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.
"While conditions are the worst ever, 2014 was actually not the driest year in history. The 70s saw the driest period ever. Here’s why the situation is worse now, even though more rain has fallen than in the last drought."
"While conditions are the worst ever, 2014 was actually not the driest year in history. The 70s saw the driest period ever. Here’s why the situation is worse now, even though more rain has fallen than in the last drought."
Nice job reading your own link!
So you think one dry year is worse than four in a row? Really?
05-31-2015, 01:03 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
People still take John Christy seriously?
The guy is a well known crap scientist who can't handle even basic data analysis without screwing it up and then stonewalls when people try to figure out how he got results that are completely at odds with reality.
In this case, he's cherry picking data from particular altitudes to try to make his point, while throwing out the lower atmosphere data that disagrees with his anti-reality views.
Tell us about the Antarctic sea ice, and the all time records it has been setting routinely over the last few years.
Tell us about the difference between land ice, shelf ice and sea ice and the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic regions?
Even 'sceptics' like Judith Curry could tell you why there is more sea-ice in the Antarctic region and why this is not inconsistent with global warming.
Ocean warming causes precipitation in the upper atmosphere over the Antarctic region to increase. This falls as snow. More snow makes the top layers of the ocean less salty and thus less dense. These top layers become more stable, preventing warm currents in the deep ocean from rising and melting sea ice.
this is exactly what i mean. thank you for making my point. as i said the skeptics are called deniers, and when they write about their position, they are not scientific papers, but rather blogs.
A scientific paper is published in a journal of some kind.
You can't seriously be suggesting that every time someone with a PhD or a position at a university types something into a computer it suddenly becomes a scientific study.
Climate scientists will be proven wrong when long term observation shows that they are. that has not happened yet. In fact their prediction that short term weather would be more extreme has been observed for several years.
I prefer the observation that can be used to make the predictions more accurate.
Last edited by CaseyB; 05-31-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reason: personal attack
I seriously doubt that Cato is a creationist organization. Do you have any facts?
So, do you agree or disagree with the facts in the link?
There you go again. Is everyone that you disagree with a creationist?
So what facts in the graph do you disagree with? Or is your fear of creationists just overwhelming your ability to evaluate facts?
Huh? No. What I was saying was that these are tactics very resemblant of those that Creationists use. I was pointing out that while I don't know much about the Cato Institute, this is NOT a scientific article. This is an opinion piece by someone who showed us a graph without properly sourcing or crediting where it came from, how the data were measured, etc.... These are the same schticks Creationists use on their web sites.
To someone not very familiar with science, the articles look credible, they look reputable, and they look professional. The truth is they're nothing of the sort.
I'm not a climate scientist and don't claim to be one but I know what a scientific article is and this is not one of them. Published papers need to have a lot more than this to be credible. This is an opinion piece, at best, which is fine... But let's not act like it is anything more than just that. Opinions and science are vastly different.
Climate scientists will be proven wrong when long term observation shows that they are. that has not happened yet. In fact their prediction that short term weather would be more extreme has been observed for several years.
I prefer the observation that can be used to make the predictions more accurate.
So, since you cannot refute the graph in the link, you call me a fool? How foolish is that?
BTW, "observation" involves seeing something, not forecasting something. Your faith in government scientists is not observation.
You need to learn the difference between faith and observation.
Last edited by CaseyB; 05-31-2015 at 11:48 AM..
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.
