Dont Call It Global Warming

[jazz]

So if snow is common, why would you start another climate change thread based on a snow event in the first place? Furthermore, Your original post did not refute climate change you simply posted propaganda with the hopes no one would question it.

Simply testing the tenants of the climate change theory.

Let me refresh your memory.

Carbon bad, yet half the world oil is coming out of that region. Why haven't they stopped production.
A place that warming so fast because of fossil fuels, but doesn't stop production of them.

Governments like Saudi who state openly they deny climate change, nobody says a word.

And one of the places where solar panels actually work, still cranking out the oil and gas. Any carbon tax there? Shouldnt we try to make the worlds cheapest oil more expensive so people find alternatives?

A place that supposed to get so hot that nobody will be able to live there, still gets snow.

The hypocrisy of the climate cult is astonishing.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is, is global warming a falsifiable hypothesis? Is there any quantifiable weather or climate phenomenon over any time frame which would serve to disprove the hypothesis?
That is what separates science from religion.

It is impossible to ever with 100% certainty disprove the existence of a God, Because Religion and other cults Are based on beliefs and faith and other abstract notions, Which, while they cannot be proven, they also cannot be disproven. In complete opposition to a scientific principle which can be falsified.

Yet every imaginable weather type is used to justify the validity of global warming. So prove me wrong, and tell us what would disprove the theory?

[fjlip]

the CCSR, "Global annual average temperature (as calculated from instrumental records over both land and oceans; used interchangeably with global average temperature in the discussion below) has increased by more than 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 (Figure 1.2); see Vose et al. for discussion on how global annual average temperature is derived by scientists."

Great, and what INSTRUMENTS were used for these 120 years? Oh come on "you people", nothing has changed in 120 years? Right. Totally made up temps, estimates, models that start in little ice age and edit out the HOT 30's. Of course and good for the planet that we warmed up. Selective doctored data. NEVER will I believe a WORLD temperature stated to the tenth of a degree. What about the margin of error? certainly not ZERO! Simply a belief, a cult , a scam.

Tony Heller gets my vote, exposes Cult Lies with actual historical printed news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4

[dmlfarmer]

Dml, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is, is global warming a falsifiable hypothesis? Is there any quantifiable weather or climate phenomenon over any time frame which would serve to disprove the hypothesis?
That is what separates science from religion.

It is impossible to ever with 100% certainty disprove the existence of a God, Because Religion and other cults Are based on beliefs and faith and other abstract notions, Which, while they cannot be proven, they also cannot be disproven. In complete opposition to a scientific principle which can be falsified.

Yet every imaginable weather type is used to justify the validity of global warming. So prove me wrong, and tell us what would disprove the theory?

AF5 no science is absolute and 100% proven. To demand that climate change meet 100% proof is impossible, the same as demanding that of any science principle. Science hypothesis says gravity affects all matter and therefore until recently science supposed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down because of gravitational forces. Yet new instruments and technology show now indicate the expansion is speeding up. Still, I will believe current science theory that says gravity will cause all things to fall until man discovers the thing that doesn't fall at which time science hypothesis of gravity will have to change.

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Simply pointing out other possible causes of climate change and weather phenoma does not constitute proof that CO2 does not impact temperatures, climate, and even weather events. To claim the sun output can result in change in the jet stream and stalling of weather patterns does not rule out the possibility that raising global temperatures could have the same impact.

Does glyphosate actually cause cancer? The best science says no it does not. But a few studies says it might. So who should we listen too? Should we outlaw all ag chemicals that may impact human health or do we evaluate the risk to health posed by each pesticide and follow the guidelines science has set out to minimize the risk to both producers and consumers of ag production.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5 no science is absolute and 100% proven. To demand that climate change meet 100% proof is impossible, the same as demanding that of any science principle. Science hypothesis says gravity affects all matter and therefore until recently science supposed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down because of gravitational forces. Yet new instruments and technology show now indicate the expansion is speeding up. Still, I will believe current science theory that says gravity will cause all things to fall until man discovers the thing that doesn't fall at which time science hypothesis of gravity will have to change.

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Simply pointing out other possible causes of climate change and weather phenoma does not constitute proof that CO2 does not impact temperatures, climate, and even weather events. To claim the sun output can result in change in the jet stream and stalling of weather patterns does not rule out the possibility that raising global temperatures could have the same impact.

Does glyphosate actually cause cancer? The best science says no it does not. But a few studies says it might. So who should we listen too? Should we outlaw all ag chemicals that may impact human health or do we evaluate the risk to health posed by each pesticide and follow the guidelines science has set out to minimize the risk to both producers and consumers of ag production.

You didn't read my post, I said falsify, not prove.

[helmsdale]

You didn't read my post, I said falsify, not prove.

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

Which is exactly why I asked it that way. When everything is counted as evidence to support the theory(always in hindsight of course), how could it ever be falsified?

If the proponents haven't laid out any fixed dates, and quantifiable metrics which have to be met or exceeded to prove the validity of their theory, then they can continue to claim everything as reinforcing their theory.

[dmlfarmer]

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

What part of my post do you not understand? For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

The basic tenant of climate change is increasing greenhouse gas levels including CO2 is resulting in global warming which is affecting the climate. If science proves increasing levels of greenhouse gases are not trapping heat it would defeat the climate change argument.

There is no best before date in science. An accepted scientific theory lives until it is proven false by new information, new measurments, or new discoveries.

[jazz]

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Well geez dml, that's all it takes? I proved that 3 months ago on this blog. There is lots of evidence for that. Please identify the correlation.



Now I will prove its not a greenhouse gas. The chart below shows the IR spectrum absorption for various gases. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths and the rest of heat producing radiation escapes it. Compared to water vapour which spans the entire spectrum in various degrees.

Are you ready to talk yet or just want to give way to unreason like chuck?

[fjlip]

Tony Heller many times shows C02 was higher when colder. Usually shows ACTUAL printed articles quoted from SCIENTIST of some sort,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4

And listen to many more to show the STUPIDITY OR INTENSIONAL LIES.

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=jazz;439952]Well geez dml, that's all it takes? I proved that 3 months ago on this blog. There is lots of evidence for that. Please identify the correlation.


Now I will prove its not a greenhouse gas. The chart below shows the IR spectrum absorption for various gases. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths and the rest of heat producing radiation escapes it. Compared to water vapour which spans the entire spectrum in various degrees.

Are you ready to talk yet or just want to give way to unreason like chuck?


I thought you were just a farmer Jazz, I had no idea you PROVED that CO2 and temperature are not correlated. Here I though you were just a cut and paste expert of charts and data that conformed to your bias. So do tell us how you accounted for all the other variables that impact temperature including solar radiation, volcanos, ocean temperatures etc over the 500 million years of your study. How did you isolate the impact of just CO2 on temperature in your study? Where have you published this work and was it peer reviewed. And if your theory is so strong, why are the major of climate scientists not supporting your work?

As for your second chart, it appears you agree that at certain wavelengths CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas. So why does this prove it is not. Just because water vapor can also trap heat does not mean CO2 doesn't or isn't. How much has water vapor increased in the atmosphere compared to the 25% CO2 has increased over the past 100 years and therefore how much has each of the two contributed to warming?

So many questions but should be easy for someone who has proved their case.

[fjlip]

Tony Heller uses ACTUAL printed articles quoted from various SCIENTISTS of some sort, I am sure all such PEER agreed to swindle us all. Watch his videos and think, I DARE YOU!

And this explains your PHONEY 97% of baloney consensus.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

You need reason to understand, doubt that will happen to a CLOSED MIND!

[furrowtickler]

How dare you...…

didn't see this on CBC did you?

[ATTACH]5543[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]5544[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]5545[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]5546[/ATTACH]

A short video explaining how this happens....

//youtu.be/fLzXKxjFfao

Climate change is always ongoing, climate catastrophe due to C02 .....not so much. most current climate models ignore this particle forcing .... but it is starting to be recognized by more and more scientific circles who are not afraid to speak out .

[jazz]

31 years ago today, this is what the settled science said about climate change. The theory disproved itself long ago, just the globalist socialist hangers on pushing it now. What a load of garbage.
------

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN
June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community is talking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

[furrowtickler]

This explains a lot about the past two harvests ...


Just sayin ....