Via: http://cliscep.com/2016/01/06/interviews-with-richard-tol/
There’s an interesting blog based in Belgium called Trust, yet verify. If you’re not familiar with it, do take a look, there are plenty of good posts there. The blogger, Michel, describes in a series of posts starting here how he started out as a devout believer in what we were being told about the climate crisis, then started to look into it in more detail, asked questions, was not satisfied by the answers and the tone in which they were delivered, and gradually became more sceptical – a very familiar story.
Tol is one of the most highly cited researchers in the field and an IPCC author, writing for WG2 about economic impacts.
The world is in uproar about the climate, but you claim that climate change is not a problem?
Tol: “There is no reason to believe that climate change is so terrible at the moment. Unless you raise funds for Greenpeace or are a politician who presents themself as the savior of mankind: then you gain by exaggerating things. The reality is that the climate hardly affects our wellbeing and our prosperity. There are happy and rich people living in boiling hot Singapore, but also in freezing cold Canada. There are unhappy and poor people in boiling hot Kenya but also stone cold Mongolia. Climate change is not the main environmental problem. Dirty air causes currently roughly four million deaths each year.”
Are you concerned that the future of your children is at risk due to climate change?
Tol: “Not for a moment. It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness. The best estimate is that sea level will rise half a meter this century. That is from the ground to our knees. The Netherlands has the money and the knowledge to do something about it. It is the poorest who are affected by climate change. It is the grandchildren of the people in a country like Bangladesh who are at risk from rising sea levels. But why are we suddenly concerned about the grandchildren of people that we care little about? Poverty is a bigger problem than climate change. Do you help the poor by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by fighting poverty? An important question for which no one has a clear answer yet.”
There is also a follow-up post on a short response in the same newspaper in which an environmental activist attacks Tol, falsely claiming that he thinks only money matters and that his views contradict common sense.
Another much longer interview with Tol was carried out by BBC correspondent Roger Harrabin for his pre-Paris series on Radio 4. The full transcript is available at Carbon Brief. This interview also illustrates the bias and prejudice of Harrabin: he illustrates my point about painting, by noting that Tol is on the advisory panel ofGWPF, but incorrectly describing GWPF as “a climate skeptic lobby group” (in fact they are a think tank, not a lobby group, with no official or shared view, as Harrabin could have found out if he had looked at their website).
Then there’s this question from Harrabin: “Just looking at you now and from the point of view of the listeners, you look rather different from the average climate contrarian. They tend to be suited and booted and you have long hair and beard and a t-shirt. It’s a different look.” Again, from the point of view of activists like Harrabin, anyone who dares to question imminent disaster is a ‘contrarian’. But “suited and booted”? Has Harrabin met the pony-tailed Jonathan Jones? Or any members of the Cliscep team?
From this interview we learn that
- Richard Tol used to be a member of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
- His early research was on the statistical link between greenhouse gases and climate change.
- He set out to prove Nordhaus’s low carbon price argument wrong – but ended up proving Nordhaus right.
- There is huge uncertainty in the impact and economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions.
- The UK is a model for how not to implement climate policy.
- He supports a modest carbon tax, and opposes subsidies for green energy systems.
- Many of the more dramatic impacts of climate change are really symptoms of mismanagement and poverty.
There’s also quite a bit about his withdrawal from the IPCC Summary team, on the grounds of their excessive alarmism, and his view on the benefits of warming, and much more.
#
Related Links:
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Corrects Obama: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim – Tol says. ‘[The IPCC’s] reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann’
‘If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s (97%) paper is an excellent case in point.’
The paper only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Laments: ‘Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment’ – Tol: ‘There is no prima facie reason to assume that any given past climate was better than the prospective one.’
Leading German Daily Paper: Climate ‘Apocalypse Will Not Take Place’…UN IPCC’s Dr. Richard Tol: ‘97% Consensus Does Not Exist’ – Germany’s print high-profile national daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which features climate economist Richard Tol titled: ‘The apocalypse won’t take place’ – ‘Tol is one of the most productive and most respected researchers in his field. He is (co)author of more than 250 papers in renowned journals and according to the Ideas-Repec databank, among the top 100 scientists worldwide.’
309 Responses
Fair enough comments from Dr. Tol. However, I remain a bit skeptical of his timing. Now that Algore’s “prophecy” is clearly a failure for all to see, he decides to call him out? Why not say this nine years ago? 8, 7, 6, etc… It was just as absurd then as it is now.
Algore (isfat!) perdiktin!
Drink!
Best,
D
I may be wrong but I believe Dr Tol has called out Albert before. He’s certainly been moving steadily in the direction of climate sensibility for a while now.
The talk about sea levels rising has been going on for many years. I have lived by the sea in the Pacific NW since 1979 – that is 36 years, about a third of a century. I have spent many hours at the nearby marina over those years. The high tide mark is the same today as it was in 1979. If we are looking for a sea level rise of half a meter in a century, I should see a fairly linear increase of about 16 cm by now – never happened. Tidal changes up here are rather dramatic as it is common to get a 13 foot differential between low and high tide, depending on the lunar cycle.
Anecdotal tripe. Seems legit.
Best,
D
More legit than you.
Sez guy who doesn’t know it is warming and satellites weren’t launched until late-mid 1970s. Seems legit.
Best,
D
I know exactly when they were launced…. right after a 40-year period of global cooling.
KINSPEERCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111one
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e2f4545fa91afc2dc164717686f4d78f1372ebb237f138999245a91abb4e563.png
No conspiracy just fact….. And this has no error bars therefore useless.
Not useless at all. You made that up to deflect from the fact you were wrong.
Best,
D
Not wrong… It’s data from different proxies… you can’t put them on the same graph
Science, bro. You can’t refute the paper that did this. You can’t refute any paper that does such. Not one. You can’t do it.
Best,
D
No error bars… it is self refuting.
Weak flail. You can’t refute that paper where this appeared.
Best,
D
planet. lo f’n l! You have a severe science allergy. You have been completely owned by Dano!
Rick, another AGW kook heard from…….LMAO!!
isand, give it up. You are in abject denial and one of the few remaining residents of the Island of Misfit Climate Clowns…..probably explains the maniacal “LMAOs”…
Right…….one of the only? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
To clarify; a follower of the dwindling, hand waving extreme minority.
You have no clue how many scientists refute the hypothesis. Why? Maybe your head is too far up your rear end??…………….LMAO!!
No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.
Speaking of rear ends, while you’re busy pulling lies and conjecture from your rectum, reach in with both hands and extract that delusional head of yours.
Rick, what are you trying to pull out of your mouth?…….LMAO!!
BTW, the burden of proof lies with the AGW crowd, not the other way around. They can’t show any linkage between CO2 and temperatures. 20 years now with negligible warming according to RSS. All the while CO2 increases. So sad for you idiots that fell for that garbage….
You clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a theory or hypothesis. The evidence not “proof”…there is no such thing in science as absolute proof…is overwhelming. That’s why we have an AGW hypothesis and GHG theory.
Learn some science basics and then get back to me.
“No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.”
Aren’t you using the word “disprove”? The evidence is NOT overwhelming. The evidence, at this point, shows NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures. RSS confirms that. Why don’t YOU learn a little bit before appearing as ignorant as you must be?
Again, buffoon. LOOK UP the definitions of theory and hypothesis then get back to me when you understand these basic tenets of science.
“NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures.” ???
Wow, you are deep, deep down in that rabbit hole.
Sorry, rube. It’s Friday and I’m out to meet up with intelligent life forms…your complete opposite.
Can’t refute what I just said. Figures. You have no clue about “basic science”. You are just another clown who is a legend in his own mind……LMAO!!
” The evidence, at this point, shows NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures.”
LO f’n L! You are gravely mis-informed . This is one of the most stupid, non-scientific things I’ve heard from any denier dolt.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
You are simply an idiot not worth any more time.
I understand, You’re embarrassed that the actual science doesn’t fit your belief system and you’ve been outed for your complete lack of understanding of the temperature/CO2 relationship
While you’re licking your wounds, look up the definition of theory and hypothesis, rube….
Keep harping about “Hypotheses” and “Theories”. You can’t even figure out how to post a graph………LMAO!!!
I was flagged…probably by some science devoid rube like you. But look!…I found your profile pic!
Really, rube?…..hahaahahahaha…..couldn’t even get that to attach? Admit it, Nutsack. You are none too sharp, yet you have the hubris to call someone else “rube”….OH! the irony!!!………….LMAO!!!!
It’s no wonder you can’t see it given where your eyes are.
Poor Nutsack. I almost feel sorry for your dumbass…….not really. Now go play with the other children………LMAO!!!
What’s that? …. your voice is muffled…
hehehehe….keep trying there, Nutsack. You might eventually come up with something half-way witty. I doubt it though…..LMAO!!!
The pic is flattering. I would have guessed you as shorter, though.
Too bad you don’t know how to attach it. Your ignorant pal, Dano, couldn’t help you? You must have a problem following directions……..LMAO!!
It’s right there. Another thing you’re in denial about. …or maybe your etch-a-sketch is broken?
Right where? In your own delusional mind? Tell us when you’ve figured out how to post it, Nutsack.
About 10 posts up…It posted just fine. Are you on a Commodore?
Sorry, it isn’t there. Just because you think you posted something doesn’t mean it went through. You said you were “flagged”, so you admitted nothing went through. Which is it? get your story straight there, Nutsack.
I believe I was flagged earlier because I couldn’t post pics or graphs. I can now and the pic still appears on my screen. You must just have a shit computer….matches your brain.
Poor stupid, Rick. Your intellect just isn’t too great. You must know it too. Focusing on me? I’m in your brain rent-free now. I find it amusing. You have no clue how computers work just like you have no clue how the climate behaves.
isand, you’re nothing more than a science devoid mewling little quim.
You prove it with each successive post.
One thing is for sure, I know more science about both computers and climate than your sorry butt.
LOL….. I have bio and chem degrees and.30 years consulting across numerous scientific disciplines, mainly involving climate science these past 10 years.
Armchair “scientists” like you who rely on skeptic blogs for “knowledge” are a scourge to science.
I have forgotten more about climate science than you’ll ever know.
A legend in your own mind too? Sure you do. Right. If what you said was true you wouldn’t let someone as insignificant as me get under your skin. You are one insecure dude. A mental midget for sure…..what say you now, Nutsack?
“get under my skin”….lol, You’ve been owned by Dano (another scientist) and I. You don’t even know the definition of theory and hypothesis. You’re like a little gnat that keeps getting swatted away.
You just think I got “owned”. That’s when you got the false courage to jump in. You got destroyed by your own insecurities. I could not care less what you and the other “scientist’ think of me. But you? I’m so far into your insecure head you can’t stand it. Try some more, Nutsack. This is fun.
I just stumbled upon your exchange with dano. I’ve known him through various forums like this for a few years. I always find it entertaining when people don’t understand his succinct delivery. Like myself, though, he’s an actual scientist and thoroughly understands climate science.
You’re a climate clown, isand. You deny the CO2 / temp relationship and therefore 150 yrs of radiative physics. You don’t know what constitutes a theory or hypothesis and what it takes to disprove them. You’re just not well versed at all in climate science…it’s glaringly obvious.
We’re the complete opposite of you.
Then why are you wasting your time with a peon like me? I can tell you why. You are an insecure little man who has to impress people with your limited amount of knowledge. I am inside your head or you’d ignore a “gnat” like me. But you can’t and I find it amusing. Keep trying, Nutsack.
BTW, NOBODY thoroughly understands climate science. That statement right there shows how ignorant you truly are. Bio and Chem degrees? from where, the back of a match box?
lol…scale back your sense of self-importance, isand …it’s just free entertainment for me.
When I see climate clowns like you make statements that they are so certain are valid, when they clearly aren’t, I can’t help but step in and call them out because, as I said before, the disinformation you rubes try to spread is a scourge to science.
My degrees are from a Big Ten Univ. and I wrote my Sr. thesis on CFCs and the Antarctic ozone hole. I’ve been at the center of this “climate controversy” since the 70s….except that it wasn’t a controversy until politics reared it’s ugly head to muddy the waters about 10 years ago. Compared to you and your ilk, yes I thoroughly understand climate science.
No, you don’t have a “thorough understanding of climate science”. That is a lie. Any REAL scientist would know better than make an ignorant statement like that. The science isn’t settled and none of the REAL scientists are claiming such. You are simply a fraud.
If you were so knowledgeable how come I don’t see you over on WUWT debating them? How about Dr. Roy Spencer, or any of thousand PHD skeptics? Why not? Insecure? Probably. You are an insecure little man. That goes for Dano, the clown, as well. When he makes the simplistic statement that climate change prior to humans was caused just by “orbital variation”, it exposes him as an ignorant fraud as well.
You seem a bit enraged, isand…I can visualize the blood vessels popping out on your forehead as you hammer away at the keyboard….calm down….lol
Thorough as in “in depth”. The word is not a superlative adjective, rube.
WUWT…lol…I spent time over there a few years ago and took them to task on many occasions. A memorable one was calling out Bob Tisdale regarding his false claims on atmospheric CO2 saturation I met and spoke with Spencer at a fundraising event about 5 years ago. I liked him, but disagree with his PDO assertions. He tries too hard to minimize the AGH component and that’s why his ideas haven’t gained more traction in mainstream climate science.
No need to defend Dano, but I assure you, he understands Paleoclimatology far better than you. He just doesn’t have the patience anymore to explain details and deal with the outright stupidity of some people.
I’ve reached the same point with you, so see you around, climate clown….
Nice backtrack, Nutsack. You and Dano are first rate frauds.
It shows up on my screen, here it is again.
Not here. But that isn’t surprising. You and all the other AGW kooks live in an alternate universe…..LMAO!!!
Weird. Shows up for me every time. Maybe I’m still flagged.
Here’s a link: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Head_up_ass.jpg
A self photo, I see………LMAO!!!
It’s still there twice. I think your computer just sucks. At least now the humor will make sense to you. Climate science sure doesn’t.
You have exposed your problem, seriously. You think that because I don’t see something you post, the problem must be with my computer. Is that the depth of your intellect? No wonder you can’t convince anyone in a debate. You are just too shallow there, Rick. Good day, it has been fun playing in the kiddie box with you. I have more adult things to tend to (and that doesn’t mean going out and getting drunk like you did last night).
It shows up on 4 devices of mine. No surprise it “didn’t work” for you, though. You have established a track record of “not getting the picture”. I guess it’s from the kiddie box to the cat box for you. Have fun. I don’t drink.
Historically co2 lags temperature.. That is the only link. There is a strong correlation between co2 and the amount raw data has been adjusted. R2 of .97
If ghg theory is so overwhelming why don’t we know how much co2 will warm.
Uh.. Whatever. If you believe that you can’t read graphs either
I’m thoroughly versed in the sciences. You are either willfully ignorant or in abject denial. Either is a pathetic excuse.
So you are a satellite data denier too?
And in what day did he blow me away… Showing that satellite and surface data are diverging at an amazing rate? Or was it his Facebook references? Being so well versed in the sciences. I am sure the explanation is a link away.
Here is what I mean.
And hasn’t warmed for almost 20 years…. with the minor exception of this current El Nino.
Totes warmed, yo.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png
Clearly no warming since 1998
Dishonest cherry-pick to mislead. But I’ll take the points on offer:
o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
20 years is not small time. Moron. Best.
You can’t explain the divergence between satellite and surface….
You can’t explain the daily adjustment of surface temps.
You lose… Your side is fudging the science so they can believe they are saving the world.
Smartie, I can score off those, thanks!
o Scientists have been caught tampering, trashing, falsifying, suppressing [25 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
(the satellite scientists can’t explain the divergence either, so you got nothin’ but gavotte).
Best,
D
How about the 20 years comment…
Didn’t score off that you. You are a complete and utter moron…
You are more familiar with facebook than real science….
That’s all one need to know.
How about the 20 years comment…
How about it? Not germane to anything that was typed so sitting out there like some red herring, flopping around for nothing.
Best,
D
How about the 1000 year old forest popping out from underneath the Mendenhall Glacier? There was no MWP? but yet… We still have glaciers today where there were rich lush forests 1000 years ago…
You morons will believe anything.
You smarties aren’t capable of grasping the concept of staying on topic. Why can’t smarties stop themselves from changing the subject when their derp is pointed out?
Best,
D
Glaciers don’t grow in hot climate. I f you think it’s unrelated you are a moron.
So a couple square miles of the earth is representative of the entire planet, smartie?
Tarnation, Margaret! Th’ whole world is covered in 2 feet a snow today!
Best,
D
Moron writes: So a couple square miles of earth is representative of the entire planet….
Yep… that’s exactly how temps are measured…
Smartie smarts his way into embarrassment once again.
Best,
D
Also clearly shows how the different data sets start close together and end far apart. Major issues with the surface data.
Or major issues with satellite data. You made that up.
Best,
D
No… it’s easy to see if you open your eyese.
You made that up. You can’t show it’s true.
Best,
D
You can’t show its wrong.
You need to back your claim.
You made this claim: Major issues with the surface data.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Best,
D
Yet none of that proves that CO2 or man is causing it. A shame you can’t prove that.
Aside from the fact science doesn’t “prove”, the evidence is a century and a half old, and the Detection and Attribution problem was answered decades ago. Where have you been?
Best,
D
Correlation does not mean causation. I thought someone as knowledgeable as you would know that. I guess not, huh?
Weak flail. The evidence is not based on correlation. Try another flail, this time not a standard con reaction not germane to the assertion.
Best,
D
Not a weak flail at all. You are the one that refuses to recognize that simple concept. Furthermore, if you can’t “prove” the premise of AGW, tell me why anyone should accept it?
That’s another weak flail. The evidence is a century and a half old, and the Detection and Attribution problem was answered decades ago. Don’t you have an education or access to a library?
Best,
D
What evidence? You can’t prove it and you know it. So, flail yourself….LMAO!!
There are, literally, hundreds of papers on the subject. A Nobel was awarded for work in 1896. The Detection and Attribution problem was finalized several decades ago when technology allowed us to analyzed carbon isotopes in the atmosphere to verify fossil burning raised the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Educate yourself.
Best,
D
Hundreds of papers mean what? It’s proven? Not hardly. There are hundreds, no, make that thousands of scientists that dispute AGW. Now, go educate yourself.
Won’t educate itself. Got it.
You can’t show scientific evidence that dispute(s) AGW You can’t do it. You have none.
Best,
D
You don’t seem to understand (figures). I don’t have to prove ANYTHING. The burden of proof rests with AGW proponents. Thus far, you have FAILED to prove it. Case closed.
The burden has been proven many times over. Ignorance of 150 years of scientific findings is not a compelling argument.
Best,
D
Saying so doesn’t make it so….Try again there little broomstick cowboy………LMAO!!!!
History of stuff you are ignorant of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Detection and attribution: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf
HTH.
Best,
D
Posting the same crap over and over proves nothing. As I said, YOU can’t prove it……….LMAO!!!!
Too ignorant or dishonest to admit it.
Best,
D
Again, you project. You can’t prove AGW. Simple as that.
Science doesn’t prove. And I gave you the evidence, you are unable or unwilling to accept it.
Best,
D
Evidence? Not proof? You are a science illiterate trying to project that you know something. You’ve been fun. An AGW fraud.
a science illiterate
Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class.
Best,
D
weak argument. Get back to us when you prove it…..LMAO!!
Science doesn’t prove, little LoInfo LOLO.
When do you enroll in your very first science class? When you get to 10th grade all of this will be very familiar to you.
Best,
D
You can’t prove AGW ……….LMAO!!!
Thanks, LOLO!!!!!1111one
Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class. By 10th grade you’ll realize you’ve embarrassed yourself here.
Best,
D
You can’t prove AGW…………………….LMAO!!!
LOLO not bright enough to grasp that science doesn’t prove. Not bright enough to want to learn either.
Best,
D
Chump is full of himself…YOU….thinking you are on some sort of intellectual high ground. I am well aware of what science can and can’t do. You have yet to show that it does anything on AGW. Not enough evidence there, LOLO………………LMAO!!
You have been played, fool……Not even bright enough to see it……
Now you’re just lying: You have yet to show that it does anything on AGW
You are lying that I didn’t show you anything. Weak. Come play poker with us so we can take your money – you s–k at bluffing.
best,
D
You have yet show anything, fool. One thing is for sure, you have no clue how the climate works……..LMAO
What you’ve offered means NOTHING………LMAO!!
You have yet show anything, fool.
Yet you whined when I gave you the information twice.
You s–k at bluffing. Come play poker with us.
Best,
D
You must have a gambling problem…..LMAO. You haven’t shown anything other than what you AGW kooks keep showing over and over again. As if it really means something. CO2 is a trace gas that interacts with dozens other factors in making climate dynamics. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is sure how it all works. That would include you, dum-dum. The climate is a chaotic, non-linear system that can’t even be modeled correctly. The smart scientists, who aren’t on some government grant, know as much. All you have is a physical property of CO2 and temperature charts. That’s it. Scientists can’t agree what forcing or feedback effect CO2 ultimately has. Yet kooks, like you, think you have it all figured out. That is why you are a joke. A legend in your own mind too, I’ll bet.
All you have is a physical property of CO2 and temperature charts.
Not smart enough to know there are direct measurements of CO2 forcing at the planet’s surface. Got it.
What else can you entertain us with as you flail about like a fool, using your standard con bombast and bluff?
Best,
D
Like I said, you must be a legend in your own mind……LMAO. The climate is more complex than your pea brain can grasp.
Thanks, LOLO, everyone can see you are making it up and flopping about like a LoInfo fish looking for water.
You are horrible at bluffing, LOLO. When you graduate high school and get to junior college, take a rhetoric class.
Best,
d
I didn’t think you’d have much to come back with…..Who’s bluffing? I’m not the one pretending to have a complete understanding of climate dynamics. You think you do. What a laugh…..Hubris, much?
LoInfo flops to entertain us some more.
Best,
D
Dum-dum can’t think of anything witty to say……LMAO!!! You really are shallow……..hahahahaha
LOLO regresses some more for our entertainment. Soon LOLO will cry for its binkie.
Best,
D
hehehehehe……feeling frustrated there, Dano? I understand. You, being the legend you are, can’t convince anyone of your AGW scam. I love it.
LOLO uneducable. Too thick.
To hide it’s inadequacies, LOLO clowns for our entertainment.
Best,
D
Dano, too stupid to understand climate dynamics is too complex for his pea-brain……….LMAO!!
isand…..lol….you have been completely owned by Dano. One absolutely cannot “prove” a scientific theory or hypothesis. However, either can be disproven. No one,despite ongoing attempts, has provided any evidence whatsoever which refutes AGW. You obviously don’t understand the definition of theory or hypothesis.. Now go tend to your wounds.
I am well aware of it, fool. I was playing the clown. Now go away, turkey.
BTW, the “hypothesis” is weak with little evidence to support it. Many Scientists agree with that assessment So are you another one who thinks they have a complete understanding of climate dynamics? Fess up, clown.
You’re well aware that you’ve been completely owned? Good for you!
Only according to dummies like you………..LMAO!!
There’s that maniacal “LMAO!!” again. isand, you have the science acumen of a dung beetle and obviously enjoy the same diet.
You have no clue what my “science acumen” is. But then again that is just what you AGW kooks do, make assumptions with so little knowledge. One thing I DO know is that YOU have ZERO understanding of climate dynamics……..LMAO!!
Sure I do, isand. You clued me in with your science devoid commentary. It’s quite evident that you have no science acumen.
Rick, I’m not the one who has to prove anything. The AGW kooks, which you are one, have to show that AGW is real, can you? You can’t, simple as that. BTW, where is YOUR science commentary? How are you even qualified to make a judgement? Here’s my science acumen: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Roy Spencer? Wow, that’s really impressive.
The evidence, moron, is right there in the satellite data.
Yes, it is….try to keep up with what the data actually tells us instead of clinging to your denial and willful ignorance.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf
“For observations since the late 1950s, the start of the study period for this Report, the most recent
versions of all available data sets show that both the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the
stratosphere has cooled. These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative
forcing agents and with the results from model simulations”
Thanks, smartie. Satellites show warming. As to other measures of the atmosphere.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/de95529ad877a4ac3c8d2426d3d4ecb88a7d1c6a1a8b39264eda79dd876812a0.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/754a2d3a10fcfb9589a9ce33d780eb4a8c417db7902601284075d32292dc7319.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2430f065c18cb96675c02a922ee92b0d8ee4029c340f0880a9e88221a31c6816.png
Dano, a question: I can’t seem to get graphs like this to display properly in this format. How do you paste these?
Rick, when I hit I can see a little ‘image’ icon in the lower left of the resulting dialog box. I simply click the icon and navigate to the folder with the file I want. Whereever the cursor is, the image appears. The cartoon here was the result of cut-pasting a URL I’m on a laptop & not Android – Disqus much different on mobile platform.
Best,
D
http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/wp-content/blogs.dir/462/files/2012/04/i-132b9d417f6da4a4855d5454ecce8c67-an-inconvenient-truth.jpg
Thx. I had been trying to copy and paste directly from sites like NSIDC
I’ve been using the new ice charts- I can get them to show…
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/01/Figure21.png
Best,
D
I think the issue for me is that I’m experiencing huge lag time here. I typed that sentence and it took about 3 min to populate.
My guess is either your ISP, or your your IP address is flagged here.
Best,
D
GOOD! So should yours, ignorant troll. Why don’t you two clowns get a room……LMAO!!!
Nutsack can’t figure out how to post a graph but thinks he knows all about climate science………LMAO….How rich!!!
In looking over your snark responses Dano2, I can find no better illustration of one who sees in others what they fear the most in themselves.
And a reminder, Man Made Global Warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.
Man Made Global Warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.
Tens of thousands of papers overall studying it in two score scientific disciplines, absolutely nothing disproving it, and still a hypothesis?
Well, tarnation Martha! How often does Webster’s change they definishins anyhoo?
Best,
D
Dano2 said, “Ignorant proven aside.”
Cheap attempts at linguistic snobbery will go nowhere. This IS English, you will remember — born of low German. The “-en” endings are common and valid. There is no agreement on whether to use “-en” or “-ed” with the word “prove,” with Commonwealth countries tending toward “proved” and America tending toward “proven.” The exception here the The States is pretentious poseurs like you attempting to look superior.
Now THAT’S a fail.
Can’t show scientific ev’dance disputin AGW, we know.
Best,
D
Back in 1896 the Nobel Prize had value and credibility. In recent years no less than YASSER FRICKING ARAFAT and Algore and President Empty Suit have all received the Nobel Peace Prize !?!?!?
The Peace Prize has for some years been a Leftis/anti-semitic popularity award. The prize for economics isn’t far behind.
To illustrate the physical relationship set out in the AGW theory, it is the logarithm of CO2 that should be shown on a graph that is intended to show correlation or the lack of correlation.
Unless the comment is intended to suggest that the warming of seawater causes CO2 to be released from seawater.
But as econometricians have shown, non-stationary processes generate spurious correlations from random walks. So this simplistic approach is actually the mirror image by a skeptic of the faulty statistical methods used by warmists.
Wegman! Hoot!
Dr Wegman pointed this out in his study of the Hockeystick paper by Michael Mann.
I’ll take these points on offer now:
o Fake expert usage to bolster argument, 50+ points if report was plagiarized [15 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
Off your meds again I see.
Weak attempt.
Best,
D
It’s called observational evidence, nothing more.
Especially since you may be in one of a few spots of isostatic rebound whereas the rest is enjoying sea level rise.
Best,
D
If you’ll pay attention you’ll see the greatest “sea level change” in urban areas along the coast. Well explained by land subsidence due to aquifer depletion in the bigger cities – lesser amounts in more rural settings. In fact, in more rural settings the increase exactly matches that over the ages. Unfortunately, no grant money has been available for land subsidence studies cause it’s all gone to CAGW/CC/CD/new term of the day.
If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts. It sounds simplistic, but I don’t believe for a minute that polar ice caps are melting, much less that they will cause coastal flooding should they melt.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3ztm……..
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
be.
➤➤..
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3bbi……..
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3fbf……..
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
dd
➤➤..
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
Steve says: “If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts.”
—
But if you fill a glass with water, and then put ice on a shelf above the water level of the glass and channel the ice melt into the glass, it will certainly overflow.
The glaciers weren’t added to the ocean, they were formed from it.
Steve says: “The glaciers weren’t added to the ocean, they were formed from it.”
—
Glaciers in the mountains of Alaska, Greenland, the Alps and elsewhere would beg to differ. Precipitation, rainfall and snowfall–
Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water in the sea not additions to the water already there.
For this reason, if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass, sea level will continue to rise at more or less that same long-term rate as it has done for at least that last few centuries.
This does not apply in places where the land is moving vertically downwards, such as the northeastern seaboard of the USA, which is still subsiding as the Earth’s mantle continues to adjust to the removal of the weight of the continental glacier at the end of the last glaciation.
The forebulge is slowly subsiding as mantle rock gradually returns to its equilibrium state. This causes relative rise in sea level that is actually a fall in the level of the land.
Frederick says: “Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water”
—
As ocean surface water heats from global atmospheric and surface warming, it expands; as additional water from land surfaces enters the ocean as a result of melt, the mass of ocean water increases. Both add to sea level rise, although I would be curious as to where your information comes from that “most” of the observed sea level rise is from thermal expansion of already-present water in the ocean.
Frederick says: “if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass …”
—
Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing ice. Antarctica’s sea ice is fluctuating for various reasons but it’s land ice continues to decrease at an accelerating rate, the Arctic Ocean’s sea ice is not only losing extent (number of square miles covered on average) but losing thickness, and Greenland land ice packs are melting at an increasing rate.
Frederick says: “northeastern seaboard of the USA … still subsiding”
—
This simply adds to apparent sea-level rise; it is just one factor of several, the others of which are related to (possibly or probably human exacerbated) warming of global average temperatures.
There is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet, both from the scientific community as a whole, and from lone “scientific” contrarians as well as politically- or industrially-related websites and organizations. The information from political and fossil-fuel oriented sources, while it may contain some useful or correct information, often ignores other aspects of global warming and anthropogenic causes, or downplays them, or attempts to skew information (that which it does not simply create from imagination, not evidence) for non-scientific, industry or political motivations. In addition, the non-scientific approach attracts conspiracy-theory fans and dedicated contrarians, most of whom have little understanding of the science, evidence and theory involved.
However, arguing with a dedicated climate contrarian is like arguing about the (unproven and unknown) tenets of the religion of a dedicated devotee of any particular religion, where their beliefs are more important to them than any evidence otherwise, whereas science must always bow to the evidence despite individual variation of belief.
—
“Their mass is not increasing. Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing mass.”
Parts of both Greenland and the Antarctic are losing ice and other parts are gaining ice. Recent studies based on satellite data estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.
Net ice gain for Antarctica is well-supported. For Greenland there is uncertainty about the meaning of recent increase in ice mass, probably because the net mass change is close to zero. The net balance for Greenland may flip from gain to loss over periods as short as a few decades, mostly from natural causes linked to oceanic oscillations.
As for land subsidence that Dano2 calls “anecdotal tripe”, subsidence in delta sections of large rivers and areas with urban conurbations has been well documented.
Fred says: “Recent studies … estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.”
—
That is very interesting. I would like to learn more about that, if you don’t mind sharing a website URL or two.
Fred says: “land subsidence”
—
I don’t dispute that land does subside (sink) for various reasons including tectonic plate movement. But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.
“But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.”
I don’t know of anybody who says that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise. My point was that local land subsidence is sometimes taken as evidence of sea level rise as a basis for policy.
As for ice-mass gain in Antarctica, an impressive paper went public last year. Zwally, the lead author is at the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Zwally, H.J., Li, J., Robbins, J.W., Saba, J.L., Yi, D. and Brenner, A.C., 2015. Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology, 61(230), pp.1019-1036.
The reports for Greenland are conflicting because some rely on local phenomena rather on mass balance for the whole land mass. Further, ice mass balance is affected by both oceanic and atmospheric factors that are quasi-cyclical. As a result, trends are contaminated by short-term fluctuations.
The recent published study by Zwally et al. about the Antarctic land ice sheet covers the time period between 1992 and 2008. Ice loss has (at least apparently) accelerated since then, although its too early to make definitive conclusions or judgements. The satellite techniques to judge thickness of ice vary in both technology implemented and in reliability (there is room for error in all of them).
A complicating factor is that global warming causes the air to hold more moisture (evaporation from surrounding ocean) that has been falling as snow across Antarctica during that time, increasing land ice thickness slightly, while ice loss along the coasts and peninsulas of Antarctica has increased, and is (apparently) accelerating at a faster rate than the snowfall across the land mass of Antarctica is increasing. In other words, Antarctical is both losing and gaining ice, but although global warming has caused a greater precipitation of atmospheric moisture, it is also causing a greater loss of ancient or old ice.
The Southern Hemisphere does not have as many warm, tropical currents as does the Northern Hemisphere, which is why Greenland and the arctic regions are experiencing more marked and obvious ice melt. From visibile-light satellite imaging, ice 2 inches thick looks about the same as ice hundreds of feet thick, which makes that data of limited use. Greenland’s interior glaciers, and indeed its entire surface ice pack, is melting at a greater rate every year.
Climate science is complicated and involves a lot of technology and scientific study, both of which can be subject to error. But as a whole, the studies and the technology and the data and the evidence all indicate global warming at an accelerating rate, with probable human exascerbation of the process.
In the distant past when global warming was caused by relatively large amounts of carbon dioxide in the air from natural causes, much of the life on Earth at that time became extinct. In the further past, when the planet was virtually an ice ball, carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by volcanoes saved the primitive life on Earth by warming the planet to a degree comfortable to the life at that time. But too much warming from carbon dioxide will not be kind to the human species (and many other species of animal), so in my view we should do all we can to avoid making global warming worse. That includes curtailing the use of fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the already existent effects of global warming on the Northern Hemisphere permafrost (carbon and methane sinks) and the oceans. We have a lot of study and work to do if we want to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).
Some people believe that global warming doesn’t matter because “in God’s plan” these are “the end times” anyway, and all of this is meant to be. I think those people are seriously deluded by their doubtful religious beliefs, but we must all contend with their wayward ideas even as science attempts to understand the dynamic forces at work on our planet and its many interworking systems.
—
Thanks for your response. I agree with you there is religious delusion by theists and also believe that the Gaia myth is also a form of religious delusion.
As for wanting “”…to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).”, this is what Richard Tol is on about.
Climate alarmism promotes extremist policies that undermine the survival of people now living, who are just as much part of the human species as the affluent promoters of low-carbon lifestyles who get front page coverage in the media for supporting asceticism, always for other people and never for themselves.
Thanks for a very civilized discussion, nowadays rare when it comes to climate.
Thanks to you also for an interesting discussion of a complex subject.
I also agree that the Gaia mythology is a religious delusion like so many others, and that the left, especially the far left, in its blind rush toward “the future,” often ignores or steps all over important aspects of the present. I’m one of those people in the large center swath of society ideologically, who sees strengths and weaknesses in both the far right and far left, in both liberals and conservatives.
Anyway, fare well. Thanks.
Well, if you do not like what the scientists are telling you, the best thing to do is go to a politically motivated think tank that will tell you what you wanted to hear. They can always dig up some outlier like Tol. But most economists who study climate change have concluded that we should price ghg emissions.
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf
And if you actually had any readings skills, you would not that he does support a moderate carbon tax. Probably to aid on the conservation side.
Glad to hear you are on board.
I prefer consumption taxes over income taxes. There should always be incentives to conserve resources.
Economists weighing in on what should be done about climate change. yeah, right. A shame you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.
you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.
Some are just too thick and stubborn to grasp it, is all.
Best,
D
Sure, like the PHD quoted in the above article. He and many more. You are too thick to understand that you don’t understand climate dynamics like you think you do.
Tol doesn’t question the fact of AGW. Flail harder.
Best,
D
He says man has influence. So what? Does he say it’s a problem? NO HE DOESN’T. So you flail harder, he-who-understands-so-little-about the climate……………LMAO!!!
PS He is one of THOUSANDS that dispute the hypothesis.
Thanks LOLO, your assertion was you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.
then you tried to imply that Tol agreed with your false statement ike the PHD quoted in the above article.
Now you are backpedaling.
You aren’t very good at this are you? It’s all in print, anyone can see what you are doing.
Best,
D
Your condescension isn’t working, yo. There are thousands of PHD’s that dispute the premise. You ought to get out more, you might realize that……LMAO!!
Thanks, LOLO, you can neither hide your weak flail nor show thousands of PHD’s that dispute the premise. Relevant PhDs, that is.
Best,
D
Aaahhhh. now it’s “relevant”. Look it up yourself. I know one thing for sure. YOU don’t understand climate dynamics as you think you do plus NO ONE can say for sure man is causing anything. Got something else there, Sherlock?….LMAO!!
Relevance. You aren’t going to call an electrician to fix your plumbing.
You have zero scientific evidence to support your beliefs. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.
Best,
D
Project much? Where is YOUR proof of AGW? Got any????……LMAO!!!!
History of stuff you are ignorant of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Detection and attribution: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf
HTH
Best,
D
You think that proves it? Well tell me why so many PHD’s dispute it? Go over to WUWT and argue with them, if you think you can. You won’t though. Why? You’re a climate light-weight.
Oh! BTW, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
L M A O !!!!
Science doesn’t prove anything.
And you ignorantly parroting OISM lets us know your level.
Best,
D
You can’t prove AGW, so you fall back on “science doesn’t prove anything”. Really? You are a joke. Obviously, you are nowhere near as smart as you have yourself fooled into believing.
Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class.
Best,
D
“Comical ignorance”. Yep, sums you up……LMAO!!
Thanks, LOLO, when do you enroll in your very first science class? When you get to 10th grade all of this will be very familiar to you.
Best,
D
You can’t prove AGW…….
Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove.
Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class. By 10th grade you’ll have realized how foolish you look here.
Best,
D
You still can’t prove AGW…….LMAO!!
isand, you have been checkmated so many times that you’re clearly punch drunk…LO F’n L!….thanks for the laughs! Hey, while you’re licking your wounds, take a break and look up the definitions of theory and hypothesis.
Tell us how AGW is REAL, if you can. This ought to be good. Another AGW light-weight chimes in……..LMAO!!
Do some homework. Learn what constitutes a theory and hypothesis,,,and learn what it takes to disprove either.
Until then, you simply aren’t qualified to discuss AGW rationally
Neither are you. You have shown NOTHING to support the “hypothesis”. How come? Simply because someone throws out a “hypothesis” does not make it TRUE until shown to be false. Are you really that stupid??? You must be!
AGW is a hypothesis and GHG a theory because of the substantial evidence which supports them. Again, learn what constitutes a theory and hypothesis and what it takes to disprove either.
Until then, you just another science devoid climate clown.
Go look in the mirror, chump. You have no clue. Talk about IDIOTS. You take the prize. I see you fail to address the lack of temperature rise while CO2 continues to rise. THAT shows the hypothesis to be FALSE.
How about you lookup the definition of theory and hypothesis, then post them here along with the source?
My bet is you are too much of a coward to confront reality
You are willfully ignorant beyond belief, isand.
Sure you are……….LMAO!!! Chump.
Clowntastic!
the lack of temperature rise while CO2 continues to rise.
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png
Truth hurts, doesn’t it…..LMAO!!!
LOLO clowns for our amusement in an Internet Performance Art skit seen many times before.
Too much repetition and this projection is revisionist. Re-write this skit to make more believable, C-.
Best,
D
Dum-dum has nothing witty to say. His evidence for AGW a sham……..LMAO!!!
It takes the same to disprove either moron.
you bet they have, billions to be made out of it,
al gore tried but that market dried up, he got out early and made a good chunk of money.
The first liar always makes the money.
Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is emerging from an ice age. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies would pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.
Our present climate is pleasant and productive. I like it, and hope it warms further. But that warming is not caused by fossil fuels use. Spending $44 trillion (as estimated by the IEA) to limit fossil fuels is madness. That is a waste of nearly 30% of the cumulative savings of mankind, and $7,000 for every human being.
Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.
CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural
CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.
Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the
paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, and http://quadrant.org.au/opinion…
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.
It is supposed to be warming, because earth is emerging from an ice age.
The planet was cooling before we warmed it.
/basics
Best,
D
No.
Comically wrong.
Best,
D
What about the Roman and Medieval warm periods?
What about them?
Best,
D
The climate warmed without the evils of fossil-fuel generated CO2 to “force” warming.
So? The planet warms now, due to man’s burning fossil fuel, land-use changes, etc.
Best,
D
So?
Really?
So the millions of years of climate cycles which predate the use of fossil fuels are irrelevant to climate today? Those climate-influencing forces no longer exist?
Those forces are swamped by man’s emissions at this time. Science.
Best,
D
Sure, A trace gas in the atmosphere has more influence on climate than the sun. Science.
Best,
R
Where would life on earth be if the ozone layer were gone (less of a trace gas than CO2 – ppb)?
Best,
D
Well, good thing we have so much smog to replenish the ozone, no?
Not the same thing. But i’m glad you’re backpedaling now, thanks!
Best,
D
I’m enjoying laughing at you and your inability to address climate change prior to the industrial age. You got nothing. What exactly caused climate change then? Hmmm?
Weak flail. Man warms the earth now. Science. Orbital variations cooled and warmed the planet in the past.
Best,
D
Wow. Orbital variations. PFFFFTTTT!
Educate yourself.
Best,
D
Good thing those orbital variations stopped when people started using fossil fuels.
Thanks for the backpedal. Man’s emission warm the planet today.
Best,
D
Sure. Better get your asbestos underwear. You’ve only got a few days. Goru, the god of climate scientologists, has spoken.
Thanks for the deflection away from your errors.
Best,
D
wait, just to be clear. There are no more orbital variations? So the earth’s rotation around the sun is completely static?
The period is over thousands of years. We’d have to wait several thousand more years for the next ice age to occur.
This is all basic stuff you will learn in 9th-11th grade.
Best,
D
Maybe you’ll convince people there is a climate crisis in the next ten thousand years or so. Good luck.
He has no clue how the climate works. It is evident when he refuses to answer your questions and comes up with “orbital variations” as the only cause of climate change in the past. It shows his depth (lack thereof) on the subject. All he has is condescension. I’d like to see his routine over on WUWT. He’d get roasted and exposed as the fraud he is.
He’s not even good at what he’s good for … trolling.
For some, refusing to be convinced is a choice. Usually to preserve self-identity or a belief system or tribal identity.
Best,
D
For some? Don’t you mean … for you?
Clearly you are the one working hard to avoid being educated and convinced by scientific evidence. A 10-year-old can see it, it is so transparent.
Best,
D
You’re a sensitive flower for being such a sore loser. Still laughing at you.
Whatever gives you the good feels.
Best,
D
You have exposed yourself as knowing NOTHING about climate change. You can’t answer his questions. Just snide remarks. That is all you have. A joke you are……LMAO!!!
Not smart enough to follow, clearly.
Best,
D
You? hahahahahahaha……you know NOTHING about it. What is there to follow?
reb. you’re too science devoid to realize you’ve just been owned by Dano….LO f’n L
There is ozone in smog professor.
But it doesn’t migrate to the stratosphere, thanks!
Best,
D
We’ll use aerosol to transport it to the stratosphere. You know. Like your hairspray.
Thanks for the backpedal.
Best,
D
Thanks for the laugh. You know, I think if you and a few friends got together, you could produce so much CO2 that you could remove the insulation from your walls. You know, the earth is JUST LIKE a snow globe.
You can’t hide the fact you don’t know the first thing about these issues.
Best,
D
Oh yeah? Not very insightful are you professor orbital variation.
So you can’t handle orbital variations. I can’t help you there.
Best,
D
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate.
There are, literally, scores of papers finding that you are incorrect.
Best,
D
Please cite some empirical evidence.
Start here for the history of how long we’ve known the basics of what you are unaware of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Then go here: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf
You’re welcome.
Best,
D
Both of those links point to works packed with irrelevant dicta and qualitative representations, but no empirical evidence.
Do you even know what empirical evidence is, “Daano2”? (What happened to plain old “Dano” and “Dano1”?)
…a poor
player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
He’s a fool.
So it seems. Maybe the NewSpeak troll assigned to bird-dog Dr. Tol?
Your egregious errors ensure you have no credibility to make such statements.
Best,
D
Clearly you either didn’t click the links (standard con behavior), or were unable to comprehend what was at them.
o The first link is all the education you missed or aren’t old enough yet to have had. It contained empirical evidence.
o The second link has ~60 relevant empirical papers for you. Do you know how to read a paper and find references? Let us know if you haven’t gotten to that in school yet and we can help you learn how to do it..
Those two links are all you need to educate yourself enough to correct your egregious errors on this thread.
Best,
D
They are all either irrelevant, not empirical, or wrong. Most “climatologists” study irrelevant matters in great detail, while ignoring the big picture, which is that nature is doing a great job of recycling and sequestering CO2, regardless of the source.
You made that up.
You cannot show a single paper is irrelevant, not empirical, or wrong. You lack capacity to do so.
Best,
D
CO2 is in equilibrium.
CO2 is not in equilibrium. The ppmv increases ~2/annum in the atmosphere, the other ~60% of human emissions goes into the biosphere.
Best,
d
Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere.
You just refuted your CO2 is in equilibrium. But never mind that, this 3% is why the planet is warming from man’s emissions, thanks for explaining that to everyone.
Best,
D
It all becomes limestone.
Not right away it doesn’t. ~40% stays in the atmosphere, some goes to plants, some acidifies the ocean. Human-scale processes,
Best,
D
Diogenes says: “See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture …”
—
(Climate-change denier/contrarian) Patrick Moore is seen as a crank by the global scientific community, and is disavowed even by GreenPeace, the organization he was formerly associated with. He is also one of the “‘scientists’ for hire” by fossil-fuel industry “research” organizations and by conservative think tanks like The Heartland Institute (which produces anti-global-warming propaganda for the oil and coal industries).
Patrick Moore is not the best source to cite for anti-global-warming and anti-anthropogenic warming opinions.
Patrick Moore did a nice job of estimating a mass balance for carbon dioxide. I don’t know of anyone else who has done that. Why don’t you just try to criticize his work, and not assassinate his character?
Dio says: “Patrick Moore did a nice job of estimating a mass balance for carbon dioxide.”
—
No he didn’t. Selective criteria often overlooks or intentionally ignores other important factors. If you refer to environmental “carbon sinks” (such as permafrost and the oceans) and CO2 usage, many other scientists have done research, accumulated and interpreted data and evidence in that field.
Patrick Moore is often cited by fossil-fuel-friendly anti-global-warming organizations because very few people in the global scientific community are willing to assert what Moore claims because they would undermine their credibility and reputation within the community, would quickly and easily be discredited and lose the support and consideration of their peers.
You’re just name-calling. Please present some empirical evidence, or at least some anecdotes.
Dio says: “Please present some empirical evidence …”
—
Please feel free to use the Internet. It’s a great resource. The scientists can present their information (at all levels from layman to very technical) in a much better way than I could speak for them, and simple repetition of the arguments, for the sake of discussion in the comments section of a website, is redundant and unnecessary.
Thank you for the empirical evidence that you act like a smarmy yahoo.
Dio says: “Thank you for the empirical evidence that you act like a smarmy yahoo.”
—
If you’d like to pay me to be your personal research assistant, I’d be happy to do so. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you are not disabled and that you can do it yourself.
How does this stand up with the predictions of noted Climatologist, one of the 97% of the scientists agreeing with AGW, and part time fossil and torch song singer for the LGBT set, Bette Midler.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3ztm…….
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
I’m standing by for the earth scorch Al Gore predicted would happen in 10 years. That was Jan 26, 2006. Climate alarmists prepare! Your god is an angry god indeed.
He never perdiktid no earth scorch. You were duped.
Best,
D
I know. I would deny it too. Embarrassing, isn’t it?
You can’t show where he done perdikted scorchin.
Best,
D
I’m not doing your research for you, Sundance.
Best,
R
Exactly – you can’t show he said that.
Best,
D
Nope. It’s not out there. Don’t even look.
Thanks – you can’t show he said that. We can tell.
Best,
D
Al Gore on global warming at Sundance in Jan, 2006:
//
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return , Gore said.
He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”
//
No scorching, thanks!
Best,
D
One of many, many climate doom predictions that turned out to be a nothing-burger just like you.
Thanks for backing down from your erroneous assertion about earth scorch !
Crawlbacks from things Algore (isfat!) purportedly said or did or bought are my fave.
Best,
D
I’ve had immense fun mopping the floor with you, professor orbital variation. You’ve lost the argument soundly. People are going to read the comments below and see that you are no deeper than a talking point. Your religion is losing and you’re the one who has been duped.
Good day,
R
rebjava says: “One of the many, many climate doom predictions that turned out to be a nothing-burger”
—
It’s too soon to conclude that, although hopefully we’ll make enough changes to avoid some of the worst of the climate predictions; it may be too late to avert or avoid some of the other negative aspects of global warming, however.
v
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Herebe.
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3bbi…….
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3fbf………
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
dd
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
Richard Tol? Here is what Richard Tol said just last year– “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
“It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness”. Being a Bible-Believing Christian, Al Gore is exactly right!! There is a book in the Bible called Job. In it, Job has fears for the future (he is human after all). At the end, He is restored twice as much because of his Faith in the Lord. The reason he lost everything in the first place is because of his fear of losing everything.
Al Gore is right when he says he worries for the future of his Grandchildren. He is not a Christian and so his fears will come upon him. Also because of his lack of Faith (and so many billions of others), the Lord will punish the whosoever for being the children of Disobedience. So the easiest way NOT to Bankrupt the World is to do nothing that the Fearmongers say and just Obey the Lord in all things. If anyone is interested in doing what the Lord says, search Revival Fellowship.
Read more: http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2016/01/07/un-ipcc-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-bolts-warmist-narrative-calls-gores-claims-complete-madness/#ixzz3xPgq3L00
Religion is problematic, because it depends primarily on faith, not evidence, and faith can ignore or dismiss fact. There are many gods, and most of them are frowned upon or considered quaint and archaic even by Christians, who merely exempt their own God from such critical or humorous scrutiny, whereas many other people, myself included, are inclined to consider the Christian God, and the Christian religion, like all other current religions and all historical but virtually extinct religions, as fanciful creations of man’s imagination, before his rational mind began to provide better answers regarding the vast, mysterious and sometimes scary environment in which early man found himself.
As such, religion is not the answer to climate change, nor is it an explanation.