Yet another scientist says global warming is bunk

[DJofSD]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

And Obama is wrong!?!

I can just see that pouting face. Poor Obama, he gets not respect -- and when it comes to science, he's no better than the Pope -- way out of his league on multiple accounts.

[horses4courses]

Can we see a copy of the scientist's bank records, and those of
the group he works with, to see if he was juiced by the Koch whores?

[PaceAdvantage]

How is it any different than the funding received by the opposition? There aren't any rich old whiteys doling out wads of cash to Global Warming Alarmists?

Sure there are...

[Tom]

Can we see a copy of the scientist's bank records, and those of
the group he works with, to see if he was juiced by the Koch whores?

Only if you provide proof the left wing wackos are not funded by the Buffet Muppets.

[reckless]

Only if you provide proof the left wing wackos are not funded by the Buffet Muppets.

It wouldn't bother me so much if these climate scamsters were solely supported by doddering, old, guilty money shufflers, whose financial success and wherewithal primarily comes from cronyism, such as Warren Buffett's.

But, nooooo, the left wing climate frauds have their hands in the pocket of everyday working American citizens who have their taxes confiscated by the US government to fund these lies and liars.

[classhandicapper]

I like this guy. You can from his quotes that he's gotten to the point where he's pissed off. :lol:

[boxcar]

I like this guy. You can from his quotes that he's gotten to the point where he's pissed off. :lol:

I like him, too. Note this quote:

Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

Exactly right! Very many scientists are paying for the roof over the heads with taxpayer money! I have often made this point. Can't anyone see the inherent conflict of interest here?

Also, Tom and I have often asked: Well, tell us what the thermostat for this planet should be set at? What is the optimal temperature? A question asked by Doc Ivar.

But have no fear. The loons on the left will point to three strikes against the good doctor. First, his doctorate is not in climatology. Secondly, anyone can tell that he's so old that he must be senile already. And third...Hcap will think up another excuse to dismiss this old man's criticisms. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jk3521]

On the first 80 degree day this year I told people that if this is global warming, I'm all for it, bring it on !

[pandy]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

And Obama is wrong!?!

I can just see that pouting face. Poor Obama, he gets not respect -- and when it comes to science, he's no better than the Pope -- way out of his league on multiple accounts.


Thanks for posting. Interesting.

[davew]

I wonder if they can take his nobel back, and give it to someone more deserving and aware of future challenges - like Al Gore or Osamabama


the polar bears are going to be extinct in a couple years for goodness sakes.... Gore's Inconvenient Truth (2007) said so

[Clocker]

I wonder if they can take his nobel back, and give it to someone more deserving and aware of future challenges - like Al Gore or Osamabama


They can give it to the first person that comes up with convincing proof that the last 18 years of non-warming didn't happen.

[mostpost]

They can give it to the first person that comes up with convincing proof that the last 18 years of non-warming didn't happen.
It happened, but so what. Climate change is a long term trend. This year may be warmer than last year. Doesn't mean a thing. Next year may be colder than this year. Again, it doesn't mean a thing. It's the long term that matters.

As for your last eighteen years;
Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Niño of 1997–98, the year 1998 was the warmest year, globally, in the 20th century. Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000–09 exceeds the average for 1990–99, which in turn was warmer than 1980–89. And the average for 2010–12 topped the 2000–09 average.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344

Each decade was warmer on average than the previous. It only seems that the average has dropped because of the unusually warm year caused by El Nino, which is itself a sign of global warming.

[tucker6]

It happened, but so what. Climate change is a long term trend. This year may be warmer than last year. Doesn't mean a thing. Next year may be colder than this year. Again, it doesn't mean a thing. It's the long term that matters.

As for your last eighteen years;
Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Niño of 1997–98, the year 1998 was the warmest year, globally, in the 20th century. Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000–09 exceeds the average for 1990–99, which in turn was warmer than 1980–89. And the average for 2010–12 topped the 2000–09 average.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344

Each decade was warmer on average than the previous. It only seems that the average has dropped because of the unusually warm year caused by El Nino, which is itself a sign of global warming.
The reason why the 18 year pause is important Mostie is that it wasn't predicted by ANY climate model. That is the essence of what this Nobel Laureate is saying. If the predictions of your theory do not match reality, your theory is incorrect. That is the scientific method that Alarmists choose to ignore because AGW is a religion, not science.

[Clocker]

It happened, but so what. Climate change is a long term trend. This year may be warmer than last year. Doesn't mean a thing.

Then why are the High Priests of Global Warming trying so hard to prove that it didn't happen? :D

After "constructing" temperature data for the last thousand years, they are now "constructing" new temperature data for the last 18 years. Or as Obama likes to say, "recalibrating". :rolleyes:

And how come none of the moonbat global warmers can tell us what the temperature is SUPPOSED to be?

[badcompany]

Then why are the High Priests of Global Warming trying so hard to prove that it didn't happen? :D

After "constructing" temperature data for the last thousand years, they are now "constructing" new temperature data for the last 18 years. Or as Obama likes to say, "recalibrating". :rolleyes:

And how come none of the moonbat global warmers can tell us what the temperature is SUPPOSED to be?

And why did the Pinkos stop calling it Global Warming and currently call it Climate Change?

[tucker6]

And why did the Pinkos stop calling it Global Warming and currently call it Climate Change?
tsk. Tsk. It is actually now called climate disruption, but I feel another change in name coming soon. Climate disruption is getting passe.

[boxcar]

tsk. Climate disruption is getting passe.

Unless a big hurricane hits the U.S. shores. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

And Obama is wrong!?!

I can just see that pouting face. Poor Obama, he gets not respect -- and when it comes to science, he's no better than the Pope -- way out of his league on multiple accounts.
Gaiever is a physicist not a climatologist. You have to know physics in order to be a climatologist, but knowing physics does not make you a climatologist. There are a lot of other disciplines you need to be proficient in to become a climatologist. Gaievar has studied none of them.
This link destroys Gaiever's argument and reveals him to be the out of touch fool he is.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

[Clocker]

And why did the Pinkos stop calling it Global Warming and currently call it Climate Change?

And then changed it to global climate disruption. These are the same people that changed "terrorism" to "man-caused disasters". It is easier to manipulate reality if you control the term used to discuss it.

And "disruption" covers all the bases. Unusually snow fall this winter? Climate disruption. Fewer than average hurricanes? Climate disruption.

[Clocker]

Gaiever is a physicist not a climatologist. You have to know physics in order to be a climatologist, but knowing physics does not make you a climatologist. There are a lot of other disciplines you need to be proficient in to become a climatologist. Gaievar has studied none of them.
This link destroys Gaiever's argument and reveals him to be the out of touch fool he is.

You don't need to be a climatologist to determine whether or not a climatologist is properly utilizing the scientific method. I'll take the word of a Nobel laureate on that over some random guy on the internet that has to resort to personally insulting people every time he gets in over his head. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

Gaiever is a physicist not a climatologist. You have to know physics in order to be a climatologist, but knowing physics does not make you a climatologist. There are a lot of other disciplines you need to be proficient in to become a climatologist. Gaievar has studied none of them.
This link destroys Gaiever's argument and reveals him to be the out of touch fool he is.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
You do realize of course that Skeptical Science is the website the low information people go to for their 'insight' into climate science, correct?

But to address the specifics of your post, you don't need to be a climatologist to understand that the scientific method works in all disciplines.

[tucker6]

You don't need to be a climatologist to determine whether or not a climatologist is properly utilizing the scientific method. I'll take the word of a Nobel laureate on that over some random guy on the internet that has to resort to personally insulting people every time he gets in over his head. :rolleyes:
yeah, but the random guy on the internet is smart. Just ask him. :lol:

[rastajenk]

I caught a short segment on the Weather Channel today about this being a down year for tornadoes, by 20-30 %, I think, now that the peak season for them has passed.

If increased frequency of extreme weather is a symptom of global warming...wouldn't decreased frequency be a symptom of global non-warming; cooling, maybe even?

Just wondering.

[ArlJim78]

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." - Charles Mackay, author of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds.

We're in the slow recovery mode now with this climate change hysteria. Most people, even most of the alarmists know it's bunk they're either too afraid to speak out for fear of being attacked by the mob, or they're simply on board for financial self interest.

[ArlJim78]

Notice that even this Nobel prize winner, when the time came in 2008 to sign the letter endorsing Obama for his "visionary" take on science and global warming, did not hesitate. No one is immune from jumping on the bandwagon especially if all the other peers are doing it. I wonder how many other scientists who signed that letter truly believe that climate change is the biggest threat that facing mankind? I suspect if the truth were known not many.

[mostpost]

You don't need to be a climatologist to determine whether or not a climatologist is properly utilizing the scientific method. I'll take the word of a Nobel laureate on that over some random guy on the internet that has to resort to personally insulting people every time he gets in over his head. :rolleyes:
Provide us with some proof that the proponents of AGW are not using the scientific method. Other than the ramblings of a has been physicist. And stop with the whining about me picking on you. It's so unbecoming.

[Clocker]

If increased frequency of extreme weather is a symptom of global warming...wouldn't decreased frequency be a symptom of global non-warming; cooling, maybe even?



No, increase, decrease, doesn't matter. Any change is climate disruption. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Provide us with some proof that the proponents of AGW are not using the scientific method. Other than the ramblings of a has been physicist. And stop with the whining about me picking on you. It's so unbecoming.

Unlike some here, I don't claim to know anything about the methodology. I simply said that I would take the opinion of a Nobel laureate over some unknown who displays not a scintilla of scientific credentials or credibility.

I said nothing about you picking on me. I consider it a badge of honor, proving that you have nothing else. In this case, I pointed out that you insulted a Nobel laureate based on your assumption of superior scientific knowledge. And just doubled down by calling him a "has been". Proving once again the total lack of factual content in your assault on him.

[Tom]

Been warmer.
Been colder.

Libs and science or math..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

Been warmer.
Been colder.


But THEY know what it is supposed to be, and THEY won't tell us.

Elitist bastages. :eek:

[davew]

I caught a short segment on the Weather Channel today about this being a down year for tornadoes, by 20-30 %, I think, now that the peak season for them has passed.

If increased frequency of extreme weather is a symptom of global warming...wouldn't decreased frequency be a symptom of global non-warming; cooling, maybe even?

Just wondering.

The United States is such a small percentage of the surface area of the world.... there are areas in the pacific ocean that are 4 degrees warmer than normal... no one seems to be disagreeing that the world temperature has been increasing about 0.8 degrees every hundred years for the last couple hundred years, at this rate we will all be dead 100 years from now (unless 0samacare also increases life expectancy by double)

[plainolebill]

The United States is such a small percentage of the surface area of the world.... there are areas in the pacific ocean that are 4 degrees warmer than normal... no one seems to be disagreeing that the world temperature has been increasing about 0.8 degrees every hundred years for the last couple hundred years, at this rate we will all be dead 100 years from now (unless 0samacare also increases life expectancy by double)

Probably true, 100 years from now I'll be 172 years old. I wish I had never smoked that first cigarette.

[hcap]

Unlike some here, I don't claim to know anything about the methodology. I simply said that I would take the opinion of a Nobel laureate over some unknown who displays not a scintilla of scientific credentials or credibility.
The endless PA OT crapola on AGW rises again. At least 10 threads all wrong. As far as your feeble logic goes, not only are there almost 100 climatologists to 1 who agree that AGW is real, but......

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’

Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war.

“If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/06/3677180/nobel-laureates-climate-change-action-plan/

[Actor]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

And Obama is wrong!?!

I can just see that pouting face. Poor Obama, he gets not respect -- and when it comes to science, he's no better than the Pope -- way out of his league on multiple accounts.
Has Dr. Giaever published his research in any peer reviewed journal? If so, which one? What date?

[hcap]

Has Dr. Giaever published his research in any peer reviewed journal? If so, which one? What date?You are wasting your time. On previous AGW threads here, I have been told the peer review process is too faulty to be taken seriously.

Pretty soon they will quote Anthony Watts or some other ridiculous source as proof of their silliness. Just as the Climate (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot) Depot article launched this latest idiocy

[tucker6]

The United States is such a small percentage of the surface area of the world.... there are areas in the pacific ocean that are 4 degrees warmer than normal... no one seems to be disagreeing that the world temperature has been increasing about 0.8 degrees every hundred years for the last couple hundred years, at this rate we will all be dead 100 years from now (unless 0samacare also increases life expectancy by double)
This post is BS. You get 0.8C for the last 100 years (not 200 as you claim) because the climate 'scientists' have homogenized the raw data to show such a trend. Of course, we'll never know if said climate 'scientists' did it correctly since they either threw out the raw data (what real scientist would do that) or will not provide the proofs of their work.

[tucker6]

The endless PA OT crapola on AGW rises again. At least 10 threads all wrong. As far as your feeble logic goes, not only are there almost 100 climatologists to 1 who agree that AGW is real, but......

You know this to be false yet continue to promote this lie. Why?

[tucker6]

“If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. [/I]


I left the above quote intact to pose the following question. Is that not the VERY SAME quote used in the 1970's to bring up the need to stave off the impending disaster known as world overpopulation????????????

How'd that work out??

[tucker6]

Has Dr. Giaever published his research in any peer reviewed journal? If so, which one? What date?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, aren't you guys past such juvenile hit and runs yet?? The climate world is so full of charlatans and yet not a peep about their activities. Can't make this stuff up.

[Tom]

Whatever, we all know for a fact NOTHING will ever stop or change the direction we are going.

Those who claim it is the most important issue going refuse to walk the talk.
The continue to drive the big SUVs, fly the private jets to GW conferences, and otherwise exempt themselves for the process. They only say things that affect OTHER people need to be done.

Obama, case in point. Why des he continue to destroy our planet by using AF1 t fly to fund raisers and haul his family on vacation after vacation?

hcap, the the big mouths leading this farce start living the life, maybe others will believe it. Until then, it is nothing to worry about. Move inland.:lol:

[Clocker]

I left the above quote intact to pose the following question. Is that not the VERY SAME quote used in the 1970's to bring up the need to stave off the impending disaster known as world overpopulation????????????

How'd that work out??

I don't know about the quote, but the concept was published in the book An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus in 1798.

[hcap]

You know this to be false yet continue to promote this lie. Why?You are the one who is lying. I have proved this many times, but of course if you think peer review is the lie what can else I expect?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.


..I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

...Here's a chart about science. It sums up what is arguably still the most important finding of thousands of scientific papers published on climate change over the last two years: scientists overwhelmingly believe that global warming is manmade.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/JsdX0Yf1MQ3m-uqRjq7iiNBJHjhDf7bgKhyMcESPcElwDtgbPpLOkoWVRlkV8Th 8mJXt92ihE4Xun2bGiSIpduK3OPx3LsRWjKmw=s0

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

.....See that black sliver? That represents the percentage of scientists who have concluded that climate change is not manmade, or is not happening at all, over the last two years. That is approximately 0.01 percent of working climate scientists. The data comes from a new survey from National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell, the man who previously discovered that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers support the theory that climate change is caused by human activity.

[Inner Dirt]

Whatever, we all know for a fact NOTHING will ever stop or change the direction we are going.

Those who claim it is the most important issue going refuse to walk the talk.
The continue to drive the big SUVs, fly the private jets to GW conferences, and otherwise exempt themselves for the process. They only say things that affect OTHER people need to be done.

Obama, case in point. Why des he continue to destroy our planet by using AF1 t fly to fund raisers and haul his family on vacation after vacation?

hcap, the the big mouths leading this farce start living the life, maybe others will believe it. Until then, it is nothing to worry about. Move inland.:lol:


Everything you say is so true. I have known greenies that have something negative to say about ALL forms of energy. Wind farms kill birds, hydro electric kills fish, solar farms disturb habitat and destroy vegetation when built. Coal burning is dirty, nuclear creates dangerous waste, even a wood campfire to cook hotdogs pollutes. Funny that none of these people live in an unheated cave, eating berries and raw fish.

[hcap]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming June 4, 2015

Another one biters the dust.

A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world’s warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.

"The rate of temperature increase during the last half of the 20th century is virtually identical to that of the 21st century," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and lead author of the study.

[Tom]

All the more reason to be condemning Obama's irresponsible use of AF1.
And does he really need all of those gas guzzling vehicles in his motorcade everywhere he goes?

And all those lights on 24-7 at the White House.

I bet Obama has killed off more of our planet than any president in history.
And yet where are thee "peers" to call him out on this wanton destruction?

[classhandicapper]

This all very simple.

I have a handicapping theory.

I put into practice betting at the track.

I go broke.

That means it's time for a new theory.

That's global warming in a nutshell. All the predictions have been wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the underlying theory just as there could be for many losing handicapping theories. But before you start telling other people what to do, you better actually know what YOU are talking about. They don't yet.

[Tom]

And you better be already doing what you tell them to do.
That is the 800 lbs, gorilla in the room.

NONE of the alarmists are walking the talk.
But a damn many of them are getting filthy rich off of the scare. (Al Gore)

[hcap]

Speaking of peer review, a peer reviewed paper pretty much demonstrating what goes on here ....

Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

...The U.S. public has become increasingly polarized in their attitudes towards science. Since the 1970's, Conservatives—unlike Liberals or Moderates—have become increasingly skeptical and distrustful of science [1]. Polarization is particularly pronounced with respect to climate change: People who embrace a laissez-faire vision of the free market are less likely to accept that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet than people with an egalitarian-communitarian outlook [2]–[7]. Although the crucial role of cultural worldviews in determining beliefs about climate science is now well established, at least two important questions remain unanswered.

....This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAA published a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, (my post #44), one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

[hcap]

This all very simple.

I have a handicapping theory.

I put into practice betting at the track.

I go broke.

That means it's time for a new theory.

That's global warming in a nutshell. All the predictions have been wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the underlying theory just as there could be for many losing handicapping theories. But before you start telling other people what to do, you better actually know what YOU are talking about. They don't yet.The prediction of the trend in global rise in temperatures has proved correct. The number of climatologists who agree with that assessment puts your few who do not too shame.

From an article back in 2013

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

Need I remind everyone once gain the conservative meme about NO TEMPERATURE increase over the last 15-18 years has been PROVEN wrong

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/no%20slow%20down%20in%20global%20warming_300.jpg

[tucker6]

Speaking of peer review, a peer reviewed paper pretty much demonstrating what goes on here ....

It was co-authored by Steven Lewandowsky, the guy who came up with the 97% tripe. Of course I would believe you'd prostrate in his general direction. Here's a hint for you Cappy. Try to think for yourself occasionally.

[tucker6]

Need I remind everyone once gain the conservative meme about NO TEMPERATURE increase over the last 15-18 years has been PROVEN wrong

That is simply NOT true. I know dozens of NOAA meteorologists, and 90% are embarrassed by that paper and its methodologies to gain an increase in that period. Even though modern instruments are the most accurate we have, NOAA actually felt the need to "adjust" the raw data upwards in the 21st century in order to show the rise. Incredibly despicable thing to do by NOAA, but given your lack of integrity on this issue, I am not surprised that you believe this hook, line, and sinker.

[hcap]

It was co-authored by Steven Lewandowsky, the guy who came up with the 97% tripe. Of course I would believe you'd prostrate in his general direction. Here's a hint for you Cappy. Try to think for yourself occasionally.
No the 97% is not tripe. And James Powell is the author of the peer reviewed paper showing it's way more than 97%

http://lh3.ggpht.com/JsdX0Yf1MQ3m-uqRjq7iiNBJHjhDf7bgKhyMcESPcElwDtgbPpLOkoWVRlkV8Th 8mJXt92ihE4Xun2bGiSIpduK3OPx3LsRWjKmw=s0
That is simply NOT true. I know dozens of NOAA meteorologists, and 90% are embarrassed by that paper and its methodologies to gain an increase in that period. Even though modern instruments are the most accurate we have, NOAA actually felt the need to "adjust" the raw data upwards in the 21st century in order to show the rise. Incredibly despicable thing to do by NOAA, but given your lack of integrity on this issue, I am not surprised that you believe this hook, line, and sinker.BS.
documentation please or is this bogus claim another one of your absurd conspiracy theories?

Prove that.90% are "embarrassed" without hearsay from Watts et al.

[tucker6]

No the 97% is not tripe. And James Powell is the author of the peer reviewed paper showing it's way more than 97%


You are shamelessly disingenuous. Seriously!

[tucker6]

Maybe someone without blinders on can debunk this article on the myth NOAA is trying to perpetrate on us.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

It is simply a travesty that our tax money is being given to these charlatans, and I mean that sincerely.

[hcap]

You are shamelessly disingenuous. Seriously!When you can't back up what you claim, you resort a Ralph Kramden moment

/wK9odsWwfIo

[hcap]

Maybe someone without blinders on can debunk this article on the myth NOAA is trying to perpetrate on us.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

It is simply a travesty that our tax money is being given to these charlatans, and I mean that sincerely.I thought we agreed a while ago I would not post anything from skeptical science, and you not anything from Watts.

I have plenty of mainstream accredited global warming sources, you only have frauds like Watts and the idiotic blog that started this 10th plus AGW thread. And for every fraud you use please check Source Watch for behind the scenes financial propping up.....

That idiotic blog Climate Depot

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot

[Tom]

The globe gonna do what the glove gonna do.
And nothing is gonna stop it or change it.

Move inland.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[tucker6]

When you can't back up what you claim, you resort a Ralph Kramden moment

I don't believe you are a noob, but when you post stuff in a climate thread, you look like one. Please study the factual link I just posted. Can you honestly read that article and not be concerned that the public is being lied to?? If you can, then you are hopeless and probably respond to the Congo emails asking you to help them get that $5M out of the country.

[tucker6]

I thought we agreed a while ago I would not post anything from skeptical science, and you not anything from Watts.


Have a link to that to that agreement? I don't remember posting that.

[hcap]

I don't believe you are a noob, but when you post stuff in a climate thread, you look like one. Please study the factual link I just posted. Can you honestly read that article and not be concerned that the public is being lied to?? If you can, then you are hopeless and probably respond to the Congo emails asking you to help them get that $5M out of the country.

Anthony Watts is not some one I read or take seriously. Is there another mainstream source with the same info that is not part of your conspiracy theory?
Otherwise you are out of ammo.....



/wK9odsWwfIo

[hcap]

Have a link to that to that agreement? I don't remember posting that.We did!. No I would have to look. There have been too many pages.

But how about we agree again? What is stopping you?

[DJofSD]

Anthony Watts is not some one I read or take seriously. Is there another mainstream source with the same info that is not part of your conspiracy theory?
Otherwise you are out of ammo.....



/wK9odsWwfIo
Funny thing about descent, you don't get to pick and choose from where or who it originates. Deal with it.

[tucker6]

Anthony Watts is not some one I read or take seriously. Is there another mainstream source with the same info that is not part of your conspiracy theory?

I see that actually trying to understand what is going on is against your religion. Sorry I asked.

[hcap]

Funny thing about descent, you don't get to pick and choose from where or who it originates. Deal with it.Like your 1 ONLY Nobel prize winning non climatologist who has no PAPERS OR PUBLISHED works in the field?

AS COMPARED TO..back in 2010.

http://planetsave.com/2010/05/07/255-leading-scientists-11-nobel-laureates-write-letter-supporting-climate-scientists-climate-science/

255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have just published (today) a stunning “Lead Letter” in the journal Science Supporting Climate Scientists & Climate Science.


We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

[boxcar]

Like your 1 ONLY Nobel prize winning non climatologist who has no PAPERS OR PUBLISHED works in the field?

AS COMPARED TO..back in 2010.

http://planetsave.com/2010/05/07/255-leading-scientists-11-nobel-laureates-write-letter-supporting-climate-scientists-climate-science/

255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have just published (today) a stunning “Lead Letter” in the journal Science Supporting Climate Scientists & Climate Science.


We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Wow! Science cannot be 100% absolutely certain about anything on this planet? I thought evolution was another settled matter? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But now we can conclude from your quoted statements that:

A.) Absolute Truth Exists.

B.) And under this heading, Science cannot be Absolutely Certain about anything.

C.) We should all be "deeply disturbed" that Science is fallible and finite. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

When you can't back up what you claim, you resort a Ralph Kramden moment.

As if you have never used such a tactic. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

An example of how scientific investigation works, read: http://gizmodo.com/humans-probably-cant-smell-one-trillion-different-smell-1716250845

[boxcar]

Speaking of peer review, a peer reviewed paper pretty much demonstrating what goes on here ....

Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

...The U.S. public has become increasingly polarized in their attitudes towards science. Since the 1970's, Conservatives—unlike Liberals or Moderates—have become increasingly skeptical and distrustful of science [1]. Polarization is particularly pronounced with respect to climate change: People who embrace a laissez-faire vision of the free market are less likely to accept that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet than people with an egalitarian-communitarian outlook [2]–[7]. Although the crucial role of cultural worldviews in determining beliefs about climate science is now well established, at least two important questions remain unanswered.

....This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAA published a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, (my post #44), one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

And the public should be distrustful and skeptical of science since there is another "800-lb. Gorilla" (to borrow Tom's phrase) in the room. It's called CONFLICT of INTEREST, since so much of this science is being funded by taxpayer money. This gorilla ain't going to bite the hand that feeds him. It's going to tell its revenue-hungry master whatever it wants to hear. Notwithstanding the relatively few honest scientists who recognize this, this, sir, is an irrefutable fact!

[classhandicapper]

The prediction of the trend in global rise in temperatures has proved correct. The number of climatologists who agree with that assessment puts your few who do not too shame.



They have been wrong for the last 18 years PERIOD.

Current temperatures are below even their lowest level projections from years ago. Now they have resorted to changing the data, changing the title of the phenomenon, and lying to maintain any credibility.

Look, there may be some valid science and theory underlying this. I'm not qualified to answer that question, but it's extremely likely there is given that so many scientists are on board.

But if you start giving me horses and 18 years later I am broke and changing my profit loss statements to make it look like I didn't lose as much, you are a bad handicapper in need of a new theory and I'm not paying any attention to you until you actually know what you are doing.

[Clocker]

They have been wrong for the last 18 years PERIOD.

You need to keep up. The High Priests of Global Warming have reconstructed the data to show that they were right.

[boxcar]

You need to keep up. The High Priests of Global Warming have reconstructed the data to show that they were right.

Yeah...in the business-accounting world, such a procedure is called cooking the books. And therein is your global warming. :lol: :lol:

[dartman51]

ISIS will destroy this country long before your, so called, global warming. Get your head out of your ass and rail on that for awhile. This country has far more pressing issues. :faint:

[Tom]

After the next big cyber attack, no one will have any data to look at, so problem solved.

[hcap]

Wow! Science cannot be 100% absolutely certain about anything on this planet? I thought evolution was another settled matter? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But now we can conclude from your quoted statements that:

A.) Absolute Truth Exists.

B.) And under this heading, Science cannot be Absolutely Certain about anything.

C.) We should all be "deeply disturbed" that Science is fallible and finite. :lol: :lol:I will not discuss anything with you any longer. Don't bother with your asinine comments.

[hcap]

They have been wrong for the last 18 years PERIOD.

Current temperatures are below even their lowest level projections from years ago. Now they have resorted to changing the data, changing the title of the phenomenon, and lying to maintain any credibility.

Look, there may be some valid science and theory underlying this. I'm not qualified to answer that question, but it's extremely likely there is given that so many scientists are on board.

But if you start giving me horses and 18 years later I am broke and changing my profit loss statements to make it look like I didn't lose as much, you are a bad handicapper in need of a new theory and I'm not paying any attention to you until you actually know what you are doing.Again? Again? Again? Read the article I posted about how you deniers have been absolutely wrong in your claim that there has been no rise in temperatures over the last 15 years.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

[hcap]

An example of how scientific investigation works, read: http://gizmodo.com/humans-probably-cant-smell-one-trillion-different-smell-1716250845No need to remind me. Thank you. But your skepticism is misdirected.

[DJofSD]

But your skepticism is misdirected.

We'll see. We'll see.

[Tom]

Good thread to read today.
It is cold and rainy outside, but that seems to have been then norm for 15-20 years now!

Maybe I'll put on a sweater.......:rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I will not discuss anything with you any longer. Don't bother with your asinine comments.

Hah...you're such a stick in the mud. :p :p

[burnsy]

I'll re iterate my original point......as a non scientist, who gives a rats ass? True or not, how is this an excuse to treat the Earth like Man's personal toilet bowl? Even if there is zero global warming, which I kind of doubt. Some day, probably sooner then later, something bad will happen....then the same whiners and Bible belters will whine the loudest about that too........

That's the problem with liberals and conservatives, plain old using common sense and having half a thought, went out the window years ago......George Carlin was right, the government wants a bunch of non-thinkers. Go to work, shut up and take it in the ass....its working out to a "T"........... :lol: When the Earth unleashes its fury, we are like ants. If it happens to be when we're still around....I don't want to hear jug heads throwing blame around and the "whine and cheese" . I think the "Bible crowd" slept through the chapter about Noah's Ark...... :bang:

[classhandicapper]

Again? Again? Again? Read the article I posted about how you deniers have been absolutely wrong in your claim that there has been no rise in temperatures over the last 15 years.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

The Global Surface temperature data is flawed because many of the locations they check are in urban areas. As cities grow, so does industrial and other activity. You can't control for all the changes in activity and how that might impact surface temperatures. The tendency is for cities to be warmer as they grow. From what I understand, they haven't even been consistent on where they measure from year to year. They have resorted to more "formulas" for manipulating the data.

You need a controlled dataset, not manipulated data that you can tweak to suggest whatever it is you are trying to prove. They are taking all the horses they lost on, eliminating the bad trips, and saying "See we won".

That's why many people consider the satellite data to be superior. There's less room for manipulation and change. The satellite data suggests their projections have been WRONG.

[DJofSD]

Even the data from the satellite is suspect. They had to make adjustments to that last year when they discovered a flaw in the data.

[boxcar]

I'll re iterate my original point......as a non scientist, who gives a rats ass? True or not, how is this an excuse to treat the Earth like Man's personal toilet bowl? Even if there is zero global warming, which I kind of doubt. Some day, probably sooner then later, something bad will happen....then the same whiners and Bible belters will whine the loudest about that too........

That's the problem with liberals and conservatives, plain old using common sense and having half a thought, went out the window years ago......George Carlin was right, the government wants a bunch of non-thinkers. Go to work, shut up and take it in the ass....its working out to a "T"........... :lol: When the Earth unleashes its fury, we are like ants. If it happens to be when we're still around....I don't want to hear jug heads throwing blame around and the "whine and cheese" . I think the "Bible crowd" slept through the chapter about Noah's Ark...... :bang:

Errr...are you talking about Hollywood's recent version of "Noah's Ark" wherein God punished ancient earthlings because they treated the planet as their personal "toilet bowl"? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Our planted started out as a flaming fireball, then it partially cooled and now is molten in the center and has ice on the outside. The continents keep moving around like bumper cars. The moon pulls the seas up and drops them back every day, and there is nowhere to hide from the winds or the lightening.

So I should worry about anther degree or two? :lol::lol::lol:

Baby, we is already on the edge here. WOO HOO!

[Tor Ekman]

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

[DJofSD]

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton
Good one. Sorry he's already shuffled off this mortal coil. He did address a number of issues about poorly done science and the current debate.

[boxcar]

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

And marks are always so gullible they'll never know they're being fleeced.

[mostpost]

The Global Surface temperature data is flawed because many of the locations they check are in urban areas. As cities grow, so does industrial and other activity. You can't control for all the changes in activity and how that might impact surface temperatures. The tendency is for cities to be warmer as they grow. From what I understand, they haven't even been consistent on where they measure from year to year. They have resorted to more "formulas" for manipulating the data.

You need a controlled dataset, not manipulated data that you can tweak to suggest whatever it is you are trying to prove. They are taking all the horses they lost on, eliminating the bad trips, and saying "See we won".

That's why many people consider the satellite data to be superior. There's less room for manipulation and change. The satellite data suggests their projections have been WRONG.
Thank you. That is what we are saying. Earth is getting warmer because of human activities. Larger cities mean more industrial activity which increases temperatures both by putting more heat into the atmosphere and by preventing that heat from venting.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the earth's population has increased from 1.5 billion to 7.0 billion over the last century and a half. He blamed the temperature increase on this increase in population. Well, duh. That is the whole point. We can't keep doing things the same way because there are so many more of us.

[tucker6]

Thank you. That is what we are saying. Earth is getting warmer because of human activities. Larger cities mean more industrial activity which increases temperatures both by putting more heat into the atmosphere and by preventing that heat from venting.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the earth's population has increased from 1.5 billion to 7.0 billion over the last century and a half. He blamed the temperature increase on this increase in population. Well, duh. That is the whole point. We can't keep doing things the same way because there are so many more of us.
Sorry, but that is NOT what you guys are saying. If it were, you'd be regulating human birth rates to reduce CO2 rates. Instead, you are attempting to impact CO2 rates via carbon taxes on fossil fuels and other taxation schemes. Regardless, CO2 is not a bogeyman gas anyway. Water vapor is. But, it is difficult to tax the oceans, isn't it??

[FantasticDan]

Regardless, CO2 is not a bogeyman gas anyway. Water vapor is. But, it is difficult to tax the oceans, isn't it??
u9L49p9Y8Mg

[classhandicapper]

Thank you. That is what we are saying. Earth is getting warmer because of human activities. Larger cities mean more industrial activity which increases temperatures both by putting more heat into the atmosphere and by preventing that heat from venting.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that the earth's population has increased from 1.5 billion to 7.0 billion over the last century and a half. He blamed the temperature increase on this increase in population. Well, duh. That is the whole point. We can't keep doing things the same way because there are so many more of us.

You aren't understanding what I am saying.

The extra heat around the cities as they grow is what they are measuring, but that heat is not having an impact on the overall global temperature, climate etc.. Otherwise the satellite data would match it. The problem is that their censors are measuring heat in a biased fashion.

Imaging me measuring the temperature in my apartment and most of the sensors were located near the radiator. I would have a faulty idea of what the temperature actually is in the apartment.

[tucker6]

We can always count on the left to post pretty pictures instead of making salient counter arguments. Carry on.

[mostpost]

u9L49p9Y8Mg
Thanks for that interesting video. The problem is there are a lot of people who won't watch or will just watch the first part, or will flat out not understand it.

Here is what it says. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are both greenhouse gases. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere rises as the temperature rises. But water vapor does not cause that rise in temperature. Carbon dioxide does.

Once carbon dioxide raises the temperature, water vapor can add to that increase, but it does not start it. The key here is that humans do not add to the amount of water vapor, whereas they contribute greatly to the excess of carbon dioxide.

[mostpost]

We can always count on the left to post pretty pictures instead of making salient counter arguments. Carry on.
You are just the person I am talking about in #93. The pretty picture is a salient counter argument. You are just incapable of recognizing it as such. Or you didn't bother to watch the video and are just talking to hear yourself talk.

[Clocker]

Thanks for that interesting video. The problem is there are a lot of people who won't watch

I didn't watch it. I don't watch any video from anyone presented in support of any position without explanation. If you have a point to make, state it in your own words. If you can't explain it well enough to stimulate some interest or curiosity in follow up material, like a video, then I assume you are just posting propaganda.

[tucker6]

I didn't watch it. I don't watch any video from anyone presented in support of any position without explanation. If you have a point to make, state it in your own words. If you can't explain it well enough to stimulate some interest or curiosity in follow up material, like a video, then I assume you are just posting propaganda.
yep

[tucker6]

Once carbon dioxide raises the temperature, water vapor can add to that increase, but it does not start it. The key here is that humans do not add to the amount of water vapor, whereas they contribute greatly to the excess of carbon dioxide.
So if I were to post a link to a peer reviewed paper that shows that CO2 does not cause a positive water vapor positive as hypothesized, would that not make you more skeptical of AGW and its models??

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-climate-analyses-using-improved-global-water-vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/

In fact, water vapor and tropical relative humidity have DECLINED as CO2 has increased.

Now what is your excuse??

[boxcar]

You aren't understanding what I am saying.

The extra heat around the cities as they grow is what they are measuring, but that heat is not having an impact on the overall global temperature, climate etc.. Otherwise the satellite data would match it. The problem is that their censors are measuring heat in a biased fashion.

Imaging me measuring the temperature in my apartment and most of the sensors were located near the radiator. I would have a faulty idea of what the temperature actually is in the apartment.

I think your analogy is a little deep for Mostie.

[hcap]

So if I were to post a link to a peer reviewed paper that shows that CO2 does not cause a positive water vapor positive as hypothesized, would that not make you more skeptical of AGW and its models??

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-climate-analyses-using-improved-global-water-vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/

In fact, water vapor and tropical relative humidity have DECLINED as CO2 has increased.

Now what is your excuse??This peer reviewed paper does not disprove the CO2-water vapor cycle, but speculates on the "mix"

From the actual peer reviewed paper published back in 2012......

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/full

4. Conclusions

[28] The results of Figures 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a "forthcoming" paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the auxiliary material. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data. NVAP-M and its associated detailed documentation and metadata will be available in mid-2012 at the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC).

Also there was no "forthcoming" paper

However Roger Pielke Sr although skeptical of the exact mix of water vapor and CO2 has also stated:

Humans (https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/correction-to-a-december-10-2007-bbc-news-article/) are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

[hcap]

The Global Surface temperature data is flawed because many of the locations they check are in urban areas. As cities grow, so does industrial and other activity. You can't control for all the changes in activity and how that might impact surface temperatures. The tendency is for cities to be warmer as they grow. From what I understand, they haven't even been consistent on where they measure from year to year. They have resorted to more "formulas" for manipulating the data.

You need a controlled dataset, not manipulated data that you can tweak to suggest whatever it is you are trying to prove. They are taking all the horses they lost on, eliminating the bad trips, and saying "See we won".

That's why many people consider the satellite data to be superior. There's less room for manipulation and change. The satellite data suggests their projections have been WRONG.There have been many AGW threads here repeating the sane flawed denier claims.

The original contention that the "urban heat island effect" has biased measurements was made by Watts et al and has been dismissed.

From the Berkeley Earth Study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

....The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[10][11][12][13]

Here is the full study on "urban heat island effect and poor station quality"....

Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature
Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS
Classificatios

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf


And...

/pidRKmq2iGI

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Since Dr. Giaever once supported the obvious charlatan Obama, his credibility, scientific or otherwise, is in doubt. By declaring global warming a non-problem, now he just looks like an idiot.

Thirty years ago I worked as climatologist in the Air Force, and we all realized the Earth was warming. Not only did the weather station temperature data support that trend, the more accurate long-term indicator of sea level rise ended any debate. I remember us joking about eventually being able to enjoy the shade under palm trees at McMurdo Station in Antarctica. While we can argue about the cause of the warming until the cows come home, it doesn't change that fact that hundreds of millions of people will need to migrate. Since the funds won't be available to protect low-lying areas like the Dutch, I'd say that's a problem.

It boggles my mind to see how this topic has become such a political lightning rod, with the associated hysteria around it not seen since the Salem Witch Trials.

[hcap]

That's why many people consider the satellite data to be superior. There's less room for manipulation and change. The satellite data suggests their projections have been WRONG. Why is it you do not post any supporting studies? And reject the mainstream validated studies out of hand?

Btw, the entire field of global warming gets data from many sources, all of which seem to support the same conclusion of global temperature rise. So land, sea and satellite data are all in agreement.

Satellite data...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Tropospheric_an d_stratospheric_measurements

However there is also .....

/oRa-yvQVLrs

[hcap]

Wow! Science cannot be 100% absolutely certain about anything on this planet? I thought evolution was another settled matter? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: But now we can conclude from your quoted statements that:

A.) Absolute Truth Exists.

B.) And under this heading, Science cannot be Absolutely Certain about anything.

C.) We should all be "deeply disturbed" that Science is fallible and finite. :lol: :lol:Ok, I will tell you why I find your posts asinine and refuse to get into extended discussions with you is that you are a close minded bigot. And outside of the Religious thread you are even more ignorant about science and the real world----if that is at all possible.

This thread is not about the value of science or whether it is the appropriate tool to use to understand global warming, it is about WHICH school of science or interpretation of science to use to explain the observed phenomena. I evidently am in the minority as usual here, but my argument with other posters here is very different than suggesting "biblical" interpretation should be used to understand changing global conditions. You do not belong out in "mixed company" arguing details on how things work. I guess now that the Religious thread is dead, and you have no one to lecture, you must preach somewhere?

I might add your lying about, and refusal to watch videos I posted on the Religious thread, I found particularly appalling.

[tucker6]

Thirty years ago I worked as climatologist in the Air Force, and we all realized the Earth was warming. Not only did the weather station temperature data support that trend, the more accurate long-term indicator of sea level rise ended any debate. I remember us joking about eventually being able to enjoy the shade under palm trees at McMurdo Station in Antarctica. While we can argue about the cause of the warming until the cows come home, it doesn't change that fact that hundreds of millions of people will need to migrate. Since the funds won't be available to protect low-lying areas like the Dutch, I'd say that's a problem.


Amazing to me that you knew global warming was here to stay just a few years after they rebounded from their nadir in the late 70's, and before even Hansen discovered it!!

McMurdo Station appears to have had an UHI issue in the 1980's when you were there (not sure you were there - my assumption) as mentioned in the comments section of this article. That commenter seems to have been there at the same time as you, and has a different opinion.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/antarctic-temperature-trends/

Additionally, the following is a letter from 2009 describing McMurdo weather in more recent times and the difficulty in assessing climate in Antarctica. Note the record cold in 2006. I guess based on that data point, an observer may conclude a new ice age is in store, and no palm trees for at least a few more years down there.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/

As for sea level rise, it has essentially not changed in acceleration or deceleration since the end of the little ice age. It is rising at about 8-9 inches per century, and continues to plod along. As Tom would say, sea level has been better, and sea level has been worse. Hard to believe as a climatologist that this was the clincher for you given the known inaccuracies in sea level data in the past and subsidence issues polluting conclusions.

[classhandicapper]

There have been many AGW threads here repeating the sane flawed denier claims.

The original contention that the "urban heat island effect" has biased measurements was made by Watts et al and has been dismissed.

From the Berkeley Earth Study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

....The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[10][11][12][13]

Here is the full study on "urban heat island effect and poor station quality"....

Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature
Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS
Classificatios

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf


And...

/pidRKmq2iGI


I'm not arguing that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 50 years. I think there's unanimous agreement on that. We are talking about the last 18 years only. The question is why the surface data does not match the satellite data and the ridiculously faulty projections made by scientists for that 18 year period.

If urban heat doesn't fully explain why the surface data doesn't match the satellite data, then something else does, because it doesn't match.

When people are constantly changing the data to fit their desired conclusion, they can't be trusted, and when they are constantly wrong in their projections, they don't know what they are doing.

[hcap]

I'm not arguing that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 50 years. I think there's unanimous agreement on that. We are talking about the last 18 years only. The question is why the surface data does not match the satellite data and the ridiculously faulty projections made by scientists for that 18 year period.

If urban heat doesn't fully explain why the surface data doesn't match the satellite data, then something else does, because it doesn't match. And when people are constantly changing the data to fit their desired conclusion, they can't be trusted.You are wrong. I pointed out to you a number of times that the denier "pause" is bogus. And even before it was conclusively proven bogus mostly every legit climatologist pointed to the oceans absorbing excess heat. Here is my #75 post one more time.....
Again? Again? Again? Read the article I posted about how you deniers have been absolutely wrong in your claim that there has been no rise in temperatures over the last 15 years.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/no%20slow%20down%20in%20global%20warming_300.jpg

[classhandicapper]

You are wrong. I pointed out to you a number of times that the denier "pause" is bogus. And even before it was conclusively proven bogus mostly every legit climatologist pointed to the oceans absorbing excess heat. Here is my #75 post one more time.....

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/no%20slow%20down%20in%20global%20warming_300.jpg

Even if I assume they are right about this latest ocean theory (and I do not know they are because they are altering data again), they are admitting that all their projections were wrong because they didn't take the oceans into account properly in their models initially and weren't measuring properly.

But now they want me to believe that even though they are constantly changing the data and even though there's still no evidence they've finally got their models right or that we'll be worse off if the world warms up a little, we should overhaul the world.

That's not the way it works.

First you demonstrate you understand the phenomenon by making accurate projections using frozen data.

Next you demonstrate we'll actually be worse off if what you predict will happen actually does happen.

Then I take action to prevent it.

So far all we've had is projections of imminent doom and gloom that turned out wrong. The ice caps are fine, the polar bears are happy, severe storms are down etc.. In fact, the only thing wrong is all damage the left wing is doing to the economy and society.

The market is moving towards cleaner energy on its own. It's doesn't need the left wing screwing this up too.

[Tom]

Nothing of any substance has been done so far and nothing ever will be.
Theo only stuff will be done is feel good stuff that re-distributes wealth.

This is 100% a political issue.
This is how the power-elite on the left keep their base in line.

Weak minds are the hallmark of the left.

[Inner Dirt]

Funny how the global warming alarmists can't seem to agree on much of anything. Just googling around it appears the average doomsday predictor says the oceans will rise 5" by 2015. The National Geographic which says "climate change" in every other paragraph no matter what the subject matter has models which show what will happen to the southern tip of Florida when
"Sea level is 5 feet higher in 2100."

Can't remember where I read it but many are alarmed about domestic cattle contributing to global warming through flatulence. So we should eat less beef to lower our carbon foot print. 50 million buffalo used to roam the continental USA before they were slaughtered in mass for food and to eliminate Native American food sources. So we have actually reduced livestock farts from destroying the planet. Another thing comical is how scientist claim to be able to tell exact temperatures to the tenth degree from hundreds of years ago, yet miss predict tomorrow's temperatures by 10 degrees frequently.

[boxcar]

Even if I assume they are right about this latest ocean theory (and I do not know they are because they are altering data again), they are admitting that all their projections were wrong because they didn't take the oceans into account properly in their models initially and weren't measuring properly.

But now they want me to believe that even though they are constantly changing the data and even though there's still no evidence they've finally got their models right or that we'll be worse off if the world warms up a little, we should overhaul the world.

That's not the way it works.

First you demonstrate you understand the phenomenon by making accurate projections using frozen data.

Next you demonstrate we'll actually be worse off if what you predict will happen actually does happen.

Then I take action to prevent it.

So far all we've had is projections of imminent doom and gloom that turned out wrong. The ice caps are fine, the polar bears are happy, severe storms are down etc.. In fact, the only thing wrong is all damage the left wing is doing to the economy and society.

The market is moving towards cleaner energy on its own. It's doesn't need the left wing screwing this up too.

I know some Mudder Earth worshipers here in Florida who are actually praying to her to send a huge Hurricane this way. Their rationale is that we deserve to be hit because we have ignored all the warning signs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Amazing to me that you knew global warming was here to stay just a few years after they rebounded from their nadir in the late 70's, and before even Hansen discovered it!!

McMurdo Station appears to have had an UHI issue in the 1980's when you were there (not sure you were there - my assumption) as mentioned in the comments section of this article. That commenter seems to have been there at the same time as you, and has a different opinion.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/antarctic-temperature-trends/

Additionally, the following is a letter from 2009 describing McMurdo weather in more recent times and the difficulty in assessing climate in Antarctica. Note the record cold in 2006. I guess based on that data point, an observer may conclude a new ice age is in store, and no palm trees for at least a few more years down there.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/

As for sea level rise, it has essentially not changed in acceleration or deceleration since the end of the little ice age. It is rising at about 8-9 inches per century, and continues to plod along. As Tom would say, sea level has been better, and sea level has been worse. Hard to believe as a climatologist that this was the clincher for you given the known inaccuracies in sea level data in the past and subsidence issues polluting conclusions.

Back in the mid 80s we didn't call it "Global Warming" per se, but there were plenty of references to rising CO2 levels, acid rain, sea level rise, glacial retreat, and the like. I hardly stated we knew it was "here to stay", though the trend was (and continues to remain) along the lines of warming. Climate change throughout geologic history was obvious, and the debate was just beginning on whether humans were now influencing these changes, and whether the rate of change was accelerating.

I have not been to McMurdo, but our unit was responsible for analyzing data in support of air operations there, using the 35 to 40 years of data available. This timeframe is prior to the links in your articles. But that info is irrelevant in that short term variations in weather are not useful in looking at the long term climate trends. I simply used McMurdo as an example of a cold place getting warmer, and also because I did a study on their station and remember it being pretty dang cold. Your attempt to discredit my post simply reflects your lack of a sense of humor, and supports my "Witch Trial" view on the subject. We also had similar info related to cold weather bases like Goose Bay and Thule, and trends there also indicated slight rising in temps, though of course they remain quite cool in the winter time. The ancillary data of glacier measurements and sea level rise supported our views of general warming. I also worked on a project where we updated a reference guide for aircraft icing levels, and it appeared to show a slight migration northwards by season. None of this is shocking, and doesn't change THE FACT that the planet is in a warming trend.

While I won't argue that measuring sea level is a tricky business, there is a longer history of that data versus temperature measurements. It was the "clincher" in that all the data was all indicating one direction - up. And it does appear to be accelerating.

[hcap]

Even if I assume they are right about this latest ocean theory (and I do not know they are because they are altering data again), they are admitting that all their projections were wrong because they didn't take the oceans into account properly in their models initially and weren't measuring properly.

But now they want me to believe that even though they are constantly changing the data and even though there's still no evidence they've finally got their models right or that we'll be worse off if the world warms up a little, we should overhaul the world.

That's not the way it works.

First you demonstrate you understand the phenomenon by making accurate projections using frozen data.

Next you demonstrate we'll actually be worse off if what you predict will happen actually does happen.

Then I take action to prevent it.

So far all we've had is projections of imminent doom and gloom that turned out wrong. The ice caps are fine, the polar bears are happy, severe storms are down etc.. In fact, the only thing wrong is all damage the left wing is doing to the economy and society.

The market is moving towards cleaner energy on its own. It's doesn't need the left wing screwing this up too.Before the latest study the IPCC did not get it all wrong. Although there was a puzzling lag in LAND temperatures, land temperatures are only a minor component of the overall global heat accumulation.record. Most of this is taken from from the 2013 IPCC report......

"Energy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From the 2013 IPCC report. The apparent slow down only applied to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. (The purple segment at the bottom of the above figure is the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'.) As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second."

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1381976927298/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3.1-Fig-1_450.jpg

Besides, the IPCC data in the 2013 report didn’t actually show much of a Pause anyway. The report actually concluded, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

So other than a minor lag in LAND temperatures climatologists were well aware of where the globes heat energy was going. In other words the bulk of the models all substantially pointed to a definite warming trend. No data is being altered.

The latest study adds some missing data.

"Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, says, “Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.
”
.....NOAA (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html) scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends since the release of the IPCC report, and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014, the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets.

A correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data is probably the most substantial improvement in the calculations. Before 1974, the primary method for measuring sea surface temperatures was by ship. But since then, buoys, with greater accuracy, have been used in increasing numbers. Data collected from buoys are always cooler than ship-based data, and we’ve developed methods for accurately comparing these two crucial data sets.

[hcap]

/Lepc2OKX6uQ

Deniers are looking at a "trend" starting from the whopper El-Nino year of 1998, and of course the trend is lower starting that year. How about the warming from 1999? Or from 1997? Or 1996? The fake skeptics have literally done this for years now. What's really happening is, as years that are on par with 1998 pile up in the absence of El-ninos, we see the new normal: year after year near or above 1998 temperature in spite of numerous cooling influences, especially a sun delivering less irradiance than back then.

[hcap]

I know some Mudder Earth worshipers here in Florida who are actually praying to her to send a huge Hurricane this way. Their rationale is that we deserve to be hit because we have ignored all the warning signs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:So say non scientific religious non rational thinkers like you who have no, zero, nada, understanding of the pertinent issues. And only babble. At least some deniers make an attempt to understand what should be considered. You have never said anything calling upon science or math because you have no knowledge of either. And the irony is there is a case to be made that Florida may be flooded (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/scientists-predict-huge-sea-level-rise-even-if-we-limit-climate-change) by the end of the century. But who cares when "end times" and the return of J.C. will arrive first.?

Why bother thinking logically and factually in depth?

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150710-story.html

Ocean 'weather balloons' detect cause of global warming pause

....What researchers discovered was that during the period of the hiatus -- from roughly 2003 to 2013 -- sea surface temperatures in the Pacific and Indian oceans rose more slowly than they had in previous years.

However, heat was actually accumulating in a layer of water just below the surface, in an area between 300 and 1,000 feet deep.

This layer of warming showed that even though the rise in global average surface temperature had slowed, the ocean continued to absorb heat generated by greenhouse gasses, authors said.

....The idea that the Pacific Ocean absorbed heat that would have otherwise led to a rise in global average surface temperature is not new.

However, the JPL study is the first to use only direct observations to describe the phenomenon and specify a precise area of warming.

I will not respond to you if you do not make a scientific argument instead of your usual nonsense.

[tucker6]

So in one post you stated that the temps never paused. Then in another post you state that if it did pause, the heat was hiding in the deep oceans. I wonder if Jimmy Hoffa is hiding there too...

Your contradictions are lovely to see. :D

[hcap]

So in one post you stated that the temps never paused. Then in another post you state that if it did pause, the heat was hiding in the deep oceans. I wonder if Jimmy Hoffa is hiding there too...

Your contradictions are lovely to see. The denier talking point about "a pause" is mostly in artifact of a small sample of data starting right after an El Nino year. And even so a relatively minor slowdown of surface temperature only. Now clearly demonstrated oceanic absorption of heat by NOAA scientists puts to rest that specific cherry picking of surface temps. The global mix of warming must include more than just land surface temps.
I wrote this. Watch the video again

/Lepc2OKX6uQ

Deniers are looking at a "trend" starting from the whopper El-Nino year of 1998, and of course the trend is lower starting that year. How about the warming from 1999? Or from 1997? Or 1996? The fake skeptics have literally done this for years now. What's really happening is, as years that are on par with 1998 pile up in the absence of El-ninos, we see the new normal: year after year near or above 1998 temperature in spite of numerous cooling influences, especially a sun delivering less irradiance than back then.

[Tom]

You know, I was watching Shark Week this week, and there is this deep, deep gully down around Australia.

I would guess it is big enough for all the hot air to hide out in.
It would not be obvious to anyone, seeing how the center of the planet is millions of degrees, according the inventor of the internet and GW, ALLGORE!

What a brain trust hcap has here! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[tucker6]

You know, I was watching Shark Week this week, and there is this deep, deep gully down around Australia.

I would guess it is big enough for all the hot air to hide out in.
It would not be obvious to anyone, seeing how the center of the planet is millions of degrees, according the inventor of the internet and GW, ALLGORE!

What a brain trust hcap has here! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Agree. Delusional can be a wonderful, blissful existence.

[hcap]

Agree. Delusional can be a wonderful, blissful existence.And you two excel at wrong info and irrelevant ranting. :lol:

[tucker6]

And you two excel at wrong info and irrelevant ranting. :lol:
try not to look in the mirror and type.

[Tom]

And you two excel at wrong info and irrelevant ranting.

Ok, maybe you are right here.
Just how many millions of degrees is the core of the planet?

[hcap]

Ok, maybe you are right here.
Just how many millions of degrees is the core of the planet?There are no climatologists saying this and simply because President Gore, a non climatologist screwed up and blanked out momentarily (millions instead of thousands) is besides the point. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[classhandicapper]

Before the latest study the IPCC did not get it all wrong. Although there was a puzzling lag in LAND temperatures, land temperatures are only a minor component of the overall global heat accumulation.record. Most of this is taken from from the 2013 IPCC report......

"Energy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From the 2013 IPCC report. The apparent slow down only applied to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. (The purple segment at the bottom of the above figure is the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'.) As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second."

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1381976927298/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3.1-Fig-1_450.jpg

Besides, the IPCC data in the 2013 report didn’t actually show much of a Pause anyway. The report actually concluded, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

So other than a minor lag in LAND temperatures climatologists were well aware of where the globes heat energy was going. In other words the bulk of the models all substantially pointed to a definite warming trend. No data is being altered.

The latest study adds some missing data.

"Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, says, “Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century.
”
.....NOAA (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html) scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends since the release of the IPCC report, and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014, the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets.

A correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data is probably the most substantial improvement in the calculations. Before 1974, the primary method for measuring sea surface temperatures was by ship. But since then, buoys, with greater accuracy, have been used in increasing numbers. Data collected from buoys are always cooler than ship-based data, and we’ve developed methods for accurately comparing these two crucial data sets.


You still don't get it do you?

They keep changing the land data to fit the desired result after their projections were wrong. You can't do that and convince anyone of anything. That's a bogus methodology.

Plus, it still doesn't match the satellite data, which should do as good or a better job at capturing warming.

There's no way around the fact they there may be some good science underlying the research, but they are essentially still clueless on how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. You can't ask people to overhaul the world economic system when you still don't know what you are doing. You have to demonstrate you know what your are doing before the fact with locked data and it should be verified by other sources.

[hcap]

Ok, I give up. Believe what you want. But you don't get it.
You are wrong. No one is changing the data :ThmbDown: except AGW deniers.

[classhandicapper]

Ok, I give up. Believe what you want. But you don't get it.
You are wrong. No one is changing the data :ThmbDown: except AGW deniers.

The latest study adds some missing data.

I see we have a reading comprehension issue here also.

[Clocker]

There are no climatologists saying this and simply because President Gore, a non climatologist screwed up and blanked out momentarily (millions instead of thousands) is besides the point.

Momentarily? :D

Gore has been blanked out for at least 20 years. As have you, apparently, at least about the 2000 election. Or are you a Bush Denier, reconstructing the Electoral College results?

[hcap]

The latest study adds some missing data.

I see we have a reading comprehension issue here also.You think adding data is back fitting? Science has advanced constantly by adding data.

But what is important is that the overall picture and evidence has only gotten stronger. Here is another image. I added the word "pause". What the latest study by NOAA does is add data. "NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends since the release of the IPCC report, and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014, the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets".

The overall from the 2013 IPCC report remains 95% unchanged. We knew then only 2% of all global heating went into the oceans. Now we know the pause artifact created by cherry picking before the latest study has fallen apart----as the latest study supports more heat added to the oceans during the "pause" and a bit less into the air and land due to changes in how ocean measurements are done. Yes more accurate data has been added and more importantly the first 15 years of the 21st century supports the continuing warming trend. So the minor "pause" of air and land temps fade into a larger more defined picture.

The only back fitting is by deniers to support their conspiracy theories.

[Tom]

There are no climatologists saying this and simply because President Gore, a non climatologist screwed up and blanked out momentarily (millions instead of thousands) is besides the point.

I like how you weaved another myth into this thread - that Gore won, and that on top of the myth of MMGW. Good stuff.

[hcap]

Correction I said...
The overall from the 2013 IPCC report remains 95% unchanged. We knew then only 2% of all global heating went into the oceans. Now we know the pause artifact created by cherry picking before the latest study has fallen apart----as the latest study supports more heat added to the oceans during the "pause" and a bit less into the air and land due to changes in how ocean measurements are done.That should be.. The overall from the 2013 IPCC report remains 95% unchanged. We knew then only 2% of all global heating went into the air and land.

[hcap]

I like how you weaved another myth into this thread - that Gore won, and that on top of the myth of MMGW. Good stuff.Too bad!.
President Gore would have saved us from those piss poor Bush years.

[davew]

Too bad!.
President Gore would have saved us from those piss poor Bush years.


.. and the disintegration of United States integrity the following 8 years

[Tom]

Yeah, after Gore, there would have nothing let for Obama to destroy.

[classhandicapper]

You think adding data is back fitting? Science has advanced constantly by adding data.


I think adding data demolishes your credibility for making projections. It's a flat out admission that you didn't know what you were doing when you first started warning people about the issue. It also smells to high heaven because the issue is very political and we've seen evidence of politics in the communications from the scientific community.

That's why I keep saying there is probably some legitimate science governing all this, but in order to gain credibility you have to make projections that actually come to pass and be consistent with other data.

The land data has to agree with the satellite data and neither can be fudged, tampered with, spun, changed or anything else. You can keep learning and changing models, but that snapshot model has to do a good job of projecting where we are going to be 10 years from now with a certain range.

If scientists can do that, people will listen.

People aren't going to listen to people telling them the caps are going way, the polar bears will be extinct, the weather way more extreme etc... and then 10 years later the opposite if happening.

[thaskalos]

The biggest and most imminent danger facing our species is OVERPOPULATION...but hardly anyone says anything about it. We read more about the sun eventually burning out, in a few billion years.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The biggest and most imminent danger facing our species is OVERPOPULATION...but hardly anyone says anything about it. We read more about the sun eventually burning out, in a few billion years.

Agreed. You can bet your last $2 that the elitists are talking about overpopulation behind closed doors, and making plans to address the problem. And something tells me that the vast majority of us are not going to like where that's going.....

[davew]

The biggest and most imminent danger facing our species is OVERPOPULATION...but hardly anyone says anything about it. We read more about the sun eventually burning out, in a few billion years.


It is slightly limiting with starvation, disease and genocide.

[boxcar]

It is slightly limiting with starvation, disease and genocide.

Toss in wars and we'll never have to worry about overpopulation. Paradoxically, I think wars are a human survival mechanism. :D

[rastajenk]

I don't really hear the oceans complaining about taking on some Xtra Heat. Maybe they can handle a lot more. Maybe they release some heat when the atmosphere asks for it...maintaining an equilibrium to be measured and observed in terms of thousands of years, not 15 or 20 or whatever is convenient.

[tucker6]

I don't really hear the oceans complaining about taking on some Xtra Heat. Maybe they can handle a lot more. Maybe they release some heat when the atmosphere asks for it...maintaining an equilibrium to be measured and observed in terms of thousands of years, not 15 or 20 or whatever is convenient.
very sharp post