September 16, 2021
Arguing with Idiots Baby Climate Edition III
Timothy Birdnow
Like a Weeble, this guy wobbles but he doesn't fall down. That is true of the mediocre and the stupid; they tend to never surrender when the field is taken from them.
It's why the Democrats are so effective; they have inexhaustible morons as foot soldiers.
At any rate, my argument with John Wait continues:
John says:
The last six years have been the 6 hottest years in recorded history. The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are the lowest in recorded history. Last year was the most active for hurricanes in known history and the trend has been growing for both more frequent and more severe storms. Forrest fires are more common and or severe then ever. The u.s. has seen more and more as well as more severe natural disasters then ever before. These are verifiable facts. As is over 97% of climate scientists believe we are experiencing climate change. But you believe in whatever fantasies you want. I trust science and facts.
I reply:
John Wait you say: " the last six years have been the 6 hottest years in recorded history. "
Hottest if you disregard the other previously hotter years. NOAA and NASA have both been caught "smoothing" the data to make previous temperature records fall. https://climatechangedispatch.com/how-noaa-nasa-doctored-the-temperature-data-sets/
It's a dirty trick and one that they wouldn't need to do if science were really on their side. And it's not really true; the '30's we are least as warm. They are using a fraction of a degree and fudging it. You either are too dim to grasp that or dishonest. The fact is all of this is merely an argument going back to 1979, I might add, when satellite data started being kept. We have no way of knowing the planet's temperature except in the roughest way. We do not measure the surface temperature at every point on Earth. Surface data is taken from specific sites, sites which have often been swallowed by cities and warmed by urban heat sinks or eliminated and estimated. Any honest scientist would admit that.
The '30's were the warmest. See https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/1930s-was-by-far-the-hottest-decade-in-the-us/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
You say; "Last year was the most active for hurricanes in known history" Prove that, I dare you!
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. You are quick on opinion but rarely provide evidence to back it up. I quote from this Manhattan Institute article on the subject: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/hurricane-season-historical-context "Looking at the historical data, one does not find a startling increase in hurricane activity in recent decades, and only modest evidence to suggest that hurricanes in the Atlantic basin are increasing either in number or severity." The article provides the data from the National Hurricane Center showing that what you said is total bullshit.
Hurricane activity was quite low in the late 20th century and is only returning to normal now. No doubt whatever propaganda you read started with 1980 as it's baseline to fool gullible people.
Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm is a table of major hurricanes throughout the last century. As you can see there is no discernible pattern to strength or frquency.
Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table2.htm is another table showing deadliness. Here is the source. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html As for wildfires, perhaps you missed it, but climate change presupposes a WETTER world since more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, not a dryer.
By the very basics of the theory there should logically be fewer fires, not more. I have already explained to you that most of the fires are a result of mismanagement due to modern environmentalist thinking; they refuse to cull the forests or clean them out on the theory that "natural" is better. Well, it is "natural" to have forests culled by wildfires. I guess you are incapable of grasping that simple fact. You just ignored everything I said in my previous post. Even the terribly alarmist NPR admits there are multiple reasons for the spate of wildfires of late that have nothing to do with climate change. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913465601/climate-change-is-not-the-only-reason-for-record-wildfires There are not greater wildfires. In fact they were worse. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-the-past/
It must also be pointed out that numerous people in Australia and Brazil and even California were arrested in the last few years SETTING fires. They were radical environmentalists and wanted to fool gullible people into blaming it on "climate change" when in fact it was political terrorism. None of that seems to percolate through your noggin.
I have already pointed out to you that the icecap in Antarctica is growing, not shrinking. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/?fbclid=IwAR1SfUAHc5RhQlxBO8qJMC6nfAnifkDbNzMGJ40jkSgbLmy3gBPY-_tgspc#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20new%20analysis%20of%20satellite%20data%2C,of%20ice%20per%20year%20between%202003%20and%202008You dismiss this with a wave of the hand "begone!"
I have already denunked your idiotic 97% claim yet you simply ignore all the evidence. If it were true why are we having this discussion at all? The so-called "deniers" would have no scientists to quote, not data to push back with, no evidence. Yet here we are. And I provided you with a long list of scientists who have openly disputed the "consensus." Yet you come back with the same tired talking points over and over. You never debate the points we make. You are, sir, a dishonest cretin. A liar. There is little more that can be said of you at this point. You do not debate when challenged with facts, you stick to your talking points and repeat like a parrot. The key to successful propaganda is to repeat simple statements as fact over and over until people accept it as conventional wisdom. That is what you are doing here.
This crowd is more savvy than that; stop wasting our time.
If you trust science and facts then why do you not actually debate them? You simply hang on talking points John Wait. No; you are superstitious, a believer in Scientism and politicized cargo cult science, not actual science as we know it. Like the New Guinnea natives who built landing strips so planes could deliver cargo from the gods you build what looks like a scientific case out of moonbeams and spun sugar. But it does not stand up to real scientific scrutiny Mr. Wait says:
Actually I have a master's degree and met all the requirements of my PhD before going into business. I was trained as a scientist. Were you?
Timothy BirdnowYour statement is incoherent. I am stating verifiable facts (Research them! you might learn something), not quoting wild speculation or quoting conspiracy theorists. And this entire discussion proves I am willing to debate it.
I reply:
No John Wait, you are NOT debating facts. You are making assertions then saying "look it up" because you know if you get into particulars your argument will fall. That is the oldest trick in the book. I have provided evidence - real science. I provided a link from NASA, for instance, which stated plainly that Antarctica has gained ice mass. You simply ignored it. You did so because it didn't help your case. I think it is YOU who needs to research facts and not just talking points from Skeptical Science.
No John Wait, you are NOT debating facts. You are making assertions then saying "look it up" because you know if you get into particulars your argument will fall. That is the oldest trick in the book. I have provided evidence - real sci ence. I provided a link from NASA, for instance, which stated plainly that Antarctica has gained ice mass. You simply ignored it. You did so because it didn't help your case. I think it is YOU who needs to research facts and not just talking points from Skeptical Science.
Wait doesn't keep us waiting:
You really need to get your facts straight. Here is the governement website. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/265/video-antarctic-ice-mass-loss-2002-2020/#:~:text=The%20Antarctic%20ice%20sheet's%20mass,to%20global%20sea%20level%20rise.
Timothy Birdnow What are your science qualifications?
I reply:
Well bully for you John Wait. You clearly made the right choice not going into the hard sciences; you are incapable of understanding them. You say "But its not my qualifications that count. It's the 97% of the scientific community that agrees with what I'm saying." That is a bald-faced lie and always has been.Again, here is a very long list of scientists who disagree with the supposed 97%. https://
John Wait I already provided you with NASA's data, which says Antarctica is gaining ice mass.https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Ffeature%2Fgoddard%2Fnasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0Ur9T732-INr6WrqMTKxOGJUTJ_N8KU6eeZ1vfxUtaTmeZdzhE4TJe9os%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAccording%2520to%2520the%2520new%2520analysis%2520of%2520satellite%2520data%252C%2Cof%2520ice%2520per%2520year%2520between%25202003%2520and%25202008&h=AT0P5EoFQhLytwviGku9hTsPai618hQVwa1td9TzHzEOnP4ZS2zNfA5FZvzQo22VOy4Nt1VE69KtIjBXOwgcfmkJq58WvjpbJ1bA7MneG_3KpWSx2VdfBzYGm0wbNHg0QXLbm_REXr0 Most of claims of Ice Loss in Antarctica center on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf and the Antarctic Peninsula which are losing mass. But East Antarctica has been gaining. I guess you don't understand that, do you. Icesat showed EA has gained this decade, and it is more than WAIS has lost. (BTW WAIS and the Antarctic Peninsula have active volcanoes - many of them - under the ice. And WAIS is mostly floating on water.)
Oh, yes; I have a certificate in Russian scientifric translation and used to translate physics papers back when I was younger. Studied astronomy and physics while in college, although I majored in History and in Russian.
Mr. Wait retorts:
That article if you actually READ it show it gained mass up to 2009. It has been losing massive amounts of mass the past six years as stated in recent studies.
Then you should know the difference between old studies and recent ones
I retort:
John Wait define "massive". Antarctica is well below freezing almost the entire year, yet you say it is losing "massive" amounts of ice. And kindly explain how a place that is too cold for ice to melt is losing "massive" amounts of it.
Again, the loses are all in the volcanic regions.
The long-term trend is towards ice gain there as you ought to understand. The ice gain was determined by ten years of Icesat observations which showed 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 gained.
As of 2015 Antarctica had gained ice. How did that happen when we are in this period of global warming? It's a strange warming that leads to ice growth. Now you say it's suddenly switched to ice loss. Explain that please. You can't.
Icesat actually measures the ice with lasers. GRACE, which is what they used to determine the "loss" looks for gravitational anomalies. GRACE had always been plagued with problems from the time they launched the program.
And in fact the forty year record shows ice gain, not loss. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
And while SEA ice has shrunk considerably in the last couple of years it was only after a forty year high, a high which came during the peak of so-called warming. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414
You seem content to believe what you hear from those who stand to gain financially from apocalyptic predictions. NASA is one such. Joanna Simpson, the first female climate scientist to work for NASA, came out quite strongly against them. She admitted to being muzzled in her doubts about climate change. NASA funding was tied in no small part to these doomsday predictions (well, when it wasn't tied to Muslim outreach under Obama.)
In point of fact we KNOW from the leaked Climategate e-mails that there was a cabal at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (who put out the HADCRUT data) that there WAS in fact attempts to fudge data, as well as manipulate peer review and bully journal editors. Look it up. They are on record.
We KNOW about Michael Mann's "Nature trick" where he used incompatible data to falsify the historical record. So I take what I hear from big government agencies with a grain of salt.
Oh, the difference between old studies and new ones? You should know the difference between studying a three year trend and a forty year trend.
BTW Nobody ever seems to be able to explain how the addition of less than one carbon dioxide molecule into every ten thousand molecules of air can drive this "massive" warming. Can you? Can you explain how it is doing this despite the logarithmic nature of CO2 to increasing heat? You do know Roger Revelle, the godfather of AGW theory, admitted it could at most increase planetary temperatures by 2 degrees and thought of it primarily as a curiosity (at least until he was old and they badgered him into a more alarmist position). You do understand that the argument is CO2 drives water vapor evaporation, which traps more heat? That means your idea that fires are mroe prevalent is hogwash as more water vapor means more rain. More cloud cover too, which reflects more light.
You do realize that despite your claims of increased adverse weather events drowning incidents are down worldwide? See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db413.htm for U.S. data, but you can find that drowing has gone done worldwide.
That number should be going UP if what you believe is true.
Explain the "pause".
Explain the absence of a tropical tropospheric hot spot.
Explain where the "missing heat" has gone.
What you have is an hypothesis, not even a theory. You have marginal changing weather and proudly proclaim it is settled science.
Like a Weeble, this guy wobbles but he doesn't fall down. That is true of the mediocre and the stupid; they tend to never surrender when the field is taken from them.
It's why the Democrats are so effective; they have inexhaustible morons as foot soldiers.
At any rate, my argument with John Wait continues:
John says:
The last six years have been the 6 hottest years in recorded history. The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are the lowest in recorded history. Last year was the most active for hurricanes in known history and the trend has been growing for both more frequent and more severe storms. Forrest fires are more common and or severe then ever. The u.s. has seen more and more as well as more severe natural disasters then ever before. These are verifiable facts. As is over 97% of climate scientists believe we are experiencing climate change. But you believe in whatever fantasies you want. I trust science and facts.
I reply:
John Wait you say: " the last six years have been the 6 hottest years in recorded history. "
Hottest if you disregard the other previously hotter years. NOAA and NASA have both been caught "smoothing" the data to make previous temperature records fall. https://climatechangedispatch.com/how-noaa-nasa-doctored-the-temperature-data-sets/
It's a dirty trick and one that they wouldn't need to do if science were really on their side. And it's not really true; the '30's we are least as warm. They are using a fraction of a degree and fudging it. You either are too dim to grasp that or dishonest. The fact is all of this is merely an argument going back to 1979, I might add, when satellite data started being kept. We have no way of knowing the planet's temperature except in the roughest way. We do not measure the surface temperature at every point on Earth. Surface data is taken from specific sites, sites which have often been swallowed by cities and warmed by urban heat sinks or eliminated and estimated. Any honest scientist would admit that.
The '30's were the warmest. See https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/1930s-was-by-far-the-hottest-decade-in-the-us/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
You say; "Last year was the most active for hurricanes in known history" Prove that, I dare you!
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. You are quick on opinion but rarely provide evidence to back it up. I quote from this Manhattan Institute article on the subject: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/hurricane-season-historical-context "Looking at the historical data, one does not find a startling increase in hurricane activity in recent decades, and only modest evidence to suggest that hurricanes in the Atlantic basin are increasing either in number or severity." The article provides the data from the National Hurricane Center showing that what you said is total bullshit.
Hurricane activity was quite low in the late 20th century and is only returning to normal now. No doubt whatever propaganda you read started with 1980 as it's baseline to fool gullible people.
Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm is a table of major hurricanes throughout the last century. As you can see there is no discernible pattern to strength or frquency.
Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table2.htm is another table showing deadliness. Here is the source. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html As for wildfires, perhaps you missed it, but climate change presupposes a WETTER world since more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, not a dryer.
By the very basics of the theory there should logically be fewer fires, not more. I have already explained to you that most of the fires are a result of mismanagement due to modern environmentalist thinking; they refuse to cull the forests or clean them out on the theory that "natural" is better. Well, it is "natural" to have forests culled by wildfires. I guess you are incapable of grasping that simple fact. You just ignored everything I said in my previous post. Even the terribly alarmist NPR admits there are multiple reasons for the spate of wildfires of late that have nothing to do with climate change. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913465601/climate-change-is-not-the-only-reason-for-record-wildfires There are not greater wildfires. In fact they were worse. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-the-past/
It must also be pointed out that numerous people in Australia and Brazil and even California were arrested in the last few years SETTING fires. They were radical environmentalists and wanted to fool gullible people into blaming it on "climate change" when in fact it was political terrorism. None of that seems to percolate through your noggin.
I have already pointed out to you that the icecap in Antarctica is growing, not shrinking. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/?fbclid=IwAR1SfUAHc5RhQlxBO8qJMC6nfAnifkDbNzMGJ40jkSgbLmy3gBPY-_tgspc#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20new%20analysis%20of%20satellite%20data%2C,of%20ice%20per%20year%20between%202003%20and%202008You dismiss this with a wave of the hand "begone!"
I have already denunked your idiotic 97% claim yet you simply ignore all the evidence. If it were true why are we having this discussion at all? The so-called "deniers" would have no scientists to quote, not data to push back with, no evidence. Yet here we are. And I provided you with a long list of scientists who have openly disputed the "consensus." Yet you come back with the same tired talking points over and over. You never debate the points we make. You are, sir, a dishonest cretin. A liar. There is little more that can be said of you at this point. You do not debate when challenged with facts, you stick to your talking points and repeat like a parrot. The key to successful propaganda is to repeat simple statements as fact over and over until people accept it as conventional wisdom. That is what you are doing here.
This crowd is more savvy than that; stop wasting our time.
If you trust science and facts then why do you not actually debate them? You simply hang on talking points John Wait. No; you are superstitious, a believer in Scientism and politicized cargo cult science, not actual science as we know it. Like the New Guinnea natives who built landing strips so planes could deliver cargo from the gods you build what looks like a scientific case out of moonbeams and spun sugar. But it does not stand up to real scientific scrutiny Mr. Wait says:
Actually I have a master's degree and met all the requirements of my PhD before going into business. I was trained as a scientist. Were you?
Timothy BirdnowYour statement is incoherent. I am stating verifiable facts (Research them! you might learn something), not quoting wild speculation or quoting conspiracy theorists. And this entire discussion proves I am willing to debate it.
I reply:
No John Wait, you are NOT debating facts. You are making assertions then saying "look it up" because you know if you get into particulars your argument will fall. That is the oldest trick in the book. I have provided evidence - real science. I provided a link from NASA, for instance, which stated plainly that Antarctica has gained ice mass. You simply ignored it. You did so because it didn't help your case. I think it is YOU who needs to research facts and not just talking points from Skeptical Science.
No John Wait, you are NOT debating facts. You are making assertions then saying "look it up" because you know if you get into particulars your argument will fall. That is the oldest trick in the book. I have provided evidence - real sci ence. I provided a link from NASA, for instance, which stated plainly that Antarctica has gained ice mass. You simply ignored it. You did so because it didn't help your case. I think it is YOU who needs to research facts and not just talking points from Skeptical Science.
Wait doesn't keep us waiting:
You really need to get your facts straight. Here is the governement website. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/265/video-antarctic-ice-mass-loss-2002-2020/#:~:text=The%20Antarctic%20ice%20sheet's%20mass,to%20global%20sea%20level%20rise.
Timothy Birdnow What are your science qualifications?
I reply:
Well bully for you John Wait. You clearly made the right choice not going into the hard sciences; you are incapable of understanding them. You say "But its not my qualifications that count. It's the 97% of the scientific community that agrees with what I'm saying." That is a bald-faced lie and always has been.Again, here is a very long list of scientists who disagree with the supposed 97%. https://
John Wait I already provided you with NASA's data, which says Antarctica is gaining ice mass.https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Ffeature%2Fgoddard%2Fnasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0Ur9T732-INr6WrqMTKxOGJUTJ_N8KU6eeZ1vfxUtaTmeZdzhE4TJe9os%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAccording%2520to%2520the%2520new%2520analysis%2520of%2520satellite%2520data%252C%2Cof%2520ice%2520per%2520year%2520between%25202003%2520and%25202008&h=AT0P5EoFQhLytwviGku9hTsPai618hQVwa1td9TzHzEOnP4ZS2zNfA5FZvzQo22VOy4Nt1VE69KtIjBXOwgcfmkJq58WvjpbJ1bA7MneG_3KpWSx2VdfBzYGm0wbNHg0QXLbm_REXr0 Most of claims of Ice Loss in Antarctica center on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf and the Antarctic Peninsula which are losing mass. But East Antarctica has been gaining. I guess you don't understand that, do you. Icesat showed EA has gained this decade, and it is more than WAIS has lost. (BTW WAIS and the Antarctic Peninsula have active volcanoes - many of them - under the ice. And WAIS is mostly floating on water.)
Oh, yes; I have a certificate in Russian scientifric translation and used to translate physics papers back when I was younger. Studied astronomy and physics while in college, although I majored in History and in Russian.
Mr. Wait retorts:
That article if you actually READ it show it gained mass up to 2009. It has been losing massive amounts of mass the past six years as stated in recent studies.
Then you should know the difference between old studies and recent ones
I retort:
John Wait define "massive". Antarctica is well below freezing almost the entire year, yet you say it is losing "massive" amounts of ice. And kindly explain how a place that is too cold for ice to melt is losing "massive" amounts of it.
Again, the loses are all in the volcanic regions.
The long-term trend is towards ice gain there as you ought to understand. The ice gain was determined by ten years of Icesat observations which showed 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008 gained.
As of 2015 Antarctica had gained ice. How did that happen when we are in this period of global warming? It's a strange warming that leads to ice growth. Now you say it's suddenly switched to ice loss. Explain that please. You can't.
Icesat actually measures the ice with lasers. GRACE, which is what they used to determine the "loss" looks for gravitational anomalies. GRACE had always been plagued with problems from the time they launched the program.
And in fact the forty year record shows ice gain, not loss. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
And while SEA ice has shrunk considerably in the last couple of years it was only after a forty year high, a high which came during the peak of so-called warming. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414
You seem content to believe what you hear from those who stand to gain financially from apocalyptic predictions. NASA is one such. Joanna Simpson, the first female climate scientist to work for NASA, came out quite strongly against them. She admitted to being muzzled in her doubts about climate change. NASA funding was tied in no small part to these doomsday predictions (well, when it wasn't tied to Muslim outreach under Obama.)
In point of fact we KNOW from the leaked Climategate e-mails that there was a cabal at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (who put out the HADCRUT data) that there WAS in fact attempts to fudge data, as well as manipulate peer review and bully journal editors. Look it up. They are on record.
We KNOW about Michael Mann's "Nature trick" where he used incompatible data to falsify the historical record. So I take what I hear from big government agencies with a grain of salt.
Oh, the difference between old studies and new ones? You should know the difference between studying a three year trend and a forty year trend.
BTW Nobody ever seems to be able to explain how the addition of less than one carbon dioxide molecule into every ten thousand molecules of air can drive this "massive" warming. Can you? Can you explain how it is doing this despite the logarithmic nature of CO2 to increasing heat? You do know Roger Revelle, the godfather of AGW theory, admitted it could at most increase planetary temperatures by 2 degrees and thought of it primarily as a curiosity (at least until he was old and they badgered him into a more alarmist position). You do understand that the argument is CO2 drives water vapor evaporation, which traps more heat? That means your idea that fires are mroe prevalent is hogwash as more water vapor means more rain. More cloud cover too, which reflects more light.
You do realize that despite your claims of increased adverse weather events drowning incidents are down worldwide? See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db413.htm for U.S. data, but you can find that drowing has gone done worldwide.
That number should be going UP if what you believe is true.
Explain the "pause".
Explain the absence of a tropical tropospheric hot spot.
Explain where the "missing heat" has gone.
What you have is an hypothesis, not even a theory. You have marginal changing weather and proudly proclaim it is settled science.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 2424 words, total size 18 kb.
39kb generated in CPU 0.0267, elapsed 0.2262 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2175 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2175 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
