patrick.net

HEYYOU says

"Don’t believe anything you read at Natural News"

From the original paper linked in article:

Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

You want to debate the science or just attack the source?

Ice age is coming.

www.youtube.com/embed/zSDLRm3jhc8

Thank goodness, I can start farting again.

Ceffer says

Thank goodness, I can start farting again.

Now since so many here are scientifically inquisitive, I pose this question. Methane is well advertised as a very powerful green house gas. Burning methane produces CO2 and water, two other well know green house gasses. So, is the unburned methane a stronger green house accelerator than the combined effect of the two gasses burning that methane would produce? If so, then every environmentally responsible individual should start lighting their farts, frat boy style. "If you light your flatus to help curb AGW, please raise your hand" should be asked at the next Democrat debates.

We are all carbon based lifeforms. More co2 and warmth in the world will cause life to flourish. If the coming solar minimum that some climate scientists have suggested causes the temperature to go down humanity will suffer more than if the temperature would go up a couple of degrees.

The people that want to eliminate carbon use are suicidal. The carbon cycle is essential to life and more atmospheric co2 is a good thing. Except a miniscule proportion of greedy assholes, everybody wants a clean environment but co2 is not a poison, it's a nutrient.

Onvacation says

It’s all a massive, coordinated fraud, and the mainstream media deliberately lies to the public about climate change to push anti-free market schemes that would destroy the U.S.

The problem isn't so much the medias bullshit, it's the fact that morons still believe what the media says.

Tim Aurora says

Deniers: Don't believe everything you read. Especially when it supports your preconceived notions. Especially when it supports denialism. Especially when you haven't even read the paper.

You do know the temperature has been going down, don'tcha?

Tim Aurora says

Anyone can post any junk if it is not peer reviewed and not published.

Whatever happened to the hockey stick?

Now the alarmists are either saying we have 12 years left or it will be a catastrophe if the temperature rises 2 degrees by the end of the century. Which alarmist camp are you in?

Wetbulb anyone?

Tim Aurora says

The paper, by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, is a pre-publication paper on the Arxiv which means it is not peer reviewed. Anyone can post any junk if it is not peer reviewed and not published.

They also claim that cloud cover is the reason, which is a new unproven claim and has not been verified or tested.

But the claim of an ice free arctic by 2013 has been THOROUGHLY debunked!

www.youtube.com/embed/zSDLRm3jhc8

Tim Aurora says

They also claim that cloud cover is the reason, which is a new unproven claim and has not been verified or tested.

If you’ve ever lived in a colder climate, you’ll know that cloudy winter days are MUCH warmer than clear winter days. It’s so obvious it’s not even a question. Expand your knowledge, @tim aurora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave_of_January_1977

The Cold wave of January 1977 produced the only known trace of snow in the greater Miami area of Florida ever reported, although the city itself did not report any snow (a trace of snow was documented in Lake Worth). It occurred following the passage of a strong cold front, in combination with a high-pressure area situated over the Mississippi River Valley. As a result, cold air moved far to the south across Florida, causing both snow flurries and record low temperatures. Most notably, the weather system brought snow flurries (seen in the air, but not on the ground) as far south as Homestead on January 19. No snow had ever been reported in southeastern Florida before or since.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_of_1977

This might have been the time when the Chesapeake Bay froze over as well, but I didn't live here then.

HeadSet says

is the unburned methane a stronger green house accelerator than the combined effect of the two gasses burning that methane would produce?

Yes, if I recall correctly methane (CH4) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Environmentally conscious Patnetters should immediately start lighting their farts.

Tim Aurora says

However we are talking about climate here not weather.

Climate is the history of weather and is changing all the time.

Tim Aurora says

We are warming up

No, we're not. The trend is cooling.

Tim Aurora says

the ice sheets have been shown to be receding.

And uncovering ancient forests and habitations.

It would be nice if the world really were getting warmer. Maybe we could grow wine grapes in northern England again.

Assertion Fallacy Religion is better than no religion.

lets ban China if we want reduction of CO2 emissions:

rd6B says

lets ban China if we want reduction of CO2 emissions:

Let's slap "CO2 green newdealish tariff" on their goods until their emissions are pared back to 1991 level.

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

Cold is hot! Newspeak from the ministry of truth.

On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/11-years-ago-today-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-would-be-completely-ice-free-in-five-years/

It's still fucking cold in the bay area and Tahoe is getting blasted with snow, ok it's winter but it's a grim one. No globull warming in sight.

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Heraclitusstudent says

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

mell says

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Arctic...

Heraclitusstudent says

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

If that is true, it can only be good news. A longer summer season could turn these northern latitudes quite fertile! Have you seen how large cabbages get in Alaska? Larger than pumpkins! All that daylight all the time, you know.
I do know that Alaska had a record heat wave this past summer, surpassing 90°for weeks! It was very unusual, but weather is not climate. We shall have to see if it’s a fluke or a trend.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

What are these graphs supposed to show? Antarctic sea ice has been growing steadily into 2014, and only started declining since then. 2014 we were all supposed to be out of ice already according to the usual pundits. Yes it fluctuates, def zero proof of globull warming.

Heraclitusstudent says

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Is that bad?

Did you know there was a time when the arctic ocean was warm enough to swim in? Forests grew all the way to the edge of the arctic sea. The alarmists have changed their story so many times that cold truly is hot in the minds of some alarmists. They think that the cold down here is caused by the warming of the poles. Think about that logic. Record cold temperatures don't equal global warming

Where would you rather live, a tropical rainforest or an arctic tundra?

Heraclitusstudent says

Appeal to authority?

At what point is there a scientific consensus? 90%? 95%? Can there be a consensus when some scientists can make a valid case for a hypothesis that counters the "consensus" hypothesis?

What is the consensus hypothesis on global warming that you alarmists keep talking about?

I know I am talking to the wall, but...
A. It would be nice if we would keep open mind about global warming/cooling/whatever effects of human activities. Climate predictions are really, really hard. It is 100% sure that we do have impact on climate, but how much is the question.
B. "Follow the money" - both proponents and opponents of Global Warming have vested financial interests. I don't want to pay $TRILLION taxes and live in a cave to prevent CO2 emissions. I also do not want to pollute the world and emitting less CO2 is an admirable goal given that we do not really know the effects - better err on side of caution.
C. What to do? If we assume that CO2 is the problem why not build nucular power plants? Why are opponents of global warming not campaigning tirelessly for the safe and clean nucular energy, for funding to develop more efficient reactors etc? Answer is MONEY - nuclear energy will not give $$$$$ to pseudo-green government subsidized gimmicks such as solar, ethanol, etc.

Science isn't a democracy.

Once upon a time, measuring skulls, the Steady State (still an ongoing problem re: Earthy Climate), and Low-Fat, High Carb diets were part of the scientific consensus.

If you suggested a diet high in fat and protein was superior to a diet full of pasta and whole wheat bread for weightloss, you would instantly be labelled a dangerous crank.

Margarine was also pushed for 3 decades as a healthier alternative to butter by just about every nutritional organization in the world.

It is 100% sure that we do have impact on climate, but how much is the question.

The human effect on long term "climate" is likely immeasurable. But the human effect on pollution and resource depletion is real and obvious. The solution is to limit first world population to a level sustainable by nuke, recycling. hydro, land management and so on. Also to limit imports from high polluting countries. But good solutions make bad politics, so the AGW folks just push arguing with deniers and vote Dem to show you care.

nuclear energy will not give $$$$$ to pseudo-green government subsidized gimmicks such as solar, ethanol, etc.

Good point, but solar should not be on that list. Solar seems to be coming on its own to be an economically viable augmentation, without need for subsidy.

HeadSet says

The human effect on long term "climate" is likely immeasurable.

Not yet, but with increase in computing power it should be possible in future.
HeadSet says

The solution is to limit first world population to a level sustainable by nuke, recycling. hydro, land management and so on. Also to limit imports from high polluting countries.

Agreed 100%.
HeadSet says

Good point, but solar should not be on that list. Solar seems to be coming on its own to be an economically viable augmentation, without need for subsidy.

In some climates yes, but likely not in Germany and many other non-desert areas. It is not panacea, while nuclear works everywhere.

Tim Aurora says

Also, science is self correcting, in the sense one can give counter claims and correct the hypothesis

So what is the current hypothesis of the alarmists? Will the world end in 10 years if we don't stop all co2 production?

I'm not holding my breath for an answer.

Tim Aurora says

So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

I think that there are perhaps 100 or 200 people on Earth who can understand arguments for/against global warming competently. I am not one of them, and neither are any other Patnetters from what I can see.

Tim Aurora says

True that Science is not a democracy but then not every minority claim can claim to be correct.

You are missing the entire fucking point of science! It’s a METHOD, a means of understanding the world based on observation and experimentation. It’s not supposed to be a fucking RELIGION or a political ideology! It’s a PROCESS by which we discover our natural world and the way that it works!
Anyone and everyone can CLAIM to be correct, but only ONE explanation of the world can actually BE correct! And maybe that explanation has YET TO BE MADE! Maybe we don’t know the truth yet! Science means that we have to be comfortable with NOT KNOWING because that’s the first step in the process of truth discovery! If you have to know everything, you’re going to make a ton of mistakes and operate from faulty beliefs about the world.
You have to accept reality for what it actually is. That’s the way objective truth works. It’s not subject to committee debate, votes, priests, or politics. It’s either true or it’s not true.