TheGreatZarquon: Move along, people, nicksteel is just a troll, don't bother.

He's been denying that since his first appearance, after a certain trolling/ACC thread shiatter got demoted to lurker.

One vanished, new one acting the same way appeared, coincidence right?

TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: The fact that I said that MAN MADE global warming is not real



Wait...what? You're ignoring the massive industrial impact that mankind has had on the planet's climate?

Exactly what evidence can you present that the industrial activities of the entire human race since the late 1800's has had zero impact on the climate of the planet? I'd love to hear your theory on how environmental and atmospheric pollution accrued over the course of 120+ years has had no impact on the climate whatsoever.

you want me to prove that something has not happened??? When you get to high school, your teachers will hopefully explain to you how stupid that idea is.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. For your information, I'll BE a high school teacher next year.

Ok, I'm calling it- you HAVE to be a troll. There's no way you could have typed that with a straight face and meant it. I actually laughed out loud when I read that reply. I'm cashing in while I'm ahead, there's no way I can actually try to debate this with someone as dense as you're (hopefully) pretending to be. This is like attempting to explain biological evolution to a creationist.

Move along, people, nicksteel is just a troll, don't bother.

You ask me a stupid question and that proves that I am a troll?

sip111: Corvus: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

you mean like the thousand of computer model tests that have been done?

They've done thousands of them using many different sets of variables.

Did you not know this?

Are you really this unknowledgable about this fact?

once again:

So what do you think has not been proven exactly?

And

When has co2 been shown to magically not work as a greenhouse gas?

Why can't you answer these?

He can't define what he actually thinks is wrong the same exact way a dumb creationist can't define anything they think is wrong with genetics. Also even closer, the same way creationist avoid defining their own terminology like "kind" will reflect the same way he'll avoid defining his position(s) in any meaningful detail.

When and if he make an effort to try too and gets debunk on what he thought was a credible "position" (often just a mishmash of objections masquerading as a "position") they'll either disappear, or if they're smart and thus have a stronger desire to maintain a coherent world view, deal with those anxieties now posed to them. They'll go all out conspiracy theorist and insist that all climatologists, scientists, etc. are in on some giant conspiracy X, and are, as always, out to destroy their "way of life" to gain control, that all top information is rigged against them. It's some amazing projection.

Tell me if I am wrong but so far this is the pattern I've noticed.

I answered his questions. It is not my fault that he didn't understand my answer. I volunteered to use smaller words.

nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: The fact that I said that MAN MADE global warming is not real



Wait...what? You're ignoring the massive industrial impact that mankind has had on the planet's climate?

Exactly what evidence can you present that the industrial activities of the entire human race since the late 1800's has had zero impact on the climate of the planet? I'd love to hear your theory on how environmental and atmospheric pollution accrued over the course of 120+ years has had no impact on the climate whatsoever.

you want me to prove that something has not happened??? When you get to high school, your teachers will hopefully explain to you how stupid that idea is.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. For your information, I'll BE a high school teacher next year.

Ok, I'm calling it- you HAVE to be a troll. There's no way you could have typed that with a straight face and meant it. I actually laughed out loud when I read that reply. I'm cashing in while I'm ahead, there's no way I can actually try to debate this with someone as dense as you're (hopefully) pretending to be. This is like attempting to explain biological evolution to a creationist.

Move along, people, nicksteel is just a troll, don't bother.

You ask me a stupid question and that proves that I am a troll?

It proves that you're a troll because you are claiming to adamantly believe that pumping billions of tonnes of pollution into the air and environment has zero effect on either of them. Using your logic, I could dump a hundred gallons of shiat into your swimming pool, but it would still be totally safe to swim in. Or I could put you in a gymnasium, fill it with polluting gases and fine particulates, but it would be ok because it doesn't effect the environment.

Dude, you're definitely a troll. Everyone knows it. Our evidence is solid, your arguments are invalid. I have a sandbox outside if you wish to bury your head for awhile.

Zafler: TheGreatZarquon: Move along, people, nicksteel is just a troll, don't bother.

He's been denying that since his first appearance, after a certain trolling/ACC thread shiatter got demoted to lurker.

One vanished, new one acting the same way appeared, coincidence right?

what are you babbling about?? You mother told you to stop mumbling.

canyoneer: And where did that energy come from in 8,000 BC?

Greater trapping of solar energy by CO₂. The ice age ended by a positive feedback loop between solar energy and CO₂ -- first, the earth's orbital shifts caused a slight warming. This warming caused the oceans to release more CO₂ into the atmosphere, as gas solubility decreases as liquid temperature increases. This CO₂ caused more solar energy to be trapped, which in turn caused even more CO₂ to be released.

How about during the Roman Climate Optimum? The Medieval Warm Period? Clearly there have been warm periods in the past with little or no forcing by human activities.

These were not global changes, or at least not in the same direction globally. For example the peak of the Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually cold Antarctic temperatures. These temperature changes were very likely caused by ocean current changes, which would warm some areas and cool others. Though there can be some net global atmospheric warming or cooling, too, depending on whether there's a net flow of heat from ocean to atmosphere or from atmosphere to ocean. We see that now with El Niño/La Niña, which do affect global atmospheric temperatures for a year or two.

Arjibuh

Wow, way to not click the link I provided.

Here it is again, so you can try reading for comprehension this time. To make it easier, here is an excerpt about the people you claim are scientists: (new window)

First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

So, er, you have an economist and some administrator that has not published anything about climate ... ever. Right, scientists in your book...hahahahha.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports....

So, wattsupwiththat, a noted denialist BLOG, is not a blog now? A guy that regularly has been shown to be incorrect in his own blog before he locks down and banishes the comments is not a blog?

So, is there a sky in your world or just perpetual darkness?


Again, sorry for the copy pasta everyone else. Have yet to figure out if this guy is actually able to read and understand or is yet another ACC troll playing deliberately ignorant.

Global Warming is just Jesus hugging us a bit tighter before he comes down to kill the brown people and teh gays

that bosnian sniper: Burn98: There is a vast difference between policy driving "science", and science driving policy.

There is, but the study of global climate change was co-opted by politics a long time ago.

Yes, by people denying the existence of such, and a number who have been getting paid to do so. Some of whom were used to muddy the waters about cancer and smoking 20 years ago.

TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: The fact that I said that MAN MADE global warming is not real



Wait...what? You're ignoring the massive industrial impact that mankind has had on the planet's climate?

Exactly what evidence can you present that the industrial activities of the entire human race since the late 1800's has had zero impact on the climate of the planet? I'd love to hear your theory on how environmental and atmospheric pollution accrued over the course of 120+ years has had no impact on the climate whatsoever.

you want me to prove that something has not happened??? When you get to high school, your teachers will hopefully explain to you how stupid that idea is.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. For your information, I'll BE a high school teacher next year.

Ok, I'm calling it- you HAVE to be a troll. There's no way you could have typed that with a straight face and meant it. I actually laughed out loud when I read that reply. I'm cashing in while I'm ahead, there's no way I can actually try to debate this with someone as dense as you're (hopefully) pretending to be. This is like attempting to explain biological evolution to a creationist.

Move along, people, nicksteel is just a troll, don't bother.

You ask me a stupid question and that proves that I am a troll?

It proves that you're a troll because you are claiming to adamantly believe that pumping billions of tonnes of pollution into the air and environment has zero effect on either of them. Using your logic, I could dump a hundred gallons of shiat into your swimming pool, but it would still be totally safe to swim in. Or I could put you in a gymnasium, fill it with polluting gases and fine particulates, but it would be ok because it doesn't effect the environment.

Dude, you're definitely a troll. Everyone knows it. Our evidence is solid, your arguments are invalid. I have a sandbox outside if you wish to bury your head for awhile.

exactly when and where did I claim to adamantly believe that pumping billions of tonnes of pollution into the air and environment has zero effect on either of them?

There's too much trolling in this thread. I'm going to play Half-Life 2, where the bots at least have the sense to logically reason that if bullets are coming, they should get out of the way.

that bosnian sniper: Burn98: There is a vast difference between policy driving "science", and science driving policy.

There is, but the study of global climate change was co-opted by politics a long time ago.

Yes and no. With regards to actually studying it, no more so than with any other topic studied scientifically. With regards to how the studies are presented to the general scientific lay-public, yes.

vertiaset: I was researching this very issue and I stumbled across this little gem of a scientific paper. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period Which, proves nothing whatsoever about climatic change, but does show why scientist need to learn to write.

Sample:

Transport and/or sources of dust (e.g., particles, calcium, magnesium, potassium) and species of marine origin (e.g., sodium, chloride, methanesulfonate) to central Greenland increased during the LIA. Nitrate sources (e.g., lightning, soil exhalation) decreased during the LIA. Ammonium outliers in Summit ice cores have been interpreted as northern high-latitude biomass-burning events [ Taylor et al., 1992; Whitlow et al., 1994] based on their association with other chemical products of biomass-burning [ Legrand et al., 1992]. Ammonium peaked both at the onset and at the end of the LIA.

This was a technical report, not a popularization. Are you concerned about all the parentheticals (which interrupt the flow, but provide a concise way to add detail)? About the acronym LIA, which was defined in its first appearence earlier on the page? About the term "species", which here refers to chemical kinds, rather than the more common usage for biological kinds?

I could also snark about the extraneous comma after "which" or the improper singular "scientist" in your comment, but Fark isn't an edited or peer-reviewed journal, so never mind.

Zafler: Have yet to figure out if this guy is actually able to read and understand or is yet another ACC troll playing deliberately ignorant.

I'm pretty sure he's the real deal. Trolls are a bit more clever in their replies and they usually aren't this persistent.

Zafler

Thanks for the article. I did mean one year, and I did not say co2, I said gasses, overall, including others that are much more potent. If I am wrong I will stand corrected.

Thanks for the articles. The funny thing is I googled that to check because its been about ten years since I heard that (omg Arjibuh you so behind and stupid) and came across the same page.

Anyway, I have been googling and realize there i much to study. Thanks, I am not completely convinced, but I realize alot has changed since gore released his film, which I still think is sensationalistic crap.

Sgt. Pepper: Zafler: Have yet to figure out if this guy is actually able to read and understand or is yet another ACC troll playing deliberately ignorant.

I'm pretty sure he's the real deal. Trolls are a bit more clever in their replies and they usually aren't this persistent.

YOU asked me questions and I answered them. Nobody ever answered my question.

Arjibuh

Eh, you may think that Gore's film was sensationalist crap, but most of the information in it is accurate. It went so far as to having a judge in England rule that it was a valid source as introductory information to climate change. Never seen it myself though.

As I recall, reaclimate has a posting about the movie and the court ruling, and has links to the relevant scientific data they use to come to the conclusion that it is mostly accurate.

Zafler: Arjibuh

Eh, you may think that Gore's film was sensationalist crap, but most of the information in it is accurate. It went so far as to having a judge in England rule that it was a valid source as introductory information to climate change. Never seen it myself though.

As I recall, reaclimate has a posting about the movie and the court ruling, and has links to the relevant scientific data they use to come to the conclusion that it is mostly accurate.

CITATION NEEDED

jfarkinB
I could also snark about the extraneous comma after "which" or the improper singular "scientist" in your comment, but Fark isn't an edited or peer-reviewed journal, so never mind.

The missing "s" was a typo. In writing on forums I often use a "conversational" writing style. That is to say I use commas and occasionally ellipses to mimic the pauses in a verbal conversation. When I engage in formal writing I use a formal style.

That was an atrocious piece of writing even by the low standards of the physical sciences.

"Again, sorry for the copy pasta everyone else. Have yet to figure out if this guy is actually able to read and understand or is yet another ACC troll playing deliberately ignorant."

Nope, just multitasking, and don't remember you posting that link, though I did check your others. I have to say though, the fact that you are acting like such a prick makes me want to troll, but I will resist because I am an honest guy....

Arjibuh

When you post stuff that had already been addressed as if it was something entirely new, my reaction is to assume troll and explain as well as I can without taking the time to consider the tone of my post. I strive for accuracy, and try my best to get accurate information out, even in response to known trolls. My apologies, but you were still bringing up talking points that have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked here. I have a whole archive of favorited threads where people take the time to address even old points for the benefit of the lurkers, if nothing else.

Well, thanks. I have not argued about this for five years on Fark, because I got tired of it. Back then none of the stuff (I don't think atleast) you linked to existed. So, that's where I was. The reason I brought things up "again" might have been because I had simply not refreshed the page, again, multitasking right now.

Thanks for your links, I have been reading alot from skepticalscience.com and like it. I have to say I am definitely rethinking all of this. Who knew someone could have their mind (almost?) changed in a Fark thread!

nicksteel: YOU asked me questions and I answered them.

Do you think the mean global temperature of the planet has increased over the past ~300 years?

(hint: this is a yes/no question)
(hint: answering either yes or no doesn't imply anything about man's impact on the climate)

Link to realclimate's run down of the UK ruling, includes link to actual science. (new window)

Arjibuh

Hrm, it was about that long ago that I got interested in the subject after reading information provided by Jon Snow and a few others.

Is there somewhere I can find that tallied up volcanic (including non co2), natural (including livestock methane etc), organic decomposition, forest fires, etc etc emissions? On skepticalscience they said that auto emissions had different isotopes, hence they could not be absorbed, the problem is, they don't get into it much.

Arjibuh

Honestly, the wikia on isotopes is not a bad place to start. AS far as an all in 1 source for that, I am not entirely sure it exists outside of maybe the IPCC report. Even that does not include everything. You can also do some poking around at google and check NOAA, NASA, or the royalsociety websites.



This general over all chart is from the Energy Information Administration, and is constructed from numbers in the IPCC report. Working group 4 as I recall. (new window)

Arjibuh: On skepticalscience they said that auto emissions had different isotopes, hence they could not be absorbed, the problem is, they don't get into it much.

The absorption is nearly the same. The key thing is that fossil sources have a different ratio, so the isotope ratio can be used as a kind of tag to show how much of the atmosphere's CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning.

that bosnian sniper: and what about the people who conveniently ignore the fact that prior to 1975 (90-200 years into the Industrial Revolution, depending who you ask), solar cycles had the strongest correlation with global mean temperature?

Who ignores that? All climate models take solar cycles into account. There's a big problem when you say "A causes B. I observe B, therefore A". That's a logical fallacy:


For example, you could make the parallel argument: "Before humans, most forest fires were caused by lightning. Therefore, the forest fires we see today are caused by lightning".

Or how about those who conveniently ignore deforestation and the dual effect of not only releasing emissions but also reducing the biosphere's CO₂ absorption rate?

According to the IPCC it accounts for about 25% of our anthropogenic CO₂ increases.

What about the people who warn about the increase of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, but neglect to mention the context that over the last century the concentration has only increased by 100ppm (35% increase), and over the last 40 years has only increased by 70ppm?

100ppm is HUGE. 300ppm is the normal interglacial peak; 100ppm is the difference between the bottom of glaciation and the peak of an interglacial. And those numbers show that we're seeing strong acceleration too -- over the first 60 years of the past century it rose by 30 ppm and then over the next 40 it rose by 70.

What about the people who conveniently neglect to mention that the one of the greatest increases in atmospheric CO₂ emissions in the last twenty years was thanks to a natural cause -- Indonesian peat wildfires -- and that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions constitute less than 5% of all emissions on Earth?

Peat wildfires released in two years an amount of carbon equal to somewhere between 1.5 and 4.8 months of fossil fuel usage. Even at the high end, while it's a significant source, it's still only a small fraction of our fossil fuel emissions.

And the problem with the "only 5% of emissions" is that you need to take into account the near perfect balance between natural sources and sinks. If I earn $2000 a month and spend $1990 per month, adding a new $100 per month expense, while accounting for under 5% of my expenses, changes me from having a $10 surplus to a $90 deficit each month.

Sgt. Pepper: nicksteel: YOU asked me questions and I answered them.

Do you think the mean global temperature of the planet has increased over the past ~300 years?

(hint: this is a yes/no question)
(hint: answering either yes or no doesn't imply anything about man's impact on the climate)

Does this graph help?? I know how much you green weenies love graphs.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is a religion, no different than being a flat-earther, a young-earth creationist, or a birfer.

In order to maintain your belief, you must cast doubt on all reputable science everywhere, trust only those who have a clear agenda to push, and check your critical thinking skills at the door.

Honestly, I don't know how you guys do it. Doesn't it get exhausting after a while? Or is it a big thrill, like believing that you're the only one in the room smart enough to know that the Moon landing was faked?

Starting at this post, most of the rest of this thread is about isotopic analysis. You can even watch lil nicky spin. (new window)

nicksteel: Does this graph help?

No, a graph of oxygen isotope ratios that stops before 1960 doesn't tell me much about the mean global temperature of the planet over the past ~300 years. You seem to be running out of ways to dodge the question.

nicksteel:
Does this graph help?? I know how much you green weenies love graphs.

There is a cyclic component to temperature, but there is also a steadily rising component which is causing successive cycles to be warmer than previous cycles.

From earlier in the thread:

MentalMoment:

If warming is due to PDO then what is causing the upward trend in predicted temperatures that spans the apparent cycles?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Denying anthropogenic climate change is a religion, no different than being a flat-earther, a young-earth creationist, or a birfer.

In order to maintain your belief, you must cast doubt on all reputable science everywhere, trust only those who have a clear agenda to push, and check your critical thinking skills at the door.

Honestly, I don't know how you guys do it. Doesn't it get exhausting after a while? Or is it a big thrill, like believing that you're the only one in the room smart enough to know that the Moon landing was faked?

you have it backwards - anthropogenic climate change is a religion

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Honestly, I don't know how you guys do it. Doesn't it get exhausting after a while? Or is it a big thrill, like believing that you're the only one in the room smart enough to know that the Moon landing was faked?

Eh, like I've said before, if it goes unchallenged, many people accept it. Occasionally you can get people to actually look into themselves if they're really curious.

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
Smells like a steak, and seats thirty five?

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Hey, hey!

Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty five tons of American pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

She blinds everybody with her super high beams
She's a squirrel-squasher, deer-smackin' drivin' machine

Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero!

Whoa, Canyonero! Whoooooaaaa!

Zafler: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Honestly, I don't know how you guys do it. Doesn't it get exhausting after a while? Or is it a big thrill, like believing that you're the only one in the room smart enough to know that the Moon landing was faked?

Eh, like I've said before, if it goes unchallenged, many people accept it. Occasionally you can get people to actually look into themselves if they're really curious.

goes unchallenged?? Maybe you should answer the question I posed oh so long ago.

Sum Dum Gai:

If warming is due to PDO then what is causing the upward trend in predicted temperatures that spans the apparent cycles?

Plus, what's causing the increasing trend in accumulated heat uptake by the oceans?

(And I'm wondering where Easterbrook got his "IPCC projected warming of 0.5 C/decade" from. The multi-model ensemble average for the early 21st century is more like 0.2 C/decade.)

Lil nicky, I'm still waiting for answers to this:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.

Sum Dum Gai

There is a cyclic component to temperature, but there is also a steadily rising component which is causing successive cycles to be warmer than previous cycles.


Yes, because the short term cycles are part of a longer term cycle.

Call me when they are growing grapes in Greenland like they were in 1000 AD.

Zafler: Lil nicky, I'm still waiting for answers to this:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.

This is exactly why I believe that you are full of crap. I challenge you to answer a question and instead of doing so, you pose one of your own. How childish is that??

nicksteel: This is exactly why I believe that you are full of crap. I challenge you to answer a question and instead of doing so, you pose one of your own. How childish is that??

That came from the thread I linked about isotopic analysis and predates any and all questions you have repeatedly been answered about. It's not my fault you can troll with a rejection of the conclusions from a variety of scientific fields and not provide an alternative answer. That's your continued failing.

Zafler: nicksteel: This is exactly why I believe that you are full of crap. I challenge you to answer a question and instead of doing so, you pose one of your own. How childish is that??

That came from the thread I linked about isotopic analysis and predates any and all questions you have repeatedly been answered about. It's not my fault you can troll with a rejection of the conclusions from a variety of scientific fields and not provide an alternative answer. That's your continued failing.

"repeatedly been answered about" is that even English???

Stop acting like a child. Or ARE you a child? How old are you??

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Denying anthropogenic climate change is a religion, no different than being a flat-earther, a young-earth creationist, or a birfer.

In order to maintain your belief, you must cast doubt on all reputable science everywhere, trust only those who have a clear agenda to push, and check your critical thinking skills at the door.

Honestly, I don't know how you guys do it. Doesn't it get exhausting after a while? Or is it a big thrill, like believing that you're the only one in the room smart enough to know that the Moon landing was faked?

I suspect many who feed the deniers understand fully what incresing atmospheric C0₂ means.

What they don't believe is that we can do anything about it, especially when India and China will be rapidly increasing coal burning electrical production for the foreseeable future.

It's the tragedy of the commons, resources spent fighting the C0₂ tide will only hurt those spending them and reduce their ability to adapt to the inevitable climate change.

But rather than go directly to that argument I suspect many leading deniers are using noise and FUD to delay what, I also agree, is likely to be wasteful and useless action.

This is the only graph I need for Global Warmin... Cimate Change.