Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.

PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.

Hahahaha - complains about being dismissed as a parrot and then trots out an off the shelf canard about how 'they' changed the name from global warming to climate change. Priceless

Makes grandiose statements about unsettled science and then makes an emphatic statement about solar activity. Priceless

I can see you coming a mile away, and your name is bozo the clown.

What are 12 years old?

What do you think caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Earth to come out of the Ice age? You think that was caused by humans?!

It's settled science is it?

Typical AGW denier - blithely ignores physics and waffles about unsettled science but totally convinced by a mere correlation..

Not that the correlation is great - have you noticed that the cooling into the LIA began before the Maunder Minimum yet?

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 10:16

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?
Evidence nether supports or disproves the theory,
it cannot, we are looking for the effects of a small change in a trace gas in a chaotic system,
the only supporting data is the manmade construct that is the global temperature, that has been beaten into submission via " ajustments" to sea surface temperatures ( how the pause disappeared)
The idea that all extremes of weather can be laid at the door of CO2 is fanciful in the extreme
The theory that the climate is cyclical appears the most logical.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?
Evidence nether supports or disproves the theory,
it cannot, we are looking for the effects of a small change in a trace gas in a chaotic system,
the only supporting data is the manmade construct that is the global temperature, that has been beaten into submission via " ajustments" to sea surface temperatures ( how the pause disappeared)
The idea that all extremes of weather can be laid at the door of CO2 is fanciful in the extreme
The theory that the climate is cyclical appears the most logical.

However the road is littered with failed cycle-based predictions. That's because like you they ignore physics. And it looks like you ignore the poor record of cycle-based predictions too. And you ignore the fact the physics-based approach is working out quite well and just cry fraud. A true believer.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 10:20

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

Reality has a well known liberal bias

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?
Evidence nether supports or disproves the theory,
it cannot, we are looking for the effects of a small change in a trace gas in a chaotic system,
the only supporting data is the manmade construct that is the global temperature, that has been beaten into submission via " ajustments" to sea surface temperatures ( how the pause disappeared)
The idea that all extremes of weather can be laid at the door of CO2 is fanciful in the extreme
The theory that the climate is cyclical appears the most logical.

However the road is littered with failed cycle-based predictions. That's because like you they ignore physics. And it looks like you ignore the poor record of cycle-based predictions too. And you ignore the fact the physics-based approach is working out quite well and just cry fraud. A true believer.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 10:20

Not quite KP, the physics cannot account for all the predicted changes, if its possible to separate such changes for natural variables, a large reliance is placed on feedback mechanisms , Arctic ice melt being one, but they completely ignore the fact that large ice melting has happened in the not to distant past, without the input of higher levels of CO2.
As has been said we came out of the ice age without high levels of CO2 this would indicate CO2 is not the control switch for temperature.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

As has been said we came out of the ice age without high levels of CO2 this would indicate CO2 is not the control switch for temperature.

A complete logic failure and ignoral of physics again

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

Because without AGM the theory would have remained irrelevant, as it did for most of the 200 years.
Don't the green environmentalist want to get rid of coal and oil and by default Western style society?

[kerplunk]

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

But there is a big difference between an ash cloud of solid material and gas that each molecule is surrounded by others gasses due to the fact it is in such low concentration.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

But there is a big difference between an ash cloud of solid material and gas that each molecule is surrounded by others gasses due to the fact it is in such low concentration.

Totally wrong. It's two O2s - SO2 and CO2

and our CO2 emissions dwarf SO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions which are in the millions of tons vs many billions of tons of CO2 per year.

There goes your trace gases can't do anything crap, which once again is just an ignoral of physics

[Sensei Rob]

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

I've noticed a pattern with you and your bum-chum durbster:

Your comments are filled with jargon, acronyms and mumbo-jumbo. All designed to put off an argument, as if we're to believe you have any qualification in any science related field.

Durbster isn't as sophisticated. He just resorts to ridicule. He also thinks CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

But there is a big difference between an ash cloud of solid material and gas that each molecule is surrounded by others gasses due to the fact it is in such low concentration.

Totally wrong. It's two O2s - SO2 and CO2

and our CO2 emissions dwarf SO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions which are in the millions of tons vs many billions of tons of CO2 per year.

There goes your trace gases can't do anything crap, which once again is just an ignoral of physics

So you're trying to have it both ways with volcanos

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

I've noticed a pattern with you and your bum-chum durbster:

Your comments are filled with jargon, acronyms and mumbo-jumbo. All designed to put off an argument, as if we're to believe you have any qualification in any science related field.

Durbster isn't as sophisticated. He just resorts to ridicule. He also thinks CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster

You didn't even get the name right when you spelled it out (it's LITTLE ice age) - so much for 'scientifically literate'.

You're just a strutting cocksure noob in a long line of strutting cocksure noobs

'mumbo jumbo'

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 12:44

[kerplunk]

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Of course one line of evidence for the end of LIA suggests a reduction in volcanic activity, which is similar to AGW as in a perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere = temperature change. Solar-climate ideas like the cosmic ray gun hypothesis similarly rely on perturbation to the energy in/out through the atmosphere via cloud modification = temperature change. Straightforward thermodynamics. Physics.

But we don't see much denial about these things from AGW deniers. No hand-wavey appeals to 'chaos' etc

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 4th March 11:36

But there is a big difference between an ash cloud of solid material and gas that each molecule is surrounded by others gasses due to the fact it is in such low concentration.

Totally wrong. It's two O2s - SO2 and CO2

and our CO2 emissions dwarf SO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions which are in the millions of tons vs many billions of tons of CO2 per year.

There goes your trace gases can't do anything crap, which once again is just an ignoral of physics

So you're trying to have it both ways with volcanos

You're gonna have to say a bit more cos I have no idea what you mean

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

Because without AGM the theory would have remained irrelevant, as it did for most of the 200 years.

The theory is about the consequences of different amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so of course it becomes more relevant when we are changing the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. I can't see where you're trying to fit "the green movement" into this simple equation.

PRTVR said:

Don't the green environmentalist want to get rid of coal and oil and by default Western style society?

What green environmentalist? Who are you talking about?

If you know the source of a problem then addressing that is obviously the solution. Green environmentalist not necessary.

[Kawasicki]

New Hadcrut 5 temperature data has been released. Have a guess whether Hadcrut 5 shows more or less warming than Hadcrut 4.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

It's a hypothesis not a theory.

[dickymint]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.

Have you not noticed that purely coincidentally the theory supports the same objectives as the green movement ?

Oh this should be great.

Please explain how a scientific theory from 200 years ago can "support the objectives of the green movement"?

You'll have to start by defining who "the green movement" is and exactly what their objectives are.

It's a hypothesis not a theory.

it wasn't even my "theory" it was Durbs very own in response to Plunkers post about Twitter accounts being run by machines.......


Scientific American said:
Twitter accounts run by machines are a major source of climate change disinformation that might drain support from policies to address rising temperatures.

Durbs said
Something similar happening on PH too I wonder?

[hairykrishna]

Sensei Rob said:

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

1) Yes, depending on when you decide 'early earth' was.
2) Yes.
3) It's a bit more complicated than that. A lot of plant growth is nitrogen-limited and benefits of high CO2 are easily reduced or removed by even a degree or two of extra heat.
4) "Know have"? If you mean "now have", we've had the technology for donkeys years. It's at an energy cost though so if your goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 it doesn't really help unless you're going to dedicate a load of new solar/nuclear purely to carbon capture.

Did you actually have a point? Or was this just a tour of denier starting points from decades past for nostalgia purposes?