The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[wrs + 893]

Red doesn't offer any facts, just settled science claims.  He can't state what the main thesis of the AGW hypohtesis is and I have yet to see him demonstrate any knowledge of science on his own.  He is a bot.

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, wrs said:

Red doesn't offer any facts, just settled science claims.  He can't state what the main thesis of the AGW hypohtesis is and I have yet to see him demonstrate any knowledge of science on his own.  He is a bot.

Read my posts - you are a LIAR.

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, Red said:

Complete and utter LIE.

Why are you making baseless claims about climate science when so much information is available?

Next, weather and climate are not the same, and to continue to confuse how they relate to each other merely confirms your ignorance.

Try quoting actual climate science if you want to make a claim on this subject.

If only we could harvest the bullsh1t on this site and use it as a fuel. it could provide the earth with an endless renewable fuel forever. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/16/2019 at 12:42 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Red, don't get me wrong, I am confident you are a fine fellow.  But this really does get exasperating.    Look, your gas is measured in parts per million.  By definition your gas is spread out evenly in a band.  At 100% concentration, the entire surface of the earth would be covered, a bit like concrete on a motorway.  At 20% concentration, it would be like blades of grass on a soccer field. At 0.04% concentration, it is now so low that you cannot find it.  A bit like wormholes for the worms living underneath that grass on that soccer field.  You know the worms are out there somewhere, but you cannot find them or measure them.  There is not enough wormholes to go find. 

And there is the hole in the global-warming idea.  If you accept that heat radiation attempting to escape the surface is blocked if it strikes a molecule of carbon dioxide, and then that heat radiation bounces back (or whatever it does), and then that heats up the planet, then it still remains that so very little of that radiant heat is being blocked, diverted, or whatever, to be measurable.  Overwhelmingly, that outward-bound radiation just continues merrily on its way, as that nasty CO2 stuff simply cannot be found.  It is just too scarce.

The odds of CO2 intercepting heat radiation are far less than the odds of Mr. Average Golfer hitting a hole-in-one.  But you are postulating that everyone out on the course links, every day, is shooting holes in one.  It just does not work that way.  There are not enough holes-in-one happening to make any difference, either to the course or to the atmosphere or to the planet. 

Now, all that said, if you are fervently convinced that those holes-in-one are critical to the planet's survival, then I encourage you to put all your efforts into reversing desertification, and bringing water to the deserts and planting trees and grasses - which will absorb huge amounts of that nasty CO2 stuff, plus lower ambient temperatures quite a bit, at least locally.  Plus that is good for the planet, as a desert vista is not going to sustain much of anything.  And here is the nice part: beating back the desert is a lot cheaper and easier to accomplish than any of the alternatives.  For sure both easier and cheaper than the ideas of that Paris Climate Accord.  I feel confident that, with your demonstrable energy levels and persuasive abilities, if you throw yourself in the fight against deserts you will have stupendous success.  Cheers. 

Are you aware that the atmosphere is 3 dimensional? The above appears to suggest you think it is 2 dimensional. 

[Red + 252]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

If only we could harvest the bullsh1t on this site and use it as a fuel. it could provide the earth with an endless renewable fuel forever. 

Tom's OP is indicative of the issue.

Apparently there is a whole industry of climate change panic.  If it were an industry, it would involve production.   It's actually a movement, and it seeks changes in policy direction.  The reason it seeks change is due to no less than 30 years of evidence pointing to the prospect of climate change effects which are likely to cause economic and environmental damage, and may become irreversible within the next few decades.

The counter claim is that the scientists are wrong.  There is no evidence they are wrong - they just are, apparently!

Tom then states that the "Pope is religiously shutting down dissent and chastising anyone who dares question the questionable theories behind the Climate Panic Industry and its higher purpose...."  No evidence is presented to support his idea, and I looked to see what the Pope did and said, and found Tom's idea to lack credibility.

The Pope leads a very large flock and has a duty to care that they and their children leave the world a better place than they found it.  Apparently this, according to Tom, is " injecting religion into both the oil & gas industry."  I found no evidence of religiosity in  the Pope's motives and Tom never explained them.

Tom creates many threads about climate change which are equally without evidence to support his contentions.  He did offer to "give up" so perhaps that's a blessing that we can ascribe to the Pope.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Are you aware that the atmosphere is 3 dimensional? The above appears to suggest you think it is 2 dimensional. 

Not really, Nick.  CO2 is heavier than air.  Thus it will form into a discontinuous layer near the earth surface - effectively, 2-dimensional.  And we can be thankful that it works out this way, as then the CO2 is concentrated at the surface, where it is available as plant food.  Cheers.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really, Nick.  CO2 is heavier than air.  Thus it will form into a discontinuous layer near the earth surface - effectively, 2-dimensional.  And we can be thankful that it works out this way, as then the CO2 is concentrated at the surface, where it is available as plant food.  Cheers.

Its not dense enough relative to air to stratify as you suggest.

https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html

Edited June 17, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really, Nick.  CO2 is heavier than air.  Thus it will form into a discontinuous layer near the earth surface - effectively, 2-dimensional.  And we can be thankful that it works out this way, as then the CO2 is concentrated at the surface, where it is available as plant food.  Cheers.

Meanwhile.....at 100 km altitude

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

14 minutes ago, NickW said:

Meanwhile.....at 100 km altitude

Fine - you have some trace amounts.  So?  Trace gas is not earth-shattering news, Nick. Cheers.

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

Fine - you have some trace amounts.  So?  Trace gas is not earth-shattering news, Nick. Cheers.

Never said it was - but it confirms my original point that the 3 dimensional nature of gas distribution in the atmosphere increases the likelihood of a photon being absorbed by a CO2 molecule and emitted as IR .

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, Red said:

Tom's OP is indicative of the issue.

Apparently there is a whole industry of climate change panic.  If it were an industry, it would involve production.   It's actually a movement, and it seeks changes in policy direction.  The reason it seeks change is due to no less than 30 years of evidence pointing to the prospect of climate change effects which are likely to cause economic and environmental damage, and may become irreversible within the next few decades.

The counter claim is that the scientists are wrong.  There is no evidence they are wrong - they just are, apparently!

Tom then states that the "Pope is religiously shutting down dissent and chastising anyone who dares question the questionable theories behind the Climate Panic Industry and its higher purpose...."  No evidence is presented to support his idea, and I looked to see what the Pope did and said, and found Tom's idea to lack credibility.

The Pope leads a very large flock and has a duty to care that they and their children leave the world a better place than they found it.  Apparently this, according to Tom, is " injecting religion into both the oil & gas industry."  I found no evidence of religiosity in  the Pope's motives and Tom never explained them.

Tom creates many threads about climate change which are equally without evidence to support his contentions.  He did offer to "give up" so perhaps that's a blessing that we can ascribe to the Pope.

As we are currently in the business of cherry picking comments to start 💩 slinging, this one is well worth a good look at!

@Red Quotes “The Pope leads a very large flock and has a duty to care that they and their children leave the world a better place than they found it. “

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

Don’t think the Pope should worry about the trifles of Climatology, may be better spending his time protecting his flock, this argument is ridiculous and should be put into perspective.

Dont think the Popes motives should be relevant to anything other than his chosen religion.

[DallasTEC + 4]

A topic the IPCC has COMPLETELY Ignored is the resistivity heating effects of the atmospheric electric currents.

This heating is most likely the variable causing the forcing MISTAKENLY assigned to CO2.

There you go.....the chemical explanation has to include the electrical!!!

Please will somebody ask the IPCC if they ever heard of OHM'S Law???

DS

[DallasTEC + 4]

See Here............. "The FATAL FLAW in Climate Change Science"

This is BIG.......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOcaqCzxo&t=1151s

Dallas

[DallasTEC + 4]

Now as to the CEO's of the major oil companies being behind the Global Warming agenda, this seems unlikely. The evidence though can start with the Climategate email crisis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The emails themselves here https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf  

Now what I find interesting is the members of the team that wrote the whitewash report here http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

See the pic below of one of our own oil industry members on that panel.

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, James Regan said:

As we are currently in the business of cherry picking comments to start 💩 slinging, this one is well worth a good look at!

I do not cherrypick anything. This links to the Pope's role, so your reference was, typically, not relevant.

1 hour ago, DallasTEC said:

A topic the IPCC has COMPLETELY Ignored is the resistivity heating effects of the atmospheric electric currents.

Great.  Please forward your link to the science which explains the extent it affects global temperature.

32 minutes ago, DallasTEC said:

See Here............. "The FATAL FLAW in Climate Change Science"

Perhaps you might think that, but has no basis in science - the video is a climate science crock of cobblers.

[DallasTEC + 4]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

Perhaps you might think that, but has no basis in science - the video is a climate science crock of cobblers. 

Apparently you Red RK did NOT watch the video as your immediate distaste of data from a "crock of cobblers" prevented you from discovering that it is based on the latest and newest scientific climate models available. Perhaps you are working from a set of fixed ideas that will not allow you to entertain new information that could change your favorite outdated theories???

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

Before 1980, the fix is in every time the so called "scientists" publish, it keeps getting colder mysteriously....  Odd it never increases in temperature due to "corrections".    Meanwhile the vast majority of worlds temperature reading stations are in cities who all are using pavement, concrete, larger populations creating larger cities all with AC/HEAT now and the bias has not been removed or even attempted at being removed. 

Yea... the "fix" is in folks. 

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, DallasTEC said:

This is BIG.......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOcaqCzxo&t=1151s

True - it a BIG mistake to believe it.

So here's just one snapshot I will explain:  Please listen to the video at 23:40 where he states there is "virtually unanimous agreement" about a range of climate events, such as el nino's, where he clearly says that "strong el ninos occur during high solar activity."

Now look at where 1998 and 2016 sit on the above chart as they were record temperature years for their respective decades as a result of strong el ninos.  Hmmm - he has balatantly lied to his audience, but that was just one of so many examples I could have chosen.

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Red
used bold and italics for video uploader's spoken words

[Red + 252]

14 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Before 1980, the fix is in every time the so called "scientists" publish, it keeps getting colder mysteriously....  Odd it never increases in temperature due to "corrections".    Meanwhile the vast majority of worlds temperature reading stations are in cities who all are using pavement, concrete, larger populations creating larger cities all with AC/HEAT now and the bias has not been removed or even attempted at being removed. 

Yea... the "fix" is in folks. 

GISS has been explained many times, and the fact is that more and more sophisticated techniques are being used to better represent past temperature records which reflected observations on a small fractions of the planet's surface.  I note you chose a chart that is somewhat meaningless given for example that the starting point for GISS 2015 is actually 0.3 degrees higher - not lower - than GISS 1987.  But the real point is that it reflects 5-year trends, whereas the better metric is GISTEMP Global Mean Temperature Change: Annual Means, which are found at my link.

Again, those denying climate science are good at avoiding what is presently at issue, so top points on that front.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

17 minutes ago, Red said:

meaningless given for example that the starting point for GISS 2015 is actually 0.3 degrees higher - not lower - than GISS 1987.

🤣 Can I do your accounting?

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really, Nick.  CO2 is heavier than air.  Thus it will form into a discontinuous layer near the earth surface - effectively, 2-dimensional.  And we can be thankful that it works out this way, as then the CO2 is concentrated at the surface, where it is available as plant food.  Cheers.

You should tell that to atmospheric scientists and see what they say.

[Red + 252]

23 minutes ago, Wastral said:

🤣 Can I do your accounting?

Go right ahead.

[James Regan + 1,776]

Quite ironic the Greenpeace diesel oil guzzling ship in chase.

I have personally been on vessels hijacked by tree huggers and we always treated them with respect, we would bring them meals and coffee while chained to the anchor winches , the funny thing was the vessel was a DP vessel so we went drilling anyway.

Take away would be that most of these loonies doing the leg work for the .org are cannon fodder for the money men and lobbyists, and are not well informed.

Bots appear in many forms.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6546048539338776577

[wrs + 893]

16 hours ago, Red said:

Read my posts - you are a LIAR.   

 

Your posts to me are devoid of scientific support for anything you claim and mostly contain empty rhetoric about what is buried in some report you never link.  However, when I point out to you how much is not known you seem to be unaware.  Science is vastly overrated in it's ability to deal with complex problems of astrophysics and the origin and nature of life on earth.  You appear not to be aware of how incapable it is of solving even the most basic orbital problems involving more than two bodies.  Somehow you extrapolate the laws of physics to the conclusions of climate religionists as though those laws provide some foundation for the tenets of climate religion but you never state what that foundation is.  I find your posts to me in the main, vacuous.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[wrs + 893]

8 hours ago, Red said:

GISS has been explained many times, and the fact is that more and more sophisticated techniques are being used to better represent past temperature records which reflected observations on a small fractions of the planet's surface.  I note you chose a chart that is somewhat meaningless given for example that the starting point for GISS 2015 is actually 0.3 degrees higher - not lower - than GISS 1987.  But the real point is that it reflects 5-year trends, whereas the better metric is GISTEMP Global Mean Temperature Change: Annual Means, which are found at my link.

Again, those denying climate science are good at avoiding what is presently at issue, so top points on that front.

What's your basis for understanding that link you provided?  Do you know what they are even telling you with that?  I doubt it, most people can't begin to understand it without the proper math and statistics background, what's yours?  What does this excerpt tell you?

Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three-dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability. We find that meaningful global temperature change can be obtained for the past century, despite the fact that the meteorological stations are confined mainly to continental and island locations. 

The mean temperature anomaly is what is being reported.  That is not a direct measurement of anything, anywhere.  Do you understand the difference in an analysis of time series data in the frequency domain and in the time domain?  Averages are frequency domain and not applicable to time domain conclusions.  Averages never tell you anything about time or place, only about relative frequency of occurrence.  

Finally, what is being used to claim the earth is warming doesn't prove the earth is warming.  It's a statistic which cannot prove anything and is not deterministic and completely dependent on the means of computation and the data underlying the computations.  Said data has been massaged and managed to produce the results in the models that satisfy the conclusions the modelers and data masseuses wish to produce.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php