Man made global warming is a hoax

[Threegoofs]

It is already published in many places Karl, Hansen, ect, no one is disagreeing with the ratio of warming from 1950 to 2000.

Yes, and make sure you do the part where you can talk about how there’s no global warming if you don’t count every third Tuesday in odd numbered years from 1956-1979, not including 1972.

 

[longview]

Yes, and make sure you do the part where you can talk about how there’s no global warming if you don’t count every third Tuesday in odd numbered years from 1956-1979, not including 1972.

Total warming, includes the time period between 1950 and 2000, you cannot exclude it simply because you do not like the
ratio of T-min vs T-max!

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is already published in many places Karl, Hansen, ect, no one is disagreeing with the ratio of warming from 1950 to 2000.

Remember. He only regurgitates propaganda. He doesn't read peer reviewed papers.

Why do you bother debating him?

 

[watsup]

Remember. He only regurgitates propaganda. He doesn't read peer reviewed papers.

Why do you bother debating him?

And yet more psychological projection.

 

[Threegoofs]

Remember. He only regurgitates propaganda. He doesn't read peer reviewed papers.

Why do you bother debating him?

Its...not a debate.

And I’m pretty sure I taught you what a peer reviewed paper was.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Its...not a debate.

And I’m pretty sure I taught you what a peer reviewed paper was.

LOL...

You taught me.

LOL...

That's quite the delusion you have.

LOL...

The only thing you have taught me is that people like you actually exist. People who don't understand a topic, but think they are understanding just because they read the appropriate propaganda.

 

[mrjurrs]

Maybe that's becauise I'm not quoting someone else.

The formula for forcing is a log formula. For CO2, it is 5.35 x the log of the ratio of current and prior CO2 concentrations.

Does this help:

globalwarmingequation.info

This domain may be for sale!

www.globalwarmingequation.info

You are quoting someone else that has never used that equation either on the internet. Right.

 

[longview]

You are quoting someone else that has never used that equation either on the internet. Right.

The equation is self supporting, if doubling the CO2 level, causes a 3.71 W m-2 energy imbalance,
then 5.35 X ln(2)= 3.708, and 3.71/ln(2)=5.35,
It is also itemized in the IPCC and by the American Chemical Society,
ACS Climate sensitivity

 

[watsup]

LOL...

You taught me.

LOL...

That's quite the delusion you have.

LOL...

The only thing you have taught me is that people like you actually exist. People who don't understand a topic, but think they are understanding just b. ecause they read the appropriate propaganda.

More psychological projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are quoting someone else that has never used that equation either on the internet. Right.

I showed you an accepted formula for calculating the forcing of CO2 changes. It is found in the IPCC assessment reports, and probably hundreds of peer reviewed papers. Do your own homework if you want more.

 

[Buzz]

Karl reported that between 1951 and 2000 T-min increased by .21 C, while T-max increased by .07C, a factor of 3.

Now how does a study published in 1993 give results up to 2000? It doesn't. You are repeating a typo from the Davy study that has been pointed out before. Karl covers 1951 to 1990.

I can tell you that (T-max + T-min)/T-min=.75,

Wrong! (.21 + .07)/.07 = 4. It takes a little more math to get your .75 or 75%

but could be wrong, as T-total is not T-min + T-max.

Could be? I would say definitely wrong. At least that explains how you turned your 3 times lie into an even more dramatic 4 times lie.

In any case the T-min increased 3 times faster than the T-max, between 1951 and 2000.
Later studies show a slow down in the ratio, but that does not erase decades of much higher T-minimum temperatures.

Wrong again! All the later studies show lower ratios even the ones that cover the same or similar time period. The fact of the matter is that Karl only covered 37% of the globe and is an outlier in the studies of diurnal and seasonal asymmetry. Even your latest study you cited is much lower for a similar time period.

It is already published in many places Karl, Hansen, ect, no one is disagreeing with the ratio of warming from 1950 to 2000.

Actually they ALL disagree with Karl. How many times does this have to be pointed out to you before you quit repeating these lies?

Total warming, includes the time period between 1950 and 2000, you cannot exclude it simply because you do not like the
ratio of T-min vs T-max!

Why is this time period so important? It is because you are cherry-picking this time period and specific study to get the most dramatic result that backs up your denialist agenda! This is just intellectually dishonest! And you should be ashamed of yourself!!

You really don't have any shame, do you long?

 

[Buzz]

The equation is self supporting, if doubling the CO2 level, causes a 3.71 W m-2 energy imbalance,
then 5.35 X ln(2)= 3.708, and 3.71/ln(2)=5.35,
It is also itemized in the IPCC and by the American Chemical Society,
ACS Climate sensitivity

From your ACS link:

" Our calculated temperature change, that includes only the radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, accounts for 20-25% of this observed temperature increase. This result implies climate sensitivity factor perhaps four to five times greater, ∼1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, than obtained by simply balancing the radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases. The analysis based only on greenhouse gas forcing has not accounted for feedbacks in the planetary system triggered by increasing temperature, including changes in the structure of the atmosphere."

It is funny how you and Lord frequently forget about the feedbacks when it suits you.

 

[longview]

Now how does a study published in 1993 give results up to 2000? It doesn't. You are repeating a typo from the Davy study that has been pointed out before. Karl covers 1951 to 1990.

Wrong! (.21 + .07)/.07 = 4. It takes a little more math to get your .75 or 75%

Could be? I would say definitely wrong. At least that explains how you turned your 3 times lie into an even more dramatic 4 times lie.
Wrong again! All the later studies show lower ratios even the ones that cover the same or similar time period. The fact of the matter is that Karl only covered 37% of the globe and is an outlier in the studies of diurnal and seasonal asymmetry. Even your latest study you cited is much lower for a similar time period.
Actually they ALL disagree with Karl. How many times does this have to be pointed out to you before you quit repeating these lies?
Why is this time period so important? It is because you are cherry-picking this time period and specific study to get the most dramatic result that backs up your denialist agenda! This is just intellectually dishonest! And you should be ashamed of yourself!!

You really don't have any shame, do you long?

Again arguing the ratio, but T-min, has been and is still raising faster than T-max.
Was Davy in error, take it up with the journal.

 

[longview]

From your ACS link:

" Our calculated temperature change, that includes only the radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, accounts for 20-25% of this observed temperature increase. This result implies climate sensitivity factor perhaps four to five times greater, ∼1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, than obtained by simply balancing the radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases. The analysis based only on greenhouse gas forcing has not accounted for feedbacks in the planetary system triggered by increasing temperature, including changes in the structure of the atmosphere."

It is funny how you and Lord frequently forget about the feedbacks when it suits you.

Um! the discussion was about the source of the 5.35 X ln( CO2high/CO2low), i.e. forcing only.
By the way, while ACS prints an assumption about total feedback being 1.3 K per watt per meter square, the feedback cannot possible be that high,
with a maximum warming occurring only 10 years after emission.
Total observed warming is about 1.1C, but even by the IPCC's standards forcing a decade ago was over 1.7 W m-2, yes even counting the negative forcing!
for the total feedback to be 1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, we would have to be seeing 1.3 X 1.7 = 2.21C of warming by now, and we are not!

 

[Buzz]

Again arguing the ratio, but T-min, has been and is still raising faster than T-max.

Yes, T-min is raising faster than T-max, but almost all of the science says it is nowhere near 3 times as much. And absolutely none of it says it is 4 times as much. And that is pretty much what you were claiming when you said "75% of the observed (Average)warming has not been in the maximum temperatures". Please... stop lying about what the science says!

Was Davy in error, take it up with the journal.

One small typo in Davy doesn't justify all your lies and misinformation about this topic.

 

[Buzz]

Um! the discussion was about the source of the 5.35 X ln( CO2high/CO2low), i.e. forcing only.
By the way, while ACS prints an assumption about total feedback being 1.3 K per watt per meter square, the feedback cannot possible be that high,
with a maximum warming occurring only 10 years after emission.
Total observed warming is about 1.1C, but even by the IPCC's standards forcing a decade ago was over 1.7 W m-2, yes even counting the negative forcing!
for the total feedback to be 1.3 K·(W·m–2)–1, we would have to be seeing 1.3 X 1.7 = 2.21C of warming by now, and we are not!

I thought you would like that. Does this mean your beloved ACS is BS?

 

[longview]

Yes, T-min is raising faster than T-max, but almost all of the science says it is nowhere near 3 times as much. And absolutely none of it says it is 4 times as much. And that is pretty much what you were claiming when you said "75% of the observed (Average)warming has not been in the maximum temperatures". Please... stop lying about what the science says!
One small typo in Davy doesn't justify all your lies and misinformation about this topic.

Karl is one of the most cited papers on Diurnal asymmetry, are all of those citations pointing out how wrong he was, I do not think so.
In Davy it also says that Karl had a norther Hemisphere 1950 to 1990 ratio of T-max .05, and T-min of .20,
I think recent papers are leaning towards the massive difference being from aerosol changes rather than CO2.
In any case, the early years of AGW were mostly increases in minimum temperatures.

 

[longview]

I thought you would like that. Does this mean your beloved ACS is BS?

Not at all, they are a valid source for formulas, the speculation, not so much.

 

[Buzz]

Karl is one of the most cited papers on Diurnal asymmetry,

Yeah... so what? It has been around for 28 years and has 50 citations. But Davy has only been around for 5 years and has 88 citations. If the number of citations is so important then why are you citing the results of a study with less?

are all of those citations pointing out how wrong he was, I do not think so.

You don't think so. Did you even go and look? I doubt it because Davy says this:

"The global decrease in the DTR during the latter half of the 20th century has been documented in the literature (Karl et al., 1984). Later, this distinct pattern was discovered in both global and regional temperature records (Karl et al., 1993). However, there has been some degree of temporal variation in the rate of change of the DTR, with some evidence of a slowing or even reversal of the negative trend in recent decades (Hartmann et al., 2013)."

And this isn't the first time this has been quoted for you.

In Davy it also says that Karl had a norther Hemisphere 1950 to 1990 ratio of T-max .05, and T-min of .20,

Yes, and Davy also says that Easterling had a Northern Hemisphere 1950 to 1993 difference of T-max .08, and T-min of .17 and that Vose had a Northern Hemisphere 1950 to 2004 difference of T-max .16, and T-min of .22. Sorry, long... but further cherry-picking of just North America isn't going to help your argument.

I think recent papers are leaning towards the massive difference being from aerosol changes rather than CO2.

You think this based on what? Another of your wild guesses or is it just what you want to believe. Because Davy is actually about what is causing the observed differences. And you clearly have remained willfully ignorant of what it says because I pointed out what Davy says about the causes over two years ago when you falsely claimed that CO2 was the cause of the differences. Davy also says this about aerosols:

"The effect of changing land cover – land use, while being recognized as an important factor (Feddema et al., 2005; Hua and Chen, 2013), is not included in our analysis, nor are effects linked to atmospheric aerosols, the effect of which on the DTR in all‐sky conditions over Europe was found to be weak, with a somewhat larger effect on the DTR decrease only during clear‐sky conditions (Auchmann et al., 2013)."

For Christ's sake long... why don't you go and read all of Davy and learn what it actually says instead of just constantly cherry-picking the parts that back up your denialist agenda while you ignore the rest?

In any case, the early years of AGW were mostly increases in minimum temperatures.

Yeah... mostly. As in more than half but nowhere near your made up 75%.

Not at all, they are a valid source for formulas, the speculation, not so much.

Of course... especially when their "speculation" directly refutes your "speculation". Just another example of you cherry-picking what you want from different sources and studies while you ignore what you don't like.

 

[longview]

Yeah... so what? It has been around for 28 years and has 50 citations. But Davy has only been around for 5 years and has 88 citations. If the number of citations is so important then why are you citing the results of a study with less?

You don't think so. Did you even go and look? I doubt it because Davy says this:

"The global decrease in the DTR during the latter half of the 20th century has been documented in the literature (Karl et al., 1984). Later, this distinct pattern was discovered in both global and regional temperature records (Karl et al., 1993). However, there has been some degree of temporal variation in the rate of change of the DTR, with some evidence of a slowing or even reversal of the negative trend in recent decades (Hartmann et al., 2013)."

And this isn't the first time this has been quoted for you.

Yes, and Davy also says that Easterling had a Northern Hemisphere 1950 to 1993 difference of T-max .08, and T-min of .17 and that Vose had a Northern Hemisphere 1950 to 2004 difference of T-max .16, and T-min of .22. Sorry, long... but further cherry-picking of just North America isn't going to help your argument.

You think this based on what? Another of your wild guesses or is it just what you want to believe. Because Davy is actually about what is causing the observed differences. And you clearly have remained willfully ignorant of what it says because I pointed out what Davy says about the causes over two years ago when you falsely claimed that CO2 was the cause of the differences. Davy also says this about aerosols:

"The effect of changing land cover – land use, while being recognized as an important factor (Feddema et al., 2005; Hua and Chen, 2013), is not included in our analysis, nor are effects linked to atmospheric aerosols, the effect of which on the DTR in all‐sky conditions over Europe was found to be weak, with a somewhat larger effect on the DTR decrease only during clear‐sky conditions (Auchmann et al., 2013)."

For Christ's sake long... why don't you go and read all of Davy and learn what it actually says instead of just constantly cherry-picking the parts that back up your denialist agenda while you ignore the rest?
Yeah... mostly. As in more than half but nowhere near your made up 75%.
Of course... especially when their "speculation" directly refutes your "speculation". Just another example of you cherry-picking what you want from different sources and studies while you ignore what you don't like.

Actually the discrepancy is too great to simply be error in the data collection methodology.
The asymmetry, while real, is not understood well enough to qualify.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually the discrepancy is too great to simply be error in the data collection methodology.
The asymmetry, while real, is not understood well enough to qualify.

Yet you continue to only use one source to describe the asymmetry, with no acknowledgement that other sources disagree.

That’s because you’re a denier and care more about your posture than scientific truth.

 

[longview]

Yet you continue to only use one source to describe the asymmetry, with no acknowledgement that other sources disagree.

That’s because you’re a denier and care more about your posture than scientific truth.

Actually the real question is why with the same data, different researchers would have such widely different results?

 

[Mashmont]

Yeah still going to trust the people with science degrees on this one over the Trump supporters, who seemingly just don't want liberals to be right about anything. Probably because they've been brainwashed into hating them by candidates, PACs and "news" organizations paid for by oil companies (and other companies that want low taxes/deregulation).

In any event, I see stats that global CO2 concentration has increased by 45% just since the industrial revolution, and we are on track to emit about 4 times as much over the next 100 years. Doesn't sound like nothing to me. Also, isn't like half of the CO2 we produce dissolved into the oceans, rather than in the atmosphere? This is demonstrably leading to the ice caps melting, and the ice caps moderate global temperatures. Also, since the oceans determine things like rain that would seem to be a more important focus. But I'm no scientist.

What we need to understand is the scientific method involves constant experimentation and always an open mind. The left's brand of 'science' demands all debate is ended. That's the opposite of the scientific method. It's because global warming scam isn't about science at all. It's about leftist politics and bleeding American taxpayers and businesses.

 

[watsup]

What we need to understand is the scientific method involves constant experimentation and always an open mind. The left's brand of 'science' demands all debate is ended. That's the opposite of the scientific method. It's because global warming scam isn't about science at all. It's about leftist politics and bleeding American taxpayers and businesses.

Conspiracy theory/denier talking points.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually the real question is why with the same data, different researchers would have such widely different results?

That’s ‘a’ question, but the question here is why do you pick the one that you think fits the denier paradigm?