Discussion:
CO² Ended Last Ice Age -- Funny... NO Mention Of CO² LEVEL... Why Not?
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2017-08-06 23:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Instead, natural changes in Earth's orbit, bringing the planet closer
to the Sun, caused the warming, according to the dissident view.
CO² Ended Last Ice Age -- Yeah, AFTER the temperatures started going up
anyway. (see below)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- You KNOW they're just covering for their FAILED
predictions, when they have to call people who disagree with them,
dissidents, deniers and drongos.

Even bigger BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... dumb ass climate hysteric didn't even
READ his own article.

"Traces of CO2 - the principal greenhouse gas that traps solar heat -
show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose AFTER
temperatures were on the rise, not before."

Loading Image...

Bu bu bu but... Al Gorrrrrrre.

http://tinypic.com/r/2vmwntd/9

We been telling you bogans for YEARS that CO² rises AFTER the temperature
goes up, and that also makes Al Gore a liar.

LOL

What an idiot.
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-07 03:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.

Fuck off.
Enki
2017-08-07 19:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
STFU Little man Ball, you are a failed home appraiser shitbag!



11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Unum
2017-08-07 04:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Instead, natural changes in Earth's orbit, bringing the planet closer
to the Sun, caused the warming, according to the dissident view.
CO² Ended Last Ice Age -- Yeah, AFTER the temperatures started going up
anyway. (see below)
Sad little coward snipped the article.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/carbon-dioxide-ended-the-last-ice-age-according-to-a-new-study/news-story/446d90e7e4865b8981b558c08a81f70e

"Our study shows that CO2 was a much more important factor and was really
driving worldwide warming during the last deglaciation."

Published in the British journal Nature, the investigation looked at 80 ice
cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea
floors on every continent.

"Putting all of these records together into a reconstruction of global
temperatures shows a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the
Ice Age," said Shakun.

A rise in carbon dioxide "actually precedes global temperature range, which is
what you would expect if CO2 is causing the warming."
AlleyCat
2017-08-07 05:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 23:08:58 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Instead, natural changes in Earth's orbit, bringing the planet closer
to the Sun, caused the warming, according to the dissident view.
CO² Ended Last Ice Age -- Yeah, AFTER the temperatures started going up
anyway. (see below)
Sad little coward snipped the article.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/carbon-dioxide-ended-the-last-ice-age-according-to-a-new-study/news-story/446d90e7e4865b8981b558c08a81f70e
"Our study shows that CO2 was a much more important factor and was really
driving worldwide warming during the last deglaciation."
"OUR study".... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

During the LAST deglaciation... you mean back during the Big Banglocene?

Ahhhh... so, it's OK for you bogans to hearken back to the LAST
glaciation, but "we're" not even supposed to go back to the Medieval Warm
Period to PROVE warming happens WITHOUT man's influence, or the Little Ice
Age to prove that OF COURSE IT'S GETTING WARMER... look what it's
following.
Post by Unum
"Putting all of these records together into a reconstruction of global
temperatures shows a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the
Ice Age," said Shakun.
CORRELATION, dumb ass... not CAUSATION. Yes... CO² DOES go up when it gets
warmer... I repeat... WHEN IT GETS WARMER... first.

https://vimeo.com/223697931

If you want, I can give you Dr. Clark's email address and YOU can call him
a liar.
Post by Unum
A rise in carbon dioxide "actually precedes global temperature range, which is
what you would expect if CO2 is causing the warming."
But we don't. And what, exactly, is "temperature RANGE"? Why can't they
just say, I mean if it's true, "actually precedes global temperature
RISE"?

LOL... always the caveat or "buzzword" of the day, with you climate
hysterical bogans.
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-07 05:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.

Fuck off.
Enki
2017-08-07 19:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Seaview
2017-08-07 19:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Sad little coward snipped the article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
Unum
2017-08-07 20:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
Sad little coward snipped the article.
How many sockpuppets do you think you need, boy?
Post by Seaview
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
So thoroughly slam-dunk debunked.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a
hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a
representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s
State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the
scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major
concern.
Seaview
2017-08-07 20:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
Sad little coward snipped the article.
How many sockpuppets do you think you need, boy?
How many doe sittake to get the truth into oyuur head, shitbag?
Post by Unum
Post by Seaview
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
So thoroughly slam-dunk debunked.
Nope.
Post by Unum
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global
warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people,
It is.
Post by Unum
and ends with a quote by a
representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s
State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth."
So fucking what?

That says NOTHING about the negative feedback loop, you gutless AGW whore.

And it does NOT address the essay that I presented either, shitbag.
Post by Unum
It is the gaping flaws
in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our
major concern.
Flaws that you FAILED to address.

Again:

"As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop. '

Now address the mechanics of it, cunt.

Or STFU forever!
Unum
2017-08-08 00:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
Sad little coward snipped the article.
How many sockpuppets do you think you need, boy?
How many doe sittake to get the truth into oyuur head, shitbag?
Got so excited you couldn't even type, so damn hilarious! Maybe
you can get one of the other sockpuppets to help!
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
Post by Seaview
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
So thoroughly slam-dunk debunked.
Nope.
Tooo stooopid to read it?
Post by Seaview
Post by Unum
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming
a hoax perpetrated on the American people,
It is.
Post by Unum
and ends with a quote by a
representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s
State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth."
So fucking what?
That says NOTHING about the negative feedback loop, you gutless AGW whore.
Read the rebuttal, you deliberately ignorant dumbass. And then of course,
warming that has already occurred as a result of increased CO2 is more
than the "two tenths of a degree C" claimed by Gray.

"By balancing a 4 W/m2 (top of atmosphere) CO2 radiative forcing against
changes in evaporation, Gray concludes that the warming from doubling CO2
would be a mere two tenths of a degree C.. He ascribes the weak warming to the
lack of water vapor feedback in his calculation, but in fact it is simply due
to an incorrect calculation of the energy balance. Standard radiative physics
based on a correct treatment of the top-of-atmosphere balance– physics going
back at least to Arrhenius– yields a surface warming of about 1C in response
to a doubling of CO2, when water vapor feedback is neglected. Gray has
committed the major blunder of applying that 4 W/m2 top of atmosphere forcing
at the surface. In reality, when that radiative forcing is properly applied at
the top of the atmosphere, it leads to a warming of the entire atmospheric
column which, at the surface, yields a far larger perturbation in the surface
energy budget"
SeaSnake
2017-08-08 15:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Read the rebuttal,
READ THE DYNAMICS!



Again:

"As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop. '

Now address the mechanics of it, cunt.

Or STFU forever!
Unum
2017-08-08 18:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Unum
Read the rebuttal,
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Get one of your sockpuppets to explain it to you.
Post by SeaSnake
"As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not
increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather
than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas
increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a
negative feedback loop. '
Clearly a lie as shown by decades of extensive observations.
Post by SeaSnake
Now address the mechanics of it, cunt.
Already totally blown away in the brutally thorough rebuttal you
were tooo stoopid to read.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Post by SeaSnake
Or STFU forever!
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass?
SeaSnake
2017-08-08 19:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by SeaSnake
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Get one
READ THE DYNAMICS!



Again:

"As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop. '

Now address the mechanics of it, cunt.

Or STFU forever!
Unum
2017-08-09 02:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Unum
Post by SeaSnake
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Get one
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Hey don't run off yet. Cite observed evidence that anything
William Gray said in his 17-year-old screed has turned out to
be true.
SeaSnake
2017-08-09 15:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by SeaSnake
Post by Unum
Post by SeaSnake
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Get one
READ THE DYNAMICS!
Hey don't run off
The southern hemisphere has been COOLING!

https://www.sott.net/article/353204-Southern-Hemisphere-cooling-trend-is-now-apparent

David Archibald has today given the most up to date information on our
Sun entering a grand solar minimum and the State of the Sun, now with
the past 5 winters under our belts we can look for trends. I present to
you the trend of a cooling Southern Hemisphere.


Ya know, a planet has TWO hemispheres.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.

Loading...