Why is the climate changing. (Page 324) bonzono: Are you claiming that your 'expertise' in botany, is superior to, and more relevant than the experience and qualifications ofnnasa climate researchers? bonzono: Do tell, loin, which of those three you can show to be a lie. Your failure to show anything is a lie, will be taken as a concession that, in fact, your comments and claims are probably themselves, lies. So- show away, or make excuses not to, and demonstrate further, your dishonesty and incompetence. Sir Loin: This so called conspiracy blog contained some very relevant data properly referenced which I extracted. It wasn't created by some anti science fool but it was posted on the blog, I copied it. Now STFU about it bitch bonzono: ERM, that conspiracy blog you referred me to was supposed to present a discussion about something NASA said. Instead, it said something completely different and contained no data at all, I can give you the link if you want, because you certainly didn't access it. If you think you did, great, show me what data you claim you extracted. bonzono: Notice that you STILL haven't shown ANYWHERE that you've provided anything at all resembling analysis. So far, my accusations are 109% correct, you admit to accessing anti science, anti cancer websites.and you STILL fail to provide analysis . And you STILL think that your 'expertise' in mountain flowers is superior to, and more valid than the actually relevant qualifications thousands of researchers around the world. Matt_ Johnston: x.com/_ClimateCraze/status/1830251679801032852 Scientist have found that not only does the sun control our climate, but that CO2 produces logarithmically decreasing warming effects - to where it is now trivial. CO2 is a very poor warming agent, while at the same time it is a great plant food. John Shewchuk @_ClimateCraze Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM). Lt Col, USAF Retired, Meteorologist. Creator of RAOB Program. Former typhoon forecaster. NWS COOP Observer: 1995-2012. bonzono: Interesting. This guy who claims to be a climate scientist, suddenly thinks CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? He's gonna get a shock when he talks to actual scientists. Oh, wait..he's not a climate scientist? He's a...metrologist? Smells fishy. Hey Matt - link to citation needed there's too much probably wrong in what you just wrote, there likely lore tonit than what twitter is telling you (you realise what you posted is a twitter post, right?) bonzono: And yes the sundries control climate. Its the only source of energy input - scientists have known this for millennia, it's ... definitely not a new discovery Of course, it's not the MAIN modulator of climate. Atmosphere is. This is why planets without atmosphere do not have 'climate'. And CO2 is also a notoriously poor GHG, but, a GHG it is. More so when theres a lot of it, along with other, more powerful GHGs. As for cooling? Yeah, nah. CO2 doesn't cool the planet, because it preferentially absorbed reflected infrared, which is more abundant after the earth's surface is warmer ( ya know, cos warmer modies are brighter in this nfrared, which is a spectral band for CO2). SO, yeah, but..nah Tip- Elon Musk is a pretty blatant hack when it comes to actual science, this is why he was stupid about the Hyperloop and islys why he uses fake robots to push a product. Relyinhyon twitter for science is no better than a conspiracy blog. Sir Loin: Bozo a climate scientist needs to be an experienced meteorologist first in order to really understand just how atmosphere functions and Shewchuck is a certified consulting meteorologist, much the same as I was. That is a very senior and respected scientist. He did not claim CO2 is not a GHG, read again. As usual you're making shit up without really understanding the topic. He's another experienced scientist disagreeing with the carbon scam to join the ranks of hundreds worldwide (Edited by Sir Loin) Sir Loin: Thanks for your post Matt, I haven't met Shewchuck before, his time was just a little after mine, he sure talks a lot of sense. All his colleagues he mentions are saying exactly what I am and have been posting on this forum. Matt_ Johnston: This bozo bloke probably thinks he's "right wing" too lol Bozo seems to think nobody on Twitter is real either lol (Edited by Matt_ Johnston) Sir Loin: Dunno if Bozo thinks it's right wing, it accuses me of being a redneck bigot so it probably thinks I'm a right winger. But Bozo isn't capable of thought imo. bonzono: Well, loin, again, I'll point out you rely on conspiracy blogs for your 'science', and ... You don't even read the article to boot. And, as I keep pointing out, you're simply not qualified to claim you're more experienced than the thousands of researchers around the world. Since you rely on conspiracy blogs, loin, you are very very far from being qualified. You can claim you're qualified as much as you want, the simple demonstrated fact is that you can't do analysis, and you don't even understand the underlying physics. At best, you're help in some lab.a gofer. You HAVE STILL NOT produced ANY analyy, despite claiming you have - none is forthcoming. bonzono: As for Matt's post. I'll just reiterate that 'the sun controls out climate' is not the full picture, and is misleading. The sun provides the energy input, the res of the ecosystem - specifically the atmosphere 'controls' it - helped by E.g. geography etc.. Again, the reason there's no 'climate' on the moon EVEN THOUGH it receives the same W/m^2 as the earth is because theres no atmosphere. I hope we're not pretending this is a recent 'discovery' by scientists.... (Edited by bonzono) Sir Loin: Bozo I HAVE produced data, you just haven't looked at them They're there still, look again. You needn't state the obvious, of course there can't be a climate without atmosphere, don't pretend you're telling us something we don't know. Well done though, you touch on localised microclimates, this can be an interesting topic especially in a mountainous country like NZ (Edited by Sir Loin) bonzono: I repeatdly ask, where is ANY sane interpretation of ANY data.that justifies your claims?i That's CO2 increases before temps.. you've done nothing other than point to a graph with scales so big, you can't possibly make that claim.. For sunspots causing climate change - a claim directly and explicitly refuted by people who's job it is to interpret data, you've again done nothing but point to data which, because you can't analyse it properly, don't show anything at all. Loin, the BEST you've managed is to drag someone else's data, and claim you've made a point, the data show nothing like you're claiming it does, and if you did a single shred of actual analysis, you'd know that. So loin, again, where is ANY analysis you've done. Anything at all (oh and actual scientists can tell the difference between 'analysis' and 'interpretation', and that you can't do the latter without the former - actual scientists also know conspiracy blogs are laughable) So ...again again.. yiu claim, in a direct quote from you .'ive posted my analysis of the facts' Where loin? Where is your analysis that you claim exists? (Edited by bonzono) Sir Loin: Nobody has refuted my hypothesis except you Bozo. I use common sense and critical thinking to analyse the available data, I'm sorry if you don't possess either of those abilities. The data I quote on paleoclimates are widely known and undisputed anywhere, not even by NASA scientists. My thoughts on sunspots? These coincide with a solar maximum, currently we're in solar cycle 25 max so sunspots are numerous and temps are higher due to increased irradience. During solar minima, there are much fewer sunspots. After this max we can expect a solar minimum, with accompanying lower temps. See how simple it is? In your rush to insult and abuse me you complicate the issue unnecessarily with irrelevant details. Grow up | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
Wireclub is a social network that is all about chat and conversations. Discover endless topics with interesting people and chat rooms!
Copyright © 2005-2024 Wireclub Media Inc.