Infidel Dog
-
Posts
5,868 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Infidel Dog
-
-
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Yes, I can see that. That's why I am so concerned about issues in the UK, even though I haven't lived there since 1984.
You mean like this one:
At least in Texas the children they're protecting from the agenda of no guns, no baby murder backed up with foul language were just little children.
But yeah...the school council maybe got a little over-twitchy here if it's a free speech issue. The gun-hating, baby killing author claimed she just wanted to talk to kids about hats. She didn't want to bring in a Tranny with a strap-on or anything. (At least not this time.)
Oh well, that's what happens in Texas when you're a writer who wants to build yourself a hardcore Prog-comm rep. Maybe it shouldn't.
-
4 hours ago, bcsapper said:
I'm not. Climate has been around for a long time. I would have thought you knew that.
My God but you're thick, man.
Do you not understand that you can have a climate trend within climate but weather is just weather. It's not considered climate. Embedded within but no indication of long term climate effect until it becomes at least a 30 year trend.
Seriously, is this the first time you ever heard about the distinction between weather and climate?
If so I can only see two explanations. You really are that ignorant and determined to remain so or you're putting me on.
Either way that's enough of you. This is my last response to you here on this. You have enough to figure it out.
-
Before trends are considered climate they should have been evident for at least 30 years.
That's a pretty well known parameter. Not sure why you're having a problem with it.
-
What pollution?
Do you mean this pollution:
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:
So you agree they ARE pro fossil fuel climate
deniersrealists?FTFY.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:
Yeah, I didn't believe you at first. I can't imagine anyone not knowing that all weather is related to the climate. Now that I know we're on the same page with climate change I'm happy.
Related maybe but not the same thing. Climate begins at a 30 year trend, technically. Weather can be something like a heat wave.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:
One of us does.
Don't be a denier now.
You get it. I know you do.
When people say heat records in the summer show climate but a cold record in winter is weather that's blatant stupidity.
I'm saying you're bright enough to get that. Why? Are you trying to prove me wrong?
-
Yeah, and don't forget about all the other regulations and government controls that suggest they're necessary to thwart climate doom.
They'll kill us before the climate does.
-
It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to talk about the little ice age though. Following that is when it started to warm up again.
Hey, have you seen this new viral video where this comedian is talking to the Oxford Union, trying to rationalize the issue for the woke?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
I am not talking about computer models. I am referencing a physical model. You are aware that co2 and methane, amongst othe gases, inhibit the re-radiation of energy. If you increase the amount of CO2 or methane, less energy is re-radiated back into space. Any university lab will have the equipment to model this. But you can save yourself the time. It has been done many times in the past century and the results are predictable and measurable.
The earth has heated up before, but when it occurred naturally, it was a slow process that changed the fauna to consume and sequester the excess CO2 etc. I guess that's why we have coal.
When climate changes too quickly, such as in Europe in the 4th-6th centuries, the result was a severe negative impact of humans. That was a small change in climate called the little ice age. We've gone over this ad infinitum in the past. As you say, I am growing tired of repeating myself.
Sure, I'm familiar with all that. Richard Lindzen has a hypothesis that it's a negative feedback when you compute in cloud and sea surface temperature in his Iris hypothesis.
But if you have any information showing something is happening currently that suggests something more than 1 degree per doubling show me. You'll need more than 1 degree of warming per carbon dioxide doubling to make a climate doom projection work. You could use IPCC projections but I would say OK now show me something real world and not a computer modelled projection.
I don't know where you got this about the 4-6th century. Sounds interesting. Show me. The medieval warm period was around 900 to 1300 and it was period in which civilization advanced as happens in most warm periods
-
23 minutes ago, herbie said:
Then why is there an international ban on using military weapons to affect the weather? You know damn well they did massive studies and test and actually used them in the 1960/70s don't you?
So when the proof that "man" can control the weather, how can you possibly deny that "man" could inadvertently, over the long term not affect the climate?
Especially after we realized it, endorse continuing to do so?Man can affect the weather. For example: the well documented urban heat island effect.
He can't control it. Little bits maybe. He definitely can't control the climate.
Trudeau and Singh can shake hands and agree to drive Canada back to the stone age they won't save a single muskox or bring the temperature down .0001 of a degree.
-
21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of observation. You can create a physical model in any undergraduate lab in the country.
The real effects of climate change will be manifesting in the next couple of centuries. What we do now will have its true impact in the future. The anomolies we are experiencing now are just the tickle of what is to come.
What do you mean by a "physical model?" Do they predict the future? Computer models don't.
You have faith in the coming climate apocalypse then. Good for you. If you have scientific method style science supporting it show me.
Then I'll shake your hand (digitally) and congratulate you because I haven't seen it yet. But don't you dare try to show me something like the experiment that shows 1 degree per doubling of CO2. We're talking specifically about human caused climate armagedon.
BTW there's no proof any of these what call anomalies (I assume you're talking about bad weather) are anything we haven't seen before.
-
6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
They would be wrong.
Finally...you get it.
-
15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
How about the late Professor Stephen Hawking.
Why does he have a recent study like Dr. Spencer's you'd like to show me?
-
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
I think that what is insane is your contention that there are serious people who believe and put forward as fact the idea that "if it happens in summer it's climate but if it happens in winter it's just weather".
But you knew that.
Not sure what you mean by "serious people".
I think I've been pretty clear about who was talking about in reference to them pushing summer heat records as climate but cold records in winter as just weather.
I'm talking about people I talk to in forums like this one.
-
5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
I am surprised someone of obvious intelligence such as yourself would post a comment that is contrary to that reputation. I am sure you are knowledgeable about how one actually becomes a physicist and/ or a climatologist.
OK. What about Doctor Roy Spencer then? The scientist that co-manages the satellite record at UAH. Is he a "reputable climatologist?
Is he what you want to reference?
If so check out this one:
IPCC Climate Models Grossly Exaggerate 'Global Warming'
QuoteIn November 2022, meteorologist Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, published a ground-breaking study demonstrating that 36 climate models used to guide national policy may have exaggerated “global warming” over the last 50 years by as much as 50 percent. Specifically, Dr. Spencer utilized “a relatively new global dataset of urbanization changes over the previous 40-year period, 1975-2014, based on Landsat data to determine the average effect urbanization has had on surface temperatures.”
QuoteSpencer’s research shows that increased urbanization, not increased CO2, is responsible for exaggerating the temperature measurements recorded in the NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset. In other words, Spencer’s point is that observed increases in temperature result from the greater heat urbanization generates, not from increased CO2 concentrations generated in the atmosphere by burning hydrocarbon fuels. Spencer was able to achieve this result by eliminating the negative Urban Heat Island bias from the NOAA temperature database to get more truthful readings of the CO2 heat forcing effect.
-
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Because it's insane, I guess.
I agree. It's nuts to think if it happens in summer it's climate but if it happens in winter it's just weather.
So we finally agree then? That's nice.
Oh, sorry I didn't click you're NOAA link. I've seen them before I know what they think. I know even they know a climate trend is generally believed to be at least 30 years not a few months of winter or summer.
Check this forum in the section called Local (I think). There's a thread there about the fire in Lytton during a heat wave. The other guy I'm talking to there is certain that because Lytton broke its heat record that summer week that is proof of what he calls "climate change." He goes on and on about it. Are you starting to see what I mean yet?
-
BTW, I don't deny climate changes. I deny there's any real scientific method support for the hypothesis a climate catastrophe is coming worse than anything we've seen before.
-
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
If you don't understand it, isn't it incumbent on someone who does to explain it? Why would you prefer to remain ignorant about the issue? I don't think it's dorksplaining, unless it's explaining to a dork.
Or, you could just look it up:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate
I do understand it. You don't seem to understand I'm talking about a logical fallacy where people who talk like you want to tell us when it's a heat record in the summer it's climate. If it's a winter cold record it becomes just weather.
What I don't understand is why you're having so much trouble with such a simple concept.
-
10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
To borrow a phrase: debating climate change deniers is like playing chess with a pigeon… it’ll knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around as if it won.
The first time I saw that one it wasn't targeting Climate realists like myself. It was directed at leftists.
-
Would you like to see that in action BCSapper? I can start reeling off cold weather events from this winter.
How long do you think it will be before somebody starts Dorksplaining to me the difference between climate and weather?
-
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:
In what way? Do climate scientists say that climate change only happens in the summer, or is it that the word "climate" only applies to warm weather?
Oh, everybody is a scientist who believes Warmageddon is coming now are they?
Because my point was a general maxim that people who push climate doom prefer to do it in the summer when the weather is hot. Too them Summer heat is Climate. Cold winters are just weather. That's what I actually said.
-
50 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Another climate conspiracy thread? Haven’t you created enough of these already? ?
The idea some exclusive club called "reputable climatologists" believe there is a hard science proof of a coming climate catastrophe caused by man's use of fossil fuels is the conspiracy thread.
By the way, do you know how you become one of these "reputable climatologists?" You don't need real science. You just have to push the theory they now call "Climate Change" but is more "Climate apocalypse." So "reputable climatologists" believe the theory (actually it's more just a hypothesis) that Warmageddon is coming and you become a "reputable climatologist" by pushing the hypothesis. See how that works.
But I see why you're tiring of the topic. That happens with the true believers every winter. In the winter cold records are just weather. In summer heat records are climate.
-
1 minute ago, Hodad said:
You pointed out that Clark was a Democrat, as if it were somehow significant. That means nothing given the polarity shift that was underway around civil rights.
OK again, I can immediately tell this post is going to be BS ridden so I'll just deal with the first point.
The fact Clark was a Democrat casts shade on the idea MLK was coming round to that way of thinking. That was the point.
George Santos was a Brazilian Drag Queen
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Near as I can figure this below is what they're doing this
over:
See that little pin on his lapel? According to their corporate, state and other Prog media it has a little Q in the blue part.
They don't seem to have a clear shot of the Q in a trump pic that hasn't been photoshopped but we're told we must believe them that it's there.
I actually am prone to believe them this time because what happened was Trump wore it at one Ohio rally. Almost like he was baiting them because he wanted to watch their heads explode.
And they did. OMG did they explode. I bet the first 5 pages, at least, at google are screaming outrage.