Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point was that if YOU use their own data to debunk their conclusions, YOU are saying that their data is not all Garbage.
I'm saying that ALL their data is not Garbage. Some of the data is tainted but not ALL of it. And the problem with climate science is the lack of reliable data. The data that is not tainted is of value to scientists. It may not be of value to a political agenda, and when scientists are part of a political agenda, it's appropriate to question the data, and to question the conclusions. But climate science is really a new field in science. Weather has so many variables, that predicting if it's going to snow in Boston next week is a challenge. Understanding climate, and the relationships between weather patterns and climate is of tremendous value to humans. We should be challenging the scientists to do the science better. But we need to keep on collecting data, and doing what science does, trying to explain the data.
That is USHCN 2, not directly the data I am speaking of. That is, they adjust their data, but as I said, according to the source to which they pull their data, they are wrong.
Not all data is bad, as I said, some stations are ok, but a lot of them are in bad shape. My point is that they adjust ALWAYS to support their bias. When I say "their data", I mean their homogenized data, the result after they tweak all of the data to their liking.
It is the same problem we had with the CRU. That is, the only record they could provide of the global stations was the "value added" data, the data after they tweaked it to their liking and that is worthless data when we are talking about processes of replication, verification and validation. That makes that data, garbage.
CO2 is not the cause it is the effect. When temperature rises CO2 rises with it. People are incrediby egotistical to think we can control the global climate. The climate has gone up and down dramatically over the last 650 million years and we were not the cause then and we are not the cause now.
What is the cause is the SUN. The sun is the most important variable in global temperature and it is not a constant variable. When there is a lack of sunspots the earth goes into an iceage and when there are a lot of sunspots then the earth heats up and the polar caps melt. And that is just a small aspect of the sun. The sun has cycles that are every 4 years apart like what causes el nino, to cycles that are millions of years apart. Not only that, but the sun itself is constantly changing as it changes hydrogen into helium and grows and cools. The sun is responisble for almost every aspect of weather in some way or another. It is responsible for life on earth and it will most likely be responsible when life ends of earth.
Soooooo, since our lives our based on the whims of the sun, we should not inhibit ourselves with more meaningless regulation.
This is a perfect example of the complexity we are dealing with. Yes, correlation is not causation, and it is possible that other factors could heat or cool the earth. However, the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases are undeniable. When we have more greenhouse gases, heat, which is usually stored in the earths land and water masses cannot reradiate to space efficiently. As very practical observation, when air is more moist or cloudy the day to night range in temperatures are diminished. Moisture in the air slows the loss of heat, so does CO2. That is why deserts cool off so much at night. It is a fact. Consult a basic science textbook.
I am still understanding the many drivers of climate variation, so I do not completely disagree with you. But the fundamental point that pumping massive quantities of greenhouse gases will cause warming is undeniable. That is unless you can completely predict that all the other factors will compensate. I doubt you can predict them, so a prudent person would not pump up the CO2.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-26-2011 at 07:40 PM..
That has to be the dumbest argument I have ever seen put forth as a rebuttal to the position responded.
Really?
No... seriously, do you really believe that?
/facepalm
Maybe because you are incapable of connecting the dots. A single example will suffice. Suppose the the increased melting of the Greenland iceland changes the specific gravity of the north atlantic so that the gulf stream fails. It has happened before many times in history and that is why the temperatures of the northeast N. American and nw Europe have varied so much. Check out the Greenland ice core climate record. In Greenland, mean temperatures varied by 36 F! So, nuclear-capable northern latitude countries could have crop failures and an inability to feed their populations. World war could easily ensue, as the more powerful countries attempt to secure better geography.
Now, no one can be certain that climate will be stable, but all the existing geopolitical power structures have been built within a fairly narrow window of climat. And if the Russians ar freezing and starving, it is not too much of stretch to think they might do something..desperate.
But no worries, all these brilliant poster/scholars have decided its all NO PROBLEM. Sarah Palin has this all figured out.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-26-2011 at 07:42 PM..
Just this morning, the local news (all four major networks) in the Philly market were still calling for rain/sleet in the AM, then heavy snow tonight.
It snowed most of the day. We got about 4 inches already. Now, at 8pm, it's sleet/rain.
These "scientists" can't even get the weather right for the day they're talking about, let alone long term climate.
This post just shows how little you understand about weather, climate, and science in general. It is much easier to predict general conditions than specific weather behavior. Like predicting what kind of mood your spouse will be in tomorrow. It is much easier to say there is a chance of tornadoes next year in Oklahoma than to predict which houses will be leveled. Or that smoking will increase your chance of lung cancer, but perhaps harder to say which lung it will start in. By your standards, all oncologists are hacks too, right?
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-26-2011 at 07:43 PM..
Whether you agree or not with man-made global warming, the logical thing to do is cut down on energy consumption. Ressources are not infinite. Oil alone is a huge headache for our wallet, security and our environment.
There are only benefits to cut down on pollution.
The only reason people oppose global warming is because they were told to by whatever reactionary media they're listening or watching. Or perhaps they don't want to feel guilty about their carbon foot print, while they sit in their car.
I don't own a car even though my GF and I have two kids and both have a business to operate. Not because we're hippies but because owning a car in an urban area makes no sense. It's expensive, it makes you lazy, it's stressful, it creates annoying noise pollution and yeah, it adds carbon emissions. Now since the majority of people live near urban areas, we would drastically reduce our emissions if people got off their big butts and organized their lives a little better and used public transit. Or a bike. It takes me 35 minutes to get to work on a bike in the summer. Commuting by car takes about 5 minute less. Is it really worth it to drive?
I encourage people to get rid of their cars all the time. If they don't, fine, I don't judge. But don't distort reality because you feel guilty.
This is a perfect example of the complexity we are dealing with. Yes, correlation is not causation, and it is possible that other factors could heat or cool the earth. However, the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases are undeniable. When we have more greenhouse gases, heat, which is usually stored in the earths land and water masses cannot reradiate to space efficiently. As very practical observation, when air is more moist or cloudy the day to night range in temperatures are diminished. Moisture in the air slows the loss of heat, so does CO2. That is why deserts cool off so much at night. It is a fact. Consult a basic science textbook.
I am still understanding the many drivers of climate variation, so I do not completely disagree with you. But the fundamental point that pumping massive quantities of greenhouse gases will cause warming is undeniable. That is unless you can completely predict that all the other factors will compensate. I doubt you can predict them, so a prudent person would not pump up the CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas like on Venus where CO2 makes up the majority of the atmosphere but on earth CO2 is only 2%. And if the CO2 is rising it could also be from the increased temperature causing it to come out of the water.
The most important greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, but i dont hear any politicians preaching against water vapor, even though it is the other major by-product from car exaust. People have demonized CO2 to the point that people think it is poison. CO2 is breathed out of our bodies and taken by plants for food. We should not be so concerned about something that is basically inert and also essential to our survival.
What we should be concerned with is our economy, and the anti CO2 talk is nothing but a job killer and money spender....we dont either.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas like on Venus where CO2 makes up the majority of the atmosphere but on earth CO2 is only 2%. And if the CO2 is rising it could also be from the increased temperature causing it to come out of the water.
The most important greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, but i dont hear any politicians preaching against water vapor, even though it is the other major by-product from car exaust. People have demonized CO2 to the point that people think it is poison. CO2 is breathed out of our bodies and taken by plants for food. We should not be so concerned about something that is basically inert and also essential to our survival.
What we should be concerned with is our economy, and the anti CO2 talk is nothing but a job killer and money spender....we dont either.
Water drops out the atmosphere in seconds as rain. CO2 does not. Noone says it is poison, just that enhanced CO2 causes warming, and massive warming will not be good.
Water drops out the atmosphere in seconds as rain. CO2 does not. Noone says it is poison, just that enhanced CO2 causes warming, and massive warming will not be good.
Obama wants the EPA to regulate it, that sounds like it is some pretty harmful stuff. The EPA is judge, jury, and exectioner, i know i have been envolved with them. Not fun. With them standing over any businesses that produces CO2 you are going to have a lot more fines and regulation, which we dont need. I hope they dont regulate by breathing, i might get a fine every time i gasp....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
