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.
Its not necessary to rely on just satellite readings and surface temperatures are now in agreement with satellite data. There was an adjustment to satellite data based on science, its not a corruption of data.
Man made CO2 has tilted the concentration in the atmosphere and scientists can account for man made carbon isotopic composition.
Yes, there is likely an increase in surface temperature because of this increase.
No, it is not a significant increase.
Yes, the weather station data was fudged to show warming that wasn't there (GHCNv3).
Yes, this did create a disparity with satellite measurements.
Yes, the satellite measurements have been "adjusted" to conform with the bull **** surface measurements.
The reason why local record cold matters is that a global warming trend makes record cold anywhere much more unlikely, but nevertheless we have record cold where I am (and elsewhere) at the same time warmers are claiming the hottest year in however many years.
The inconsistent relationship between CO2 and surface temperature doesn't fit the narrative.
The ability to correctly measure the temperature of the Earth's entire surface in any accurate and consistent way probably doesn't exist and it sure as hell didn't exist 140 years ago such that warmers can now claim the hottest year in 140 years!
The "small amount theory" doesn't work in science, small amounts of chemicals or physical makeup can be disastrous. A large majority of CO2 is being stored in our oceans around 80% and when that saturates the process could speed up rapidly.
We hit the lottery with our planet between the sun, and the atmosphere, we shouldn't take it for granted that we can do as we want and nothing will change. If you have some evidence from a scientific organization that an increase in CO2 of 400ppm can be dismissed because CO2 is a small part of our atmosphere I would like to see it.
I'm also still waiting for you to provide a scientific organization that believes the current warming is due to changes in the earths characteristics or volcanic and solar activity.
Actually, the planet appears to largely self-regulate surface temperature.
This would explain the historical variations between the actual surface temperate and what would be expected based on current CO2 models.
1. That number refers to publishing climate scientists not scientists in general. Which makes sense when you think about it, not sure why an entomologist should be evaluating the validity of a field they are not an expert in.
2. Consensus is sort of a BS idea. No one asks for consensus from 97 doctors before getting medical treatment. No one asks for consensus from 97 out of 100 engineers before fixing a bridge that is falling apart.
No, that simply does not happen. The public has no way of knowing what the "highly trained" people are saying.
No, it's nothing like that at all. We don't "go to" a climate scientist to find out what's up with the climate. We have no way of communicating with climate scientists. Instead we are lectured to by known liars who are not "highly trained". Why would anyone believe a condescending political activist like you? Can you people get that through your heads?
No one is doubting the "experts" (because we have no interaction with them) -- we're doubting YOU.
I am an oceanographer, I work in a climate field (a large proportion of climate scientists are actually oceanographers by training) and we have open houses at our labs at least once a year. If you want to interact with one of us, it's fairly easy.
Many of us teach at universities, likely including your state flagship, there are dozens of NOAA labs around the country (they have open houses each year a well), some of us run educational twitter and social media accounts where you an ask us questions and interact with us there. My personal fav, Dr. David Titley, Rear Admiral USN (ret.), former Oceanographer of the Navy and Director of Climate Solutions at Penn State. You can find him on twitter. Or watch his TED talk here.
Where do I come up with that stuff? You come in at the end of this thread and jump all over the people you disagree with in the rudest possible fashion. You are combatively ignorant and proud of it, and you have set it up so that you can scorn any reply you recieve.
Where do I come up with that stuff? Out of the mouths of babes (and trolls):
We don't "go to" a climate scientist to find out what's up with the climate. We have no way of communicating with climate scientists. Instead we are lectured to by known liars who are not "highly trained". Why would anyone believe a condescending political activist like you? Can you people get that through your heads?
No one is doubting the "experts" (because we have no interaction with them) -- we're doubting YOU.
That is really dubious.
No, that simply does not happen. The public has no way of knowing what the "highly trained" people are saying.
I have no idea why you would respond to ANY of my posts other than to get your own post count up. I really, really hope that you are under 40 because if so, you are in for the time of your life. Other than that, I'll spare us both any further annoyance.
Yours,
Colorado Rambler
Well, that was really bizarre. That entire rant never addressed the "stuff" at issue, namely that there are "guilty" and "innocent" people.
As for the rudeness, it is present in comment after comment on this thread castigating people as "ignorant" for employing sound epistemology.
And you specifically wished suffering on the human race. That's worse than any amount of rudeness.
You picked the source. You are still the "middle man".
If you don't like the source then get up off of your intellectually lazy arse and Google the actual research work and published papers of the climate scientists.
You made an ignorant statement and now you are trying to back-peddle. You deniers are not the sharpest folks the US harbors.
ROFLMAO! Randomized? You mean with all those extra atmospheres laying around? Maybe learn words before you use them. Randomized refers to medical studies and new treatments. Experimentally you cannot "randomize" a study on the atmosphere.
Second, we are not talking about "atmospheric temperature" we are talking about global temperature. If you are going to pretend you know something about science, use the right words. They matter.
Glad I'm not the only one who clearly see's that Hawkeye has no science education. When a person makes statements about science that are fundamentally wrong...that's a red flag indeed.
I am an oceanographer, I work in a climate field (a large proportion of climate scientists are actually oceanographers by training) and we have open houses at our labs at least once a year. If you want to interact with one of us, it's fairly easy.
Many of us teach at universities, likely including your state flagship, there are dozens of NOAA labs around the country (they have open houses each year a well), some of us run educational twitter and social media accounts where you an ask us questions and interact with us there. My personal fav, Dr. David Titley, Rear Admiral USN (ret.), former Oceanographer of the Navy and Director of Climate Solutions at Penn State. You can find him on twitter. Or watch his TED talk here.
Yeah, it's not as if climatologists are all in some federal witness protection program or only emerge from their top secret labs for a few minutes at 3 AM in the morning, and should someone chance to see them they scurry off to the deep woods (or deep ocean) and go into hiding for years on end.
I have a MS in climatology and spent much of my career teaching science at an accredited college here in Colorado. I am now retired, and I would cheerfully answer questions and explain the science to anyone who genuinely wants to understand it. But no one on the CD politics forum wants to actually learn anything. Their minds closed like a steel trap years ago, and that's that.
BTW, thanks for the great link!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
Well, that was really bizarre. That entire rant never addressed the "stuff" at issue, namely that there are "guilty" and "innocent" people.
As for the rudeness, it is present in comment after comment on this thread castigating people as "ignorant" for employing sound epistemology.
And you specifically wished suffering on the human race. That's worse than any amount of rudeness.
Perhaps you should consult someone in regard to your short term memory problems. Why on earth would I bother to attempt to explain ANYTHING to someone who takes my words out of context and who states in advance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
Why would anyone believe a condescending political activist like you? Can you people get that through your heads?
If you don't like the source then get up off of your intellectually lazy arse and Google the actual research work and published papers of the climate scientists.
You made an ignorant statement and now you are trying to back-peddle. You deniers are not the sharpest folks the US harbors.
I didn't say anything ignorant, but you did. I'm as sharp as they come, and I'm not a "denier".
Who has the time to investigate this issue? I don't.
This is one of those things where the people need to be able to get their info from trusted experts (as part of an efficient division of labor), but the people sounding the alarm have lied repeatedly about other things, so we can't trust them about who the experts are.
Yeah, it's not as if climatologists are all in some federal witness protection program or only emerge from their top secret labs for a few minutes at 3 AM in the morning, and should someone chance to see them they scurry off to the deep woods (or deep ocean) and go into hiding for years on end.
I have a MS in climatology and spent much of my career teaching science at an accredited college here in Colorado. I am now retired, and I would cheerfully answer questions and explain the science to anyone who genuinely wants to understand it. But no one on the CD politics forum wants to actually learn anything. Their minds closed like a steel trap years ago, and that's that.
BTW, thanks for the great link!
Perhaps you should consult someone in regard to your short term memory problems. Why on earth would I bother to attempt to explain ANYTHING to someone who takes my words out of context and who states in advance:
Contempt prior to investigation and all that.
A "master's degree"? Wow- just like "Dr. Science, who has a master's degree". That explains a lot and why you hate physicians as well- professional jealousy. Probably were a pre-med at one point but couldn't hack it.
So if you claim to have some knowledge of science:
1. Do you deny that CO2 is an essential and critical part of the carbon cycle?
2. That life on earth could not exist without CO2?
3. That the carbon that makes up all of the carbon compounds in your body was, at one point, CO2 as a part of the carbon cycle?
4. That CO2 levels were MUCH HIGHER in our earth's history with both higher and lower temperatures?
5. That CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas in its contribution to atmospheric warming compared to water and methane?
6. That man-made CO2 is only 4.5% of atmospheric CO2?
7. That man made CO2 makes up .002% of atmospheric gases?
8. That the "temperature changes" noted by the AGW crowd fall within the margin of error for the measurements, such that such "changes" are scientifically zero?
9. Why did temperatures go up in the Great Depression when CO2 levels fell, despite the life of CO2 in the atmosphere at 3 years?
10. Why did the "97% of scientists" number that is so often quoted look (quite incorrectly) at ABSTRACTS (which you know are not adequately peer reviewed and are never given the same credence as an actual paper) , rather than formal publications?
11. How many full scientific papers have you published in the scientific literature? Of course, it is very few, if any, as a masters degree would not require this.
12. How many scientific papers have you edited for publication in the scientific literature?
These are all basic facts that irrefutable and easily checked. How do you reconcile these facts also with the fact that there has been no randomized, prospective study with proper statistical analysis that has supported the concept of AGW?
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.
