Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[GostHacked]

you shit on others and have the temerity to keep coming back asking for help understanding something... meanwhile disputing the related topic simply based on ignorance or predetermined bias... and then you either outright ignore it or simply can't grasp what you're being presented. Hey buddy... they're called Google/Bing... you should try them out - hey?

I guess I could post links as long as they are NOAA or IPCC approved.

[waldo]

you shit on others and have the temerity to keep coming back asking for help understanding something... meanwhile disputing the related topic simply based on ignorance or predetermined bias... and then you either outright ignore it or simply can't grasp what you're being presented. Hey buddy... they're called Google/Bing... you should try them out - hey?

I guess I could post links as long as they are NOAA or IPCC approved.

back it up... or STFU

As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative, like initiatives, intended to review/assess the "science of the day"... certainly, previous MLW climate change related threads have touched upon USGCRP Scientific Assessments, NAS NRC reports, USCCSP reports, etc.; unfortunately for deniers like yourself, none of these reports (separate and distinct from the IPCC), from world-wide organizations assessing the "science of the day", will provide the solace you so feverishly clamor for.

Why should I, when you stated yourself that anything outside of the IPCC and the NOAA is bunk.

Other posters have, but you shot them all down with insults.

your desperation is climbing... beyond it's regular levels. Your statement is bullshit - categorical, undeniable, absolute, unmitigated bullshit.

[Saipan]

So really now. Where is the global warm up?

[GostHacked]

back it up... or STFU

Thank you for proving my point.

[jbg]

Our environment has changed indeed. The sprawling cities we have put into place are a cause of the changes...., toxic pollution from cars, factories, and the chemicals we use and without question simply toss them away in the garbage.

I like your balanced approach but what about the fact that all these factors applied circa 1900, with much more dirty coal being burned, and by 1930 much use of automobiles?

...large interstate roads cutting off migration patterns of most land species...

How many "large interstate roads" does Canada have? I suspect the answer is "none".

We are going to need such a fundamental change in our way of life to reverse the damage we have done to the planet, no one is ready or even WILLING to do it. We still continue down the same path. Do we have some kind of death wish? We don't even need to look at AGW to know that we need to change our way of life. It is simply not sustainable in the long run. That I have no doubt of.

********************

We humans have an amazing ability to adapt, and that is what we will need to do to survive this crisis.

Such a solution would impoverish many. Are we willing to accept 1867 living standards?

[waldo]

you shit on others and have the temerity to keep coming back asking for help understanding something... meanwhile disputing the related topic simply based on ignorance or predetermined bias... and then you either outright ignore it or simply can't grasp what you're being presented. Hey buddy... they're called Google/Bing... you should try them out - hey?

I guess I could post links as long as they are NOAA or IPCC approved.

back it up... or STFU

As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative, like initiatives, intended to review/assess the "science of the day"... certainly, previous MLW climate change related threads have touched upon USGCRP Scientific Assessments, NAS NRC reports, USCCSP reports, etc.; unfortunately for deniers like yourself, none of these reports (separate and distinct from the IPCC), from world-wide organizations assessing the "science of the day", will provide the solace you so feverishly clamor for.

Why should I, when you stated yourself that anything outside of the IPCC and the NOAA is bunk.

Other posters have, but you shot them all down with insults.

your desperation is climbing... beyond it's regular levels. Your statement is bullshit - categorical, undeniable, absolute, unmitigated bullshit.

Thank you for proving my point.

you mean the point that you're desperate... that you're spewing bullshit... like I said, you've made a rather direct and significant statement on something you claim I've stated. I called bullshit on it once... when you repeated it... I told you to back it up - or STFU.

[wyly]

And I go back to the questions because sometimes even after I read the articles from you guys I am still confused. I feel the following is still not answered at all.

So what is needed is for you to show how current warming trends are due to human activity when you say it takes a few hundred years for that to manifest which leads me to the conclusion that the current trend (by your statement) is due to something that occurred 800 years ago and NOT by human activity.

I think I was quite clear and the link I provided was even better, CO2 can follow temp increase OR CO2 can drive temp...a normal cyclical event like a milankovtitch cycle temp will drive CO2 so there will be a lag before CO2 levels spike...in a one off event such as massive volcanism, CO2 will drive temp, the CO2 spikes before temperatures spike...human GHG emissions would be a one off event so there is virtually no lag...there was event that occured 800yrs ago that explains this increase...the MWP was also a one-off event, it also has no preceeding event to explain it...one off events are not cyclical, not connected, therefore the MWP is irrelevant to this warming...

[Wild Bill]

that's fuckin'BS wildbill...show me where I've made an ad hominem on ghosthacked...this goes to your character, your lack of self esteem when you can't put up a reasonable debate for your pov...

when you have no intelligent point to make regarding the issue immediately bring up al gore that scores instant points with the scientifically illiterate...then follow with "conspiracy theory" hey no one can disprove a conspiracy because there is no proof otherwise it wouldn't be a conspiracy...

a waste of time since he has (like you) no intention of debating honestly...

a troll is someone who comes into a debate with no intention to debate but stir the pot with no evidence to back up his pov...some of us back up our points with logic and evidence others come with links to denier blogs and opinions based on ignorance, the later are trolls because they only seek argument and not debate...ghosthacked with his reluctance to look at the evidence and debate it is fast moving into troll territory...

After having scrolled back some pages and paid more careful attention - you're absolutely right, Wyly!

I totally apologize! I had not been paying close attention in this thread (for reasons given) and I guess I had confused you and Waldo.

I retract NOTHING as regards Waldo! In fact, after reviewing many of his posts I could not have asked for a clearer proof of my premise.

Anyhow, I now owe you a couple of beer.I hope you will accept them along with my apologies. You did not deserve my accusations in the slightest.

[GostHacked]

I think I was quite clear and the link I provided was even better, CO2 can follow temp increase OR CO2 can drive temp

Ok temp drives CO2 and CO2 drives temp.

...a normal cyclical event like a milankovtitch cycle temp will drive CO2 so there will be a lag before CO2 levels spike...in a one off event such as massive volcanism, CO2 will drive temp, the CO2 spikes before temperatures spike...

Alright, this I understand.

human GHG emissions would be a one off event so there is virtually no lag...

Why would there be no lag?

there was event that occured 800yrs ago that explains this increase..

So there is a lag?

So if temp drives CO2 there is a lag.

If CO2 drives temp there is no lag?

.the MWP was also a one-off event, it also has no preceeding event to explain it...one off events are not cyclical, not connected, therefore the MWP is irrelevant to this warming...

Alright, I'll give you that, that one offs don't really indicate overall trends.

[waldo]

I retract NOTHING as regards Waldo! In fact, after reviewing many of his posts I could not have asked for a clearer proof of my premise.

cry me a river... I give as good as I get. FWIW, as has been stated several times in the past when someone complains about (lost) decorum/civility... that ship long sailed around climate change discussion. In the face of absolute denier lies, fabrications and distortions... (at times) purposeful denier lies, fabrications and distortions, we'll see the usual suspects top that all by whining about (lost) decorum/civility... whining while they at the same time throw their next loaded barrage of insults or taunts. Hypocritical whiners.

[lukin]

cry me a river... I give as good as I get. FWIW, as has been stated several times in the past when someone complains about (lost) decorum/civility... that ship long sailed around climate change discussion. In the face of absolute denier lies, fabrications and distortions... (at times) purposeful denier lies, fabrications and distortions, we'll see the usual suspects top that all by whining about (lost) decorum/civility... whining while they at the same time throw their next loaded barrage of insults or taunts. Hypocritical whiners.

Dude, get out of the house for a few minutes.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Apparently those are the ones the IPCC rejected because it does not fit into their model.

Like studies showing that the sun is having the same effect on Mars and Earth in terms of warming. But that is instantly dismissed by the IPCC. Why would they dismiss that? Why would the sun not be relevant to the warming? Just like why would previous ice ages and concurrent warming not be related to the current trend in temperatures rising?

Why is the only aspect of AGW focused on fossil fuel emissions creating CO2 as a cause of warming and discount and dismiss all other sources and possibilities of warming? This is what baffles me.

I've posted a video where a climate scientist explains this multiple times, it is not the sun causing Mars to warm we have satellites designed to measure the energy the sun gives off. The sun is not giving off any more energy. Mars has its own atmosphere orbit and dust storms that all effect its climate. You cannot use it as a proxy for Earth.

Edited December 15, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

I've posted a video where a climate scientist explains this multiple times, it is not the sun causing Mars to warm we have satellites designed to measure the energy the sun gives off. The sun is not giving off any more energy. Mars has it's own atmosphere orbit and dust storms that all effect it's climate. You cannot use it as a proxy for Earth.

So who's burning fossil fuels there?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So who's burning fossil fuels there?

I don't know why I bother but as I said.

Mars has its own atmosphere orbit and dust storms that all effect its climate.

Edited December 15, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Saipan]

I don't know why I bother but as I said: Mars has its own atmosphere orbit and dust storms that all effect its climate.

Yes all planets do.

And they all receive heat from the Sun.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes all planets do.

And they all receive heat from the Sun.

But all planets atmosphere, orbit, and weather patterns (In mars case dust storms that can cover the planet) are different causing, or because of, the different amounts of heat they receive.

Edited December 15, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

your desperation is climbing... beyond it's regular levels. Your statement is bullshit - categorical, undeniable, absolute, unmitigated bullshit.[/indent]

you mean the point that you're desperate... that you're spewing bullshit... like I said, you've made a rather direct and significant statement on something you claim I've stated. I called bullshit on it once... when you repeated it... I told you to back it up - or STFU.

LOL, congrats GH! You've turned Waldo into a frothing lunatic. I love it!

[lukin]

I think I was quite clear and the link I provided was even better, CO2 can follow temp increase OR CO2 can drive temp...a normal cyclical event like a milankovtitch cycle temp will drive CO2 so there will be a lag before CO2 levels spike...in a one off event such as massive volcanism, CO2 will drive temp, the CO2 spikes before temperatures spike...human GHG emissions would be a one off event so there is virtually no lag...there was event that occured 800yrs ago that explains this increase...the MWP was also a one-off event, it also has no preceeding event to explain it...one off events are not cyclical, not connected, therefore the MWP is irrelevant to this warming...

Do you make a living as a scientist?

[Saipan]

But all planets atmosphere, orbit, and weather patterns (In mars case dust storms that can cover the planet) are different causing, or because of, the different amounts of heat they receive.

So what changed?

[jbg]

In the face of absolute denier lies, fabrications and distortions... (at times) purposeful denier lies, fabrications and distortions, we'll see the usual suspects top that all by whining about (lost) decorum/civility... whining while they at the same time throw their next loaded barrage of insults or taunts. Hypocritical whiners.

As far as being a denier, you show no concern for the serious dwindling of daylight in Toronto and New York. First slowly, then at an accelerating clip and now (fortunately) more slowly the amount of daylight is dropping. It's getting depressing. Soon I expect all-day darkness.

If you don't you're a darkness denier.

Edited December 15, 2010 by jbg

[Saipan]

Soon I expect all-day darkness.

If you don't you're a darkness denier.

By 2035 it may be even darker than dark. Unless we do something now.

[jbg]

By 2035 it may be even darker than dark. Unless we do something now.

Time for serious panic. It's already cold and dark outside.

[waldo]

cry me a river... I give as good as I get. FWIW, as has been stated several times in the past when someone complains about (lost) decorum/civility... that ship long sailed around climate change discussion. In the face of absolute denier lies, fabrications and distortions... (at times) purposeful denier lies, fabrications and distortions, we'll see the usual suspects top that all by whining about (lost) decorum/civility... whining while they at the same time throw their next loaded barrage of insults or taunts. Hypocritical whiners.

As far as being a denier, you show no concern for the serious dwindling of daylight in Toronto and New York. First slowly, then at an accelerating clip and now (fortunately) more slowly the amount of daylight is dropping. It's getting depressing. Soon I expect all-day darkness.

If you don't you're a darkness denier.

you disappoint... the last time you played one of these 'jbg specials', you also preceded to copy/paste reams of raw number temperature data from your selective regional, localized weather stations... post after post, after post, of nothing but raw number temperature data... hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of line item raw data number entries! Upon which you threw in your eyeballed trend observations determined from... nothing more than the actual pure raw data - unprocessed, without the aid of any methodology/processing. It was truly a mark of baseless, spectacular grandiosity. I believe I commended you several times on your acute eyeballing skills.

I trust you may have read one of the other currently running threads today, where Simple tried to one-up your past eyeballing prowess... by presuming to determine a CO2-temperature correlation simply based on Simple eyeballing a series of graphic image temperature presentations. I believe you should still retain your eyeballing leadership title, simply based on the sheer volume of raw number temperature data you presented... and, of course, because you also took the grand leap of globally extending your eyeballed assessment of your selective regional, localized weather station data.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So what changed?

I don't know ask an astronomer.

[jbg]

you disappoint... the last time you played one of these 'jbg specials', you also preceded to copy/paste reams of raw number temperature data from your selective regional, localized weather stations... post after post, after post, of nothing but raw number temperature data... hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of line item raw data number entries! Upon which you threw in your eyeballed trend observations determined from... nothing more than the actual pure raw data - unprocessed, without the aid of any methodology/processing. It was truly a mark of baseless, spectacular grandiosity. I believe I commended you several times on your acute eyeballing skills.

And your endlessly nested posts of garbage aren't also hard on the eyes? And as far as "eyeballing" there was a poster once named "Eyeball" who you'd get along with famously.