The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly (Synopsis)

"Greenhouse gases are the second most important factor for climate, after the Sun." -Syukuro Manabe

In 1967, a groundbreaking paper in climate science was published, detailing the inputs and feedbacks for the first accurate climate model. You don’t have to look far to find contentions that climate models are wrong, inaccurate and unreliable: 8 of the first 10 results on google state it. Yet if you look at the science, the original model, even at age 50, does a remarkable job of getting things right.

The increased emission of greenhouse gases, notably CO2, can have a massive impact on Earth's climate in just a few hundred years. We're witnessing that happen today. Image credit: U.S. National Parks Service. The increased emission of greenhouse gases, notably CO2, can have a massive impact on Earth's climate in just a few hundred years. We're witnessing that happen today. Image credit: U.S. National Parks Service.

The biggest success? Understanding how large-scale processes work, including the thermodynamic effects of adding additional greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere. The increase of temperature -- approximately 2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 -- was well known then, and continues to be well known today. There are uncertainties and difficulties in modern models, but that doesn’t mean there’s uncertainty surrounding global warming. Quite to the contrary, the evidence has never been better.

Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past few hundred thousand years. Image credit: NASA / NOAA. Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past few hundred thousand years. Image credit: NASA / NOAA.

The time for debate has long since passed, and claiming we live in a post-fact era doesn’t change the scientific truth or the urgency and necessity of global action. Come get the science today.

More like this

"Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it." -Mike Huckabee It only makes sense that scientists should debate and argue over…
“It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was, and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down.” -Isaac Asimov, The Last Question Each week brings new challenges, new questions, new topics and new things to think about here at Starts With A Bang! For those of you…
"One volcano puts out more toxic gases - one volcano - than man makes in a whole year. And when you look at this 'climate change,' and when you look at the regular climate change that we all have in the world, we have warm and we have cooling spells." -John Raese Every year, dozens of volcanoes…
"Being told about the effects of climate change is an appeal to our reason and to our desire to bring about change. But to see that Africans are the hardest hit by climate change, even though they generate almost no greenhouse gas, is a glaring injustice, which also triggers anger and outrage over…

It is amazing how good the first work was, and how good the current work continues to be. You won't hear that from the denier folks, obviously (including the most common representative of that group who posts here, where his name is the only honest thing he's ever said on the issue).

Part of the reason these models are so effectively ridiculed by the deniers (dishonestly, of course, since they grossly misrepresent the models and what they say) comes is in no small part due to this:

Models have been very effective in predicting climate change, but have not been as effective in predicting its impact on ecosystem[s] and human society. The distinction between the two has not been stated clearly.

The liars are very smooth at saying this means the models fail in any number of ways (just as they are smooth in lying when they say that climate science is not a real science and its practitioners support restricting the rights of people). Once the false narrative has been released the only way to counter it is with a technical discussion, and in today's world too many people "don't have time for that."

Hoo boy, we’re really pumping the petrol down this week aren’t we, Ethan? As if the planet weren’t warming enough! XD But I suppose it’s all part of fighting the good fight against science denial.

Here’s a match. Let the flames begin!

By Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 15 Mar 2017 #permalink

@Ethan
I’m not going to pull my punches here. Ethan has flat out lied to everyone. In the article he wrote the following bit in a way that made it appear to be not only a conclusion of the paper but a direct quote of the paper.

@Ethan wrote:

they were able to quantify the interrelationships between various contributing factors to the atmosphere, including temperature/humidity variations, and how that impacts the equilibrium temperature of Earth. Their major result, from 1967?

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C.

First of all that quote is not anywhere in the paper although there is similar language with regards to a 5-fold increase of stratospheric water vapor. Secondly, the number provided is wrong. Lastly, and worst of all it implies a conclusion which the authors roundly rejected. Here is the actual line from the paper's conclusion which Ethan mangled:

Doubling the existing CO2 content of the atmosphere has the effect of increasing the surfaced temperature by about 2.3°C for the atmosphere with the realistic distribution of relative humidity…

The HUGE difference between the author’s conclusion and Ethan’s is that Ethan’s statement is LINEAR. Ethan is saying that a doubling, every doubling will result in a 2°C increase in temperature. The authors go to great care to explain the opposite. The effect of CO2 differs wildly with temperature and through references to other papers shows the effect is logarithmic. Only at Earth’s 1967 temperature, with Earth’s 1967 level of CO2, with a fixed relative humidity at 0.77, and a fixed surface albedo of 0.102 does doubling CO2 get you 2.3°C.

Later @Ethan reaffirmed his made up linear relationship between CO2 and temperature:

What we've seen from the pre-industrial revolution until today matches that extremely well. We haven't doubled CO2, but we have increased it by about 50%. Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

If Earth’s atmosphere were simple the author’s 2.3°C number would be off because being logarithmic the vast majority of warming happens in the first 50% so we'd be ~1.8°C warmer, but you really can’t say the authors are wrong because relative humidity hasn’t stayed constant and neither has albedo. Relative humidity has been falling with increasing temperatures and cloud albedo also seems to be a negative feedback. This paper was a truly seminal work. It deserves all the accolades it gets. Not so with this this article. I simply don't believe this misinterpretation was accidental.

@Ethan. Do you want to know why people are loosing trust in scientists?

Denier, your long history of lying about what Ethan believes about free speech, and your history of misrepresentation of climate science should be enough for anyone familiar with you to say "Yeah, if he says it it's not true."

But, if it isn't, why, if you can't handle basic English, should you be trusted on anything past the level of grade school topics?

Do you want to know why people are loosing trust in scientists?

"I’m not asking anyone to trust me"

You should keep quiet then.

@Wow

You seem to fancy yourself to be quite good at math. I have a math problem for you.

The paper's authors predicted 2.3°C of warming with a doubling of CO2. The realized increase in CO2 was roughly 50% which translates to ~1.8°C with CO2's logarithmic curve. The observed warming in the data set @Ethan was looking at shows warming of about 0.9°C.

The predicted warming of the paper was 100% above observed warming. Ethan describes that much error as "Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly". Under normal circumstances Ethan cites a 5 sigma threshold for determining robust science.

Here's my question that requires math: Does the prediction of 100% too much warming fit Ethan's 5 sigma threshold? Or does Ethan seem to be waiving his typical requirement of robustness because political narrative is more important than truth and consistency in science?

"The predicted warming of the paper was 100% above observed warming. "

And we're still out of equilibrium, denier.

Well you sure are a dumbass, denier.

Moreover, the cooling forces mean more than 0.9C warming happened from CO2 and feedbacks.

Ethan,
I find your glossing over the shortfalls of our current understanding of the earth's climate with statements like " There are uncertainties and difficulties in modern models, but that doesn’t mean there’s uncertainty surrounding global warming." utterly absurd, because the uncertainty of the models actually does directly impact conclusions drawn from them about what the climate is doing. In fact, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the GCM models and what they predict, and in the case of global warming, by how much due to various attributable causes, both natural and man made.
.
You make a point of bringing up "In 1967, a groundbreaking paper in climate science was published, detailing the inputs and feedbacks for the first accurate climate model."
...ok. You don't cite the paper, and more importantly, you don't name the model, as they all have a name. Let's see how it compares with climatic record and against other GCMs. In truth, climate scientists actually have no idea how many inputs and feedbacks there actually are, as the system being modeled is very un-linear, which you are extremely disingenuous in failing to mention. As usual, you hand wave over great uncertainty to present a false narrative of serene scientific consensus, which is what a political PR advocate jockeying for influence and financing does, not an honest scientist searching for understanding. When there is doubt and uncertainty, you should say so openly. Scientists need to stop acting like a priesthood, it's not. Dissention is not 'anti-science' nonsense or heresy, it's supposed to be part of the process.
.
.https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/question.jsp
.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2017/03/14/why-are-climate-c…
.
The climate models you would appear to value so much also treat CO2 as if it had a linear 'forcing' effect. In scientific fact it doesn't, its influence as a greenhouse gas is entirely logarithmic.
.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon…
.
As far as the science of the influence of CO2 as a greenhouse gas goes, It greatly diminishes greatly after the first 20 or 30ppm. If you wish to talk about the real player in greenhouse gas effects, you would need to focus on water vapor, not CO2.

I'm well aware there are negative feedbacks but Ethan's statement refers to the net result. It is all inclusive baby.

Nope. That 0.9C claim of yours is absent those changes.

Sorry, you're still wrong and reaching here, denier.

So I guess your answer would be 'no, it doesn't reach Ethan's typical threshold'.

Other problems with your asinine claims, denier, are

1) it was a range given
2) there's an error bar on the temps too
both of which, though really hot on claiming "it's not science without error bars", you leap to ignore yourself without blinking
3) you've already been told that were not at equilibrium, and 2.3C was for ECS, which means about 3.4C per doubling ECS and we're looking, depending on how far out of equilibrium we are, between 3 and 3.4C per doubling, but little in a limit to higher figures.

"So I guess your answer would be ‘no,"

Only if you're making the same shit guessing other deniers managed, all of which were failures of wishful thinking and lies.

@Wow wrote:

1) it was a range given
2) there’s an error bar on the temps too
both of which, though really hot on claiming “it’s not science without error bars”, you leap to ignore yourself without blinking
3) you’ve already been told that were not at equilibrium, and 2.3C was for ECS, which means about 3.4C per doubling ECS and we’re looking, depending on how far out of equilibrium we are, between 3 and 3.4C per doubling, but little in a limit to higher figures.

Scientific papers are for reading. They aren't for rolling joints. But I will say that you do have quite an imagination when high. That isn't in the paper.

"Scientific papers are for reading."

Yes. And understanding.

Neither of which you bothered, with, denier.

I'm wrong. I did find the quote Ethan pulled. It was in the abstract. While Ethan's assertion of “Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly” is still ridiculous, the line that drew my wrath was indeed from the authors and my attacks directed at Ethan with regards to that line were unwarranted. Ethan did not lie. I was wrong.

"I’m wrong. "

No shit, sherlock.

"While Ethan’s assertion of “Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly” is still ridiculous"

The only ridiculous thing there is your claim, denier. MAde without any intelligence or investigation, only a deep DEEP hatred.

CO2 lags warming so the "Bull Hockey" Sticks can be tossed into the dustbin.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 15 Mar 2017 #permalink

Every one of two dozen or more research projects by a variety of people using a variety of data have all produced confirmation that the original hockey stick paper was accurate.

CO2 causes warming. If warming causes more CO2, then you have identified a feedback loop. So maybe the hockey sticks have underestimated the amount of warming that will result from human-emitted CO2.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Mar 2017 #permalink

One of the serious problems associated with the AGW issue is that many of the impacts (for there are more than one) of the carbon pollution burden is shared globally, while the benefits of the power produced are enjoyed locally. The UN’s efforts have been insufficient to halt his tragedy of the commons.

Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter, China, is not scheduled to reach its maximum carbon emissions for years. http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/chinas-carbon-emissions-report-…

Even the best results of carbon emission reductions in the EU and the U.S. will offset the increase expected over the next several years from China, and by another rapidly urbanizing country, India.

Sorry, that should read "Even the best results of carbon emission reductions in the EU and the U.S. will NOT offset the increase expected over the next several years from China, and by another rapidly urbanizing country, India."

"CO2 lags warming "

No it doesn't moron.

"Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,"

Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

And, finally, while China is doing something about it, the USA is being dumbasses on a gigantic scale and going balls-to-the-wall to make money off fossil fuels before the current crop retire or the problems become too obvious to ignore, even for them.

"And, finally, while China is doing something about it, ..."

Indeed it is.

It is increasing its carbon emissions

"It is increasing its carbon emissions"

Ah, again with the bullshit, teabaggie.

No, it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

The USA are ramping up CO2 emissions and knocking down renewables.

But ignorance is your forte, isn't it, teabaggie.

"... it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and ..."

And it is increasing its carbon emissions.

"And it is increasing its carbon emissions."

And is decreasing its carbon emissions.

unlike the usa which is reversing the renewables and increasing the fossil fuels.

"China’s carbon emissions are increasing."

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

Meanwhile there's the USA repealing fuel economy laws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EVJ3URZbF4

Unlike you, who choose which tiny segment of the past you want to live in, the tiny sliver of time between the USA being the biggest emitter in the world and it being once again the biggest emitter in the world, and live in the tiny slice of time where a country six times bigger than the USA JUST BARELY produced more CO2 than the USA, I live in all of reality.

Oh, and another classic own goal there, teabaggie.

Providing a link that proves you're full of shit.

USA: 16t/capita China 7t/capita.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-r…

Other main factors in the stalling of global CO2 emissions are the structural changes in the economy and energy mix of China. Coal demand in China has been slowly declining since 2014, by 0.8% in 2014 and 1.5% in 2015. Similarly, Chinese production of fossil-fuel-related electricity decreased by 2.7% in 2015, while hydropower production increased by 5%, other renewable electricity by 21% and nuclear energy by 29%. However, oil and natural gas consumption also increased, by about 5%. As a result, China’s CO2 emissions decreased in 2015 by 0.7%, which is the first decrease since 2000 and following three years of ‘low’ annual CO2 emission growth – of 2%, 4.5% and 2%, respectively.

Under normal circumstances Ethan cites a 5 sigma threshold for determining robust science.

Here’s my question that requires math: Does the prediction of 100% too much warming fit Ethan’s 5 sigma threshold?

This is comparing apples to skiers. The five sigma rule of thumb is useful for laboratory physics-based experiments that measure a comparatively independent quantity (meaning: other different experiments are unlikely to test the same bit of theory) and which are unlikely to be independently reproduced. In these types of experiments, scientists try to minimize the random errors as much as possible because random errors can be a killer if you plan to take only one relevant data point.

When you have a subject where many different measurements are relevant to testing a theory, and where lots of teams can make those measurements, you don't need to worry so much about random errors; the large reproduction effort plus the ability to use multiple independent types of data will take care of them. So it's a completely inappropriate standard. Much like I don't care if my lawnmover cuts every blade of grass to the same length, nobody cares if an individual temperature measurement of a specific place is accurate to 0.000028%. We don't need that because we have lots and lots of measurements of lots of different quantities all saying the same thing: atmospheric CO2 is rising, the Earth is warming.

Why is wow so rude to everyone who doesn't agree with him? Everyone knows that China is the #1 carbon emitting nation, and its emissions are going up not down. Don't facts mean anything anymore?

By Abolitionist (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

Why do you place it that way, abolutionist? It's kinda rude to claim it's "everyone who doesn't agree" with me.

I guess you are still running the tone argument.

Ever thought I was rude to assholes? Nah, doesn'tmake you feel superior, bacause you're not rude or even stern with assholes. Best to pretend it's entirely and solely personal.

You see, unlike ignorant arseholes like yourself, I can use my brain to think with rather than ask questions I cannot be arsed answering myself, or even trying to answer.

And, again unlike you, I can wait until there's some evidence before making asinine claims.

"Everyone knows..."

That I never said china WASN'T. It was even in my post, you fuckwit:

Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

Nut you don't like that reality, so you pretend it is 100% not there.

"and its emissions are going up not down"

LOL! What? You can't read, you fuckwit?

#34: March 16, 2017

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-r…

Other main factors in the stalling of global CO2 emissions are the structural changes in the economy and energy mix of China. Coal demand in China has been slowly declining since 2014, by 0.8% in 2014 and 1.5% in 2015. Similarly, Chinese production of fossil-fuel-related electricity decreased by 2.7% in 2015, while hydropower production increased by 5%, other renewable electricity by 21% and nuclear energy by 29%. However, oil and natural gas consumption also increased, by about 5%. As a result, China’s CO2 emissions decreased in 2015 by 0.7%, which is the first decrease since 2000 and following three years of ‘low’ annual CO2 emission growth – of 2%, 4.5% and 2%, respectively.

"Everyone knows ... its emissions are going up, not down"????

Fuck, you're an idiot.

I know, I know, why am I so rude to people who are wrong. Because the arsehole being wrong insists that it's just they disagree with me (more specifically, reality).

@Abolitionist

Insecurity. I could expand but in a nutshell that is it. He'll also never admit he's made an error for the same reason. Is what it is. He's not going to change.

You aren't insecure, denier. Just ideologically blind.

You could expand, but that would require support for your claims, but they can be found wrong and you can't afford that, your ego won' t manage it.

PS You are wrong, I have several times admitted I've made an error, but you don't desire to remember it, and it doesn't happen often enough to make it easy to find.

Mind you, ever managed to accept you in error about AGW? Nah. You could go into why, but reality doesn't help you.

@eric

The five sigma rule of thumb is useful for laboratory physics-based experiments
...
We don’t need that because we have lots and lots of measurements of lots of different quantities all saying the same thing: atmospheric CO2 is rising, the Earth is warming.

I was being facetious. Ethan's comment that this model predicted the amount of warming almost exactly is ridiculous on its face. It didn't. There are mitigations as I mentioned above but this model of a hypothetical Earth-like world did not even get close to observations here on real Earth. They got the direction right but that is about it. CO2 is rising. Earth is getting warmer, just not by this paper's predicted amount.

"I was being facetious. "

Not wrong, then? LOL!

"Ethan’s comment that this model predicted the amount of warming almost exactly is ridiculous on its face"

It wasn't. Still isn't. You were, oddly enough, WRONG, but unable to manage to admit it....

@ Denier

I just don't understand why he's so nasty. I guess he's not able to accept that other people are right sometimes and he's wrong.

By Abolitionist (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

Because you deserve it, abolitionist.

Like when you claim "Everyone knows chian's emissions are going up" ***AFTER*** I'd shown that they're going down in the last couple of years, because they're ramping up renewables and closing coal.

So, yeah, I'm nasty to you. If you don't like it, try not making an ass of yourself and check up what "everybody knows" before telling everyone what they know.

Or suck it up and continue being wrong.

"he’s not able to accept that other people are right sometimes and he’s wrong"

Well, point to where I was wrong, abolitionist. It wasn't "China's emissions are rising". And it wasn't me saying that China wasn't number one emitter (with aside from India, by far the biggest population).

If you are pissed off because I didn't say I was wrong and you were right when you were wrong, then you're going to have to keep bleating in butthurt shame.

@ #39

I'll leave to the more adept at psychological spelunking to infer motivations, but you're likely correct that he'll never change.

@ #36

You are correct. China’s carbon emissions exceed those of every other nation by any honest assessment.
Here is the breakdown for 2016: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-…

What he’s doing is taking China’s carbon emissions and dividing by its population, note the “USA: 16t/capita China 7t/capita”.

He’s not responding to the observation that China’s carbon emissions exceed those of every other nation, because if he did, he’d have to acknowledge that China is the largest (by far) carbon polluter.

"China’s carbon emissions exceed those of every other nation"

Not according to YOUR link, teabaggie.

YOUR link had USA at 16 and China at 7.

BAD BOY, TEABAGGIE!

"Here is the breakdown for 2016"

Oooh, so you're running rather more recently, then teabaggie! WELL DONE!

I am SOOOO GLAD that you are finally admitting that you have no refusal for my position, teabaggie, and have FINALLY found the right actual information as opposed to the bullshit you started off with!

HOWEVER, still a huge problem for you teabaggie, your claim china's emissions were increasing is wrong.

AAaaaaawwwww. But you're never going to admit to the facts that you were wrong. Are you teabaggie.

So close to reality, and you'll fumble the ball at the end.

"He’s not responding to the observation that China’s carbon emissions exceed those of every other nation,"

Because Ive never said it isn't, teabaggie.

Another fake claim fromyou without evidence. A thing you REALLY HATE anyone else doing, but your hipocrisy is as massive as your ignorance, though still dwarfed by your ego.

And I bet you will never respond to the claim about China's emissions going down, or how China has 6x the population, and most of the production of the west to fulfill. Or how the USA is reversing and will regain their number one spot as worlds biggest emitter the way they're going.

These facts are uncomfortable for you and your ego.

"What he’s doing is taking China’s carbon emissions and dividing by its population"

What you were doing, teabaggie.

#31:

“… And is decreasing its carbon emissions. …”

You are mistaken.

China’s carbon emissions are increasing.

That’s the conclusion the evidence supports.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

What? Did you forget to look AT YOUR OWN LINK????

@ John

So since the graph has China at 28.21%, and the US at 15.99%, wow is just lying when he tries to make that China is somehow not the #1 polluter!

All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen.

By Abolitionist (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

"wow is just lying when he tries to make that China is somehow not the #1 polluter!"

Go ahead and show where I said they were not, abolutionist.

I know you're PRETENDING you have read it, but go back and try again. It doesn't say what you "think" it says.

PS take a look at the population density. And also check whether china's emissions are increasing.You know, the thing you said "everyone knew" was true.

LOL!

I guess this is all just you trying to blow smoke up your own ass, eh?

Remember, you can;t piss and moan about what I've said if you also don't read what I say. But if you're the dishonest asshole I'm treating you as, you won't actually bother with reading, will you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsib…

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

LOL!

Oh, and before the butthurt whine about what that was about, remember back at what I said when I was supposedly wrong:

#26:

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

I hope some warmists are still reading these comments. I keep hearing the warmists say the IPCC models work. But I've never seen it. The first IPCC report came out in 1990. That's 27 years ago. Certainly enough time to prove the models work. Does anyone have a link that shows the 1990 IPCC model first actual temps over the last 25 years or so? If the models worked well over the last 25 years, I'd show that graph anytime said CAGW was a fraud. The fact that I've never seen anything like that makes me highly skeptical the models do actually work. I keep hearing that, but I've never seen it. Can anyone show me?

By David Ging (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

Well, you keep hiding your face behind your hands when the "scary bits" come up, so of course *you* have never seen it.

"Does anyone have a link that shows the 1990 IPCC model first actual temps over the last 25 years or so?"

Yeah. Feel lucky punk?

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…

The fact that you've never looked is why you've never seen anything like that.

@ wow

Fuck you, you lying bullshit artist.

I'm gone. I don't need to put up with your pseudoscience cap.

There are real science blogs.

By Abolitionist (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

"@ wow

Fuck you"

You first!

" you lying bullshit artist."

Ah, I called it, didn't I? "But if you’re the dishonest asshole I’m treating you as, you won’t actually bother with reading, will you." Because you never actually read what I wrote, or didn't care.

"your pseudoscience cap."

Yeah, but that's what you "think" is being written, because that's what you expect there and you're sure as shit aren't going to actually check your recollection is right, are you.

Well, I see that topic of infrared absorption and re-emission by carbon dioxide molecules in the Earth's atmosphere has once again been livened up by the interjection of financially motivated mindlessness! Who is going to win this contest of wits, ladies and gentlemen? The Wall Street Journal Op Ed readers? The Limbaugh and Hannity listeners? The scientists who actually study this topic and understand it? Or the fearless live pigeon shooter and fossil fuel spokesmen from hell, Jim Inhofe? Stay tuned....

Yeah, but you refuse to stop doing it, teabaggie.

But it's funny to see you unable to either accept the facts provided or even attempt to counter them, preferring to ignore the facts when they don't help your ego trip.

"Yeah, but you refuse to stop doing it ..."

Yes. I'll continue to post facts corroborated independently with references. For example, that China has been the the #1 carbon emitting nation on Earth for many years.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015&sort=des9

Not, of course, that mere facts will influence your opinion, or behavior.

"“Yeah, but you refuse to stop doing it [certain sacks of metabolic residue are successfully driving clicks away from the site.]…”

Yes."

Well, at least you admit you're a certain sack of metabolic residue successfully driving clicks away from the site, teabaggie.

"China has been the the #1 carbon emitting nation on Earth for many years"

And neglect that this is not news to me, teabaggie.

So sad that you have the desperate need to pretend there's something to beat me with when all you beat is yourself.

@ #52

If you ever stop in again ...

"...All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen"

Yes, it was all just a smokescreen. China has been the #1 carbon polluter since around 2005. Ref here the link in my post above.

China's emissions are projected to peak somewhere between 2025 and 2030.
http://www.nature.com/news/china-s-carbon-emissions-could-peak-sooner-t…

You'll notice that he doesn't - can't - bring himself to admit that China has been, is, and is projected to remain for years the world's #1 carbon polluter.

He'll divide the total emissions by the population, or the GDP. He'll say the really important number is this, that, or the other, but he'll never, ever, admit that someone else was right and he was wrong.

Good luck!

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

All what bullshit? Yours, teabaggie. The only bullshitter on this thread. You LOVE the unevidenced proclamation, though don't you teabaggie.

LOL!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsib…

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

LOL!

Oh, and before the butthurt whine about what that was about, remember back at what I said when I was supposedly wrong:

#26:

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

@ #52

If you ever stop in again …

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

... chuckling ... You'll notice he's doing exactly as I said he would.

With 6 year old sources yet.

"With 6 year old sources yet."

Ah you're such a fucking lying retard thtat you want to imply that the order has reversed in the last 6 years teabaggie?

@ #52

If you ever stop in again …

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would, "Ah you’re such a fucking lying retard ..."

Anything except responding honestly

It's not in his nature.

"… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would"

Ah, you such a lying sack of christian crap that you sill want to imply that the order changed in the last 6 years!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsib…

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

LOL!

Oh, and before the butthurt whine about what that was about, remember back at what I said when I was supposedly wrong:

#26:

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

@ #52

If you ever stop in again …

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; with 6 year old sources yet.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

So you're still a lying fuckwit without the intelligence of a mouse's strained shitbar, teabaggie.

Well, it's refreshing of you to admit to it.

@ #52

I'm sad that you've left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; "you’re still a lying fuckwit without the intelligence of a mouse’s strained shitbar,".

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

Well, yes, having being fucked by your entire extended family wen you were 5 DOES sort of give reason for your inability to handle reality, teabaggie, but this really wasn't something you needed to get off your chest in a science blog. Try a therapist.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “... having being fucked by your entire extended family wen you were 5 ...,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

No, this isn't a site to date the recently deceased, teabaggie. Necrophilia is not common and nobody else here shares your love of coupling with decomposing corpses.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… nobody else here shares your love …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

Eeew, NO, TEABAGGIE, NOBODY wants to see pictures of you in the goatse pose! Fuck, no! And you should never ask your mother to take them. That's sick shit right there.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… see pictures of you …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

Selling your sister into sex slavery is NOT something to be proud of, teabaggie, even if your bible told you to do it. No, she's a human being, not spawn of satan's loins like you tell us.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… something to be proud …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

Wow! What's with all the vitrol. You know this can all be resolved easily. The first IPCC report came out in 1990. 27 years ago. Let's look at what the models said would happen, versus what actually happened. If the IPCC models from 1990 did a good job of predicting global temp changes over the last 27 years, the models are right. If they didn't do a good job, the models are wrong. That's how science works. Can anyone provide a link that shows how the IPCC model projections from 1990 line up with the actual temp changes over the last 27 years? Let's settle the question!!!

By David Ging (not verified) on 16 Mar 2017 #permalink

Sure you can play with your winkle when you;re alone, just don't do it in front of your parents friends at the tea party, teabaggie.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… friends at the tea party …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature.

David, no, you're not supposed to ask teabaggie if he can suck your cock and pay you five hundred dollars. You should not try to take advantage of the mentally incapable like that.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… You should not try …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

#23 John
Baltimore
March 15, 2017

"I want to put my dingdong in the bottom of my neigbhour's cat..."

Nobody wants to hear about your future sexual exploits, teabaggie.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… wants to hear …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

GREAT, Teabaggie1 You FINALLY worked out that you're an incompetent moron christian retard who insists on NOMA for your own life as well as for your imaginary god!

And you finally admitted that you were wrong when you said that China produced no CO2 output.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… you’re an incompetent moron …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

No, no, no, teabaggie, China is NOT absorbing CO2 through their heads and producing free energy.

Where on earth to you GET this insane shit from?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… producing free energy …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

CO2 doesn't stand for "Company #2 " teabaggie, like you insisted. Yes, it makes sense to YOU, but it does not.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… Yes, it makes sens …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Well, if you insist on calling yourself an ignorant arsehole, nobody here will disagree with you. But don't you feel that after 120+posts of you calling yourself an ignorant twat you have quite managed to get that message across yet?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… nobody here will disagree with you …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Well maybe you should have READ THE FUCKING POSTS, YOU RETARD rather than ignored them to prattle your self aggrandizing bullshit and bollocks, teabaggie.

Because when you aren't fucking reading the posts to you and continue to blather the repeated bollocks and lies that you "think" (if such a word can be used to describe the insane dribbling moronicity of your mind) will work, it becomes a shitload easier to just post whatever rubbish I can bother typing out, since it will have the exact same effect on you.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… maybe you should have …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Looks like your retarded shitheaded moronic heart cannot change, teabaggie.

Well maybe you should have READ THE FUCKING POSTS, YOU RETARD rather than ignored them to prattle your self aggrandizing bullshit and bollocks, teabaggie.

Because when you aren’t fucking reading the posts to you and continue to blather the repeated bollocks and lies that you “think” (if such a word can be used to describe the insane dribbling moronicity of your mind) will work, it becomes a shitload easier to just post whatever rubbish I can bother typing out, since it will have the exact same effect on you.

They've left because you're a fucking retard, teabag.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… heart cannot change …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

So where is the error in my claim here, you retarded shitstain?

“Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,”
Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

Or will you go pleading to nonexistent people to pretend that you're not a fuckwitted moron?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… pleading to nonexistent people …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

As expected, teabaggie, you have no response but ignorance.

OK, what errors are there in my other claims here:

Care to tell ANYONE where the lie or error is? Or will it be a repeat of the same bullshit avoidance you've wallowed in every time you've had your arse handed to you?

As expected, teabaggie, you have no response but ignorance.

OK, what errors are there in my other claims here:

it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

Care to tell ANYONE where the lie or error is? Or will it be a repeat of the same bullshit avoidance you've wallowed in every time you've had your arse handed to you?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… will it be ae …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

OK, so you admit you cannot find an error in THAT claim either.

We're running out of claims that you could possibly have been talking about as having been wrong,teabaggie.

Where is there any error or lie in THIS claim, teabaggie?

“China’s carbon emissions are increasing.”

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

Or will you concede the point by reposting that same bullshit post again?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… of claims that you …,”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Yup, you concede the point then that there was no error or lie in that claim either, teabaggie. The only one I have eft is this one:

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

Care you show where the error is in that one,or will you not bother to even acknowledge this post to avoid having to admit you were wrong, teabaggie?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… point then that there …”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

OK, sou you concede that there was no error in THAT claim either,teabaggie.

Care to point, then, to any post and claim that you contest or thing wrong?

Or will you avoid it again with the same self-serving bullshitting lie again?

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… post and claim that …”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

"...anything except responding honestly It's not in his nature..."

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

“Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,”
Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

“China’s carbon emissions are increasing.”

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked, then for your own cause of contention:

Care to point, then, to any post and claim that you contest or thing wrong?

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

And now, instead of responding honestly, you respond with the same dishonest bullshit again.

Because doing otherwise is not possible or you to do, is it you retarded little cumstain?

And to this post you will all dishonestly, respond with the same bullshit dishonesty rather than try to deal with reality.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… possible or you to …”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?

Anything to avoid honestly answering.

@ #52

I’m sad that you’ve left SWAB

“…All the bullshit he posted is just a smokescreen”

… chuckling … You’ll notice he’s doing exactly as I said he would; “… Anything to avoid honestly …”.

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

And that, teabaggie, is why people are leaving SWAB. Your arrogant stupidity and failure ever single time you find yourself not winning, to just spam the same random shit over and over again.

“…anything except responding honestly It’s not in his nature…”

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

“Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,”
Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

“China’s carbon emissions are increasing.”

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked, then for your own cause of contention:

Care to point, then, to any post and claim that you contest or thing wrong?

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

And now, instead of responding honestly, you respond with the same dishonest bullshit again.

Because doing otherwise is not possible or you to do, is it you retarded little cumstain?

And to this post you will all dishonestly, respond with the same bullshit dishonesty rather than try to deal with reality.

And when PJ asks:

Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

Because reading what anyone else says is beyond your ability, beyond your ethics, beyond your wishes, beyond your capacity to try.

@ #115

"Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?"

It is seldom useful to invest much effort when half of the discussion consists of

#108 "... Or will you go pleading to nonexistent people to pretend that you’re not a fuckwitted moron?"

#102 "... Or will you go pleading to nonexistent people to pretend that you’re not a fuckwitted moron?"

#100 "Looks like your retarded shitheaded moronic heart cannot change ..."

#98 "Because when you aren’t fucking reading the posts to you and continue to blather the repeated bollocks and lies that you “think” (if such a word can be used to describe the insane dribbling moronicity of your mind) will work, it becomes a shitload easier to just post whatever rubbish I can bother typing out, since it will have the exact same effect on you."

#96 "Well, if you insist on calling yourself an ignorant arsehole ..."

#92 "China is NOT absorbing CO2 through their heads and producing free energy."

#90 "... you’re an incompetent moron christian retard who insists on NOMA for your own life as well as for your imaginary god!"

#88 "Nobody wants to hear about your future sexual exploits ...'

"It is seldom useful to invest much effort when half of the discussion consists of "

“…anything except responding honestly It’s not in his nature…”

Too true, teabaggie. How about when I asked for what the error was in this claim

“Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,”
Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

“China’s carbon emissions are increasing.”

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked for what the error was in this claim

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

When I asked, then for your own cause of contention:

Care to point, then, to any post and claim that you contest or thing wrong?

You replied with this

Anything except responding honestly

It’s not in his nature

And now, instead of responding honestly, you respond with more dishonest bullshit again.

Because doing otherwise is not possible or you to do, is it you retarded little cumstain?

@ #115

“Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?”

What type of thoughtful response should be prepared for the posts below?

#86 "David, no, you’re not supposed to ask teabaggie if he can suck your cock and pay you five hundred dollars. You should not try to take advantage of the mentally incapable like that."

#84 "Sure you can play with your winkle when you;re alone, just don’t do it in front of your parents friends at the tea party ..."

#81 "Selling your sister into sex slavery is NOT something to be proud of, teabaggie, even if your bible told you to do it. No, she’s a human being, not spawn of satan’s loins like you tell us."

#79 "Eeew, NO, TEABAGGIE, NOBODY wants to see pictures of you in the goatse pose! Fuck, no! And you should never ask your mother to take them. That’s sick shit right there."

#77 "No, this isn’t a site to date the recently deceased, teabaggie. Necrophilia is not common and nobody else here shares your love of coupling with decomposing corpses."

#75 "Well, yes, having being fucked by your entire extended family wen you were 5 DOES sort of give reason for your inability to handle reality ..."

#73 "So you’re still a lying fuckwit without the intelligence of a mouse’s strained shitbar ..."

#71 "Ah, you such a lying sack of christian crap that you sill want to imply that the order changed in the last 6 years!"

@ #115

“Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?”

Given these representative samples I’ve provided in my two posts above of the quality of discourse here at SWAB, it would appear that there's no obvious reason to expect other participants to invest too much effort in expressing their responses.

@ #115

“Must be fun copying and pasting, eh, John?”

Further, you'll note that cutting and pasting are also employed by other posters. Ref #120, #118, #113.

"you’ll note that cutting and pasting are also employed by other posters"

So you admit that doing it because some arsehole was doing it is 100% valid, teabaggie.

" in my two posts above of the quality of discourse here at SWAB"

Claimed with zero evidence of anything except your overwhelming ego's insanity, teabaggie.

"... some arsehole was doing it ..."

Yes indeed! We agree completely about that!

Ah, so post #66 was the one from the asshole starting that thing off, and we both agree, teabaggie.

Smashing. Go ahead and tell yourself off for being a complete and utter arsehole.

Which is a cutnpaste of which earlier quote, teabaggie?

Or are you yet again lying your frigging arse off like the honourless retard you are?

"... are you yet again lying your frigging arse off like the honourless retard ..."

Not at all. I'm merely providing the facts.

Interpret them as you will. #58 was the post that started “that thing” off.

You remember, don’t you?

“@ wow
Fuck you, you lying bullshit artist.
I’m gone. I don’t need to put up with your pseudoscience cap.
There are real science blogs.”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-mo…

Just follow the link
The facts are undeniable.
It is there for everyone to read.

So that's why you ignore the facts

“Additionally, the current #1 carbon emitter,”
Was, until very recently, the USA. Despite having less than a quarter of the number of people.

it is adding new power stations, replacing old ones and providing the most new solar and wind power.

“China’s carbon emissions are increasing.”

They are decreasing output because they are building more efficient coal power stations and closing down old inefficient ones to stop the deaths in China, teabaggie.

And the historical champ of emissions is still the USA.

And instead interpreted them into me being wrong, teabaggie.

THAT is why you're an insane dickhead who has driven people away from SWAB. And it's why you deserve each and every insult sallied at your artless ignorance.

You can read it yourself (but will not) and so can everyone else (but those who already know what they want to find will not bother, see David who demanded a response, got it, then only whined about how many swear words I produced elsewhere, clearly showing that he was reading my post including the information he demanded).

I just post the facts. You misinterpret them to suit your ego's demands, teabaggie.

"... you’re an insane dickhead who has driven people away from SWAB ..."

… chuckling … Are you suggesting that the insanity you project upon me distinguishes me from the sane dickheads you are familiar with who drive people away from SWAB?

And, to whom are you referring?

Assuming that Abolitionist is as good as his word, we can be confident your behavior has driven at least one person away from SWAB. You'll recall comment #58, I'm sure.

“@ wow
Fuck you, you lying bullshit artist.
I’m gone. I don’t need to put up with your pseudoscience cap.
There are real science blogs.”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-mo…

Just follow the link
The facts are undeniable.
It is there for everyone to read.

One of the benefits or relying on Science to guide environmental policies, is that if the scientific understanding changes, ineffective policies that would have otherwise been preserved can be corrected or even dismantled.

Not, of course without resistance from vested interests.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39267774

More empty content free blather, teabaggie. Care to tell us that profit is the revenues minus the costs? Wow us with your "knowledge" of economics.

"... empty content free blather ..."

... chuckling ... More empty criticism from the scientific illiterate.

The article cited in my previous post addresses both climate change as well as the development of scientific understanding of climate change and the government policies informed by that scientific understanding.

As such it is an appropriate comment on this thread.

Your comment, mistakenly "complaining" of the "emptiness" of mine, is unrelated to the topic, and empty of topic related content. "Economics"? Really?

So your post is off-topic, empty and complaining about emptiness
You've managed to lower the bar yet again.
By you standards, well done.
Congratulations

Ethan, In your Forbes article you say, " Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.". I believe this is incorrect. NASA GISS uses a 1950 - 1980 average as its zero and the running mean is at about 0.85. The 1880 to 1940 temperature was at about -0.2 below the 1950 - 1980 mean. So, we probably are at or above 1° C compared to 1880.

By Rick Whitten (not verified) on 19 Mar 2017 #permalink

Happy vernal equinox everybody. I'm watching the morning sunlight pass over the hot surface of the wood stove and leave beautiful dynamic patterns on the wall as it passes through the layers of hot air surrounding the stove... making the invisible perceivable. I move the kettle and create a big new turbulent flutter. I shut off the heat exchanger and watch the flow pattern change. Nature abides.