You're asking a question that's already been answered, and you're too dumb to realize it.

 

[phrodeau]

And, as far as warming, you also fail to admit, like NOAA did:
They tweaked the numbers, and 'adjusted' the data. (their words, not mine)
They had over 300 weather stations, that were transmitting, and they were recording, bogus data from, that was skewed.
Those stations next to incinerators, ones that were in the woods, that burned down, ones that were in the desert, but were now surrounded by buildings, parking lots......

So....they lied.
Means their data....is a lie.

Where is the correlation, between CO2, and deltaT?

I think I see the difficulty now. You can’t read graphs.

 

[Hal9000_]

You didn't really answer the pertinent question implied by my query:

When, in your view, did human activity first begin the process of thawing the Earth?

Why did the Earth warm up after "ice ages"?

What caused the cooling events? Massive volcanic eruptions? Meteor strikes?

Eventually the dust settles.

 

[Klinkster]

Let me put this as politely as I can fro-doh....sionce you are a stupid bastard.

Your graph, is a temperature graph.
Mmmmmmm....missing something? Part of my question maybe?


It is you, who cannot read graphs.
You, cannot correlate CO2, to deltaT.
And SURPRISE! Your graph, doesn't do that.

Huh. I see your difficulty. You don't understand the question.

Have a nice day. Quit expelling CO2 please. You may fry us all.

I think I see the difficulty now. You can’t read graphs.

 

[Klinkster]

Let me put this as politely as I can fro-doh....since you are a stupid bastard.

Your graph, is a temperature graph.
Mmmmmmm....missing something? Part of my question maybe?


It is you, who cannot read graphs.
You, cannot correlate CO2, to deltaT.
And SURPRISE! Your graph, doesn't do that.

Huh. I see your difficulty. You don't understand the question.

Have a nice day. Quit expelling CO2 please. You may fry us all.

I think I see the difficulty now. You can’t read graphs.

 

[thør]

I may never trust NOAA ever again.

I trust them to pay my invoices. They're an occasional client.

 

[Klinkster]

Where is your proof of theory?
Why is that question so difficult to understand?

The bullshit settles too.

Why did the Earth warm up after "ice ages"?

What caused the cooling events? Massive volcanic eruptions? Meteor strikes?

Eventually the dust settles.

 

[Que]

Why did the Earth warm up after "ice ages"?

What caused the cooling events? Massive volcanic eruptions? Meteor strikes?

Eventually the dust settles.

Exactly!

So, how many campfires did it take for humans to produce enough CO2 to melt those glaciers?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's not bullshit, dumbass. You're asking a question that's already been answered, and you're too dumb to realize it.

He's not "dumb". This is intentional, especially now with Que here....it's classic sealioning.

https://i.imgur.com/UjhgVmR.jpg

 

[Hal9000_]

Your tth heory: "Anthropogenic climate change is a verifiable theory."

You have not proposed an experiment that proves this.

Oh, ok. Any theory is verifiable in the sense that "I theorize that the moon is actually made of cheese." Since it's a theory, it's verifiable that I have this theory. Is that your argument? Because it makes more sense than all the other blather in this discussion.

Or is the proof the statement above that "scientists said so" a few posts back?

I just showed you an experiment that verifies CO2 concentration vs. temperature change. (fine..I'll call it "∆T")

It verifies the main paradigm of ACC theory.

You want "proof"? Let a jury decide.

 

[Klinkster]

Then show the correlation, of PPM CO2 in the atmosphere, to the deltaT.

If that small scale experiment, is applicable to the real world, then that would be do-able.....no?

Ain't been done.


Man....this is not a complex question at all.
fact remains, that the answer to my question, has not been tossed out there. Period.

I just showed you an experiment that verifies CO2 concentration vs. temperature change. (fine..I'll call it "∆T")

It verifies the main paradigm of ACC theory.

You want "proof"? Let a jury decide.

 

[Hal9000_]

Exactly!

So, how many campfires did it take for humans to produce enough CO2 to melt those glaciers?

The campfires probably added to the cooling effect.

Of course the population was exponentially different.

We now have trillions of people all burning non-neutral carbon sources.

Whatever. We can just put up a synthetic solar shade by injecting particulates in to jet airline exhaust.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...creating-accidental-geoengineering-180957561/

Humans have NO EFFECT!

 

[Klinkster]

At least you were closer to how science works.....do a small scale experiment.....use those results for a larger scale experiment....and then, create the theory, and show how it would work in the real world.

THAT....ain't happened.
All I hear, is "if we don't do something, we will be toast in 10....or 12 years".
Reason....cause a bunch of scientists say so.

I just showed you an experiment that verifies CO2 concentration vs. temperature change. (fine..I'll call it "∆T")

It verifies the main paradigm of ACC theory.

You want "proof"? Let a jury decide.