Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might have been mistaken on we only have 12 years

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

Okay… you do you.

Is that the witty come back phrase of the week? I’m seeing that from you a lot lately.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

As posted before, the increase in Atmospheric CO2 can be directly linked with humans taking carbon out of the ground and burning it.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 hasn’t been solely attributed to human activity.

Nor has it been concretely linked to the rise in temperatures.

The changing ratio of carbon 13 / carbon 12 is consistent with people taking carbon out of the ground and burning it.

The decrease of atmospheric oxygen ( since it is taken up when making CO2) is consistent with the rate that humans are taking carbon out of the ground and burning it.

At best, man is accountable for about 3-4% of the incremental CO2 in the atmosphere. And while increasing CO2 does create a positive feedback for warming, no definitive study has been done showing that the warming since the mid nineteenth century has been caused by the increase in CO2. Virtually every published study on global warming/climate change couches their conclusions with words like “if,” “may,” “could,” and “might.” There is no study that says “has,” “does,” “is,” and “will.” It is all scientific speculation, because they haven’t got any better answer.

I would love to see the paper that supports this.

As stated before, the ratio of atmospheric Carbon 13/ Carbon 12 has increased five fold in the past 150 years. The ratio was pretty stable until humans started to take old carbon out of the ground and started to burn it.

Papers on anthropogenic carbon dioxide observations

None of this is a big mystery.

As for your problem with the language… that is how scientific papers are written. Sorry if that bugs you.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Okay… you do you.

Is that the witty come back phrase of the week? I’m seeing that from you a lot lately.

It’s not a comeback.

It is the only rational reaction to a complete rejection of reality.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

I would love to see the paper that supports this.

You want to see a study of the studies?

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Okay… you do you.

Is that the witty come back phrase of the week? I’m seeing that from you a lot lately.

It’s not a comeback.

It is the only rational reaction to a complete rejection of reality.

Yeah, in other words, a come back.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Okay… you do you.

Is that the witty come back phrase of the week? I’m seeing that from you a lot lately.

It’s not a comeback.

It is the only rational reaction to a complete rejection of reality.

Yeah, in other words, a come back.

Whatever you need.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

I would love to see the paper that supports this.

You want to see a study of the studies?

I just ask for evidence.

[Borgia_dude]

@WildRose

Start with the NASA SABR study.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Here is some of response:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=377

“Because the exchange of heat between the ocean and atmosphere is a key part of the ENSO cycle, SB11’s simple model, which has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and an inappropriate observational baseline, is unsuitable. Use of a reasonable heat capacity for the ocean is also crucial. Importantly, SB11 treated non-radiative energy exchange between the ocean and atmosphere as a series of random numbers, which neglects the non-random variations of this energy flow associated with the ENSO cycle…None of those processes are included in the SB11 model and its relevance to nature is thus highly suspect.”

One key aspect in the Earth’s temperature changes is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is a cycle of the Pacific Ocean. Spencer’s model does not include ENSO, and he assumes that ENSO responds to changes in cloud cover, when in reality it’s the other way around.

[Borgia_dude]

There is more…

Spencer and Braswell analyzed 14 models, but they only plotted the 3 with highest and 3 with lowest equilibrium climate sensitivities. A paper by Dessler (2011) found that in the process, Spencer and Braswell excluded three of the climate model runs which best matched the observational data (Figure 1).

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

Okay… you do you.

Is that the witty come back phrase of the week? I’m seeing that from you a lot lately.

It’s not a comeback.

It is the only rational reaction to a complete rejection of reality.

Yeah, in other words, a come back.

Whatever you need.

Is that next week’s phrase of the week?

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Samm

@Jezcoe

I would love to see the paper that supports this.

You want to see a study of the studies?

I just ask for evidence.

For what? That climate studies have been done?

[amadeus]

There is a monumental literature out there and probably hundreds of scientists working on problems that in one way or another impinge upon the nature of global warming. It is really impossible for any of us to keep up or have to have access to all this work. It is pointless to ask one of us, or any of us, to provide “evidence” to back up one assertion or another, or to support or refute some study of one kind or another. I do not believe you (in the plural) when you claim to do so. Nor do I trust myself. When you link a research article and then ask for comment, you prove nothing. You don’t even prove that you understand it yourself.

Sure, I like debating the ideas back and forth as much as anybody, but if you demand some kind of refutation or support for scientific research for which you or anybody else have no demonstrable background to evaluate, you’re in the wrong place. Like I’ve said before, the office a geologist or paleobotanist is more likely where you belong.

[Jezcoe]

@amadeus

There is a monumental literature out there and probably hundreds of scientists working on problems that in one way or another impinge upon the nature of global warming. It is really impossible for any of us to keep up or have to have access to all this work. It is pointless to ask one of us, or any of us, to provide “evidence” to back up one assertion or another, or to support or refute some study of one kind or another. I do not believe you (in the plural) when you claim to do so. Nor do I trust myself. When you link a research article and then ask for comment, you prove nothing. You don’t even prove that you understand it yourself.

Sure, I like debating the ideas back and forth as much as anybody, but if you demand some kind of refutation or support for scientific research for which you or anybody else have no demonstrable background to evaluate, you’re in the wrong place. Like I’ve said before, the office a geologist or paleobotanist is more likely where you belong.

It’s the death of expertise.

The same dumb thing that makes people anti vaxxer.

[WildRose]

Overwhelmingly by people with an agenda and who fabricate and manipulate data.

[amadeus]

@WildRose

Overwhelmingly by people with an agenda and who fabricate and manipulate data.

Living proof of Jezco’s thesis. The death of expertise. Thank you WildRose for a perfect demonstration.

[WildRose]

Look the evidence is overwhelming that much of the data used to come up with all these dire predictions is manipulated and fabricated and data that doesn’t fit is rejected.

[Jezcoe]

@WildRose

Look the evidence is overwhelming that much of the data used to come up with all these dire predictions is manipulated and fabricated and data that doesn’t fit is rejected.

No… not really.

[amadeus]

@WildRose

Look the evidence is overwhelming that much of the data used to come up with all these dire predictions is manipulated and fabricated and data that doesn’t fit is rejected.

So, anyway, what makes you an expert? No, I don’t think you are.

[amadeus]

And so I thought. No rebuttal.

[Samm]

Here ya go @caesar … brought ya up to date in the earlier thread.

Well, according to AOC, we now have only 9 years left to Live!

Yup! In 2019, AOC warned us sternly we will all die in 12 years from global warming. Well, we have 9 years left now! I figure I’ll post a new warning every few years to remind everyone of the doom awaiting…