Well, this subject sure gets all the deniers panties in a knot and brings them out in full force.
Reddit bans comments from global warming skeptics
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
You know what's bull $hit Colpy? When a scientist tells you that we use things like objective tests, and then you try to wave that off with something a politician claimed. That's bull $hit, and it certainly isn't in accord with what you quoted me as saying. Is there a particular reason that you would use claims by a politician, instead of, say finding out what the experts are observing?
Maybe you need to read better sources?
Would you even read a list of the things climate model experiments have predicted, and have now been confirmed with observations if I made one for you? If I were a betting man I'd say no.
And so what? When was the last time that happened? Is it ocurring more often? Nope. Again, we use tools that can objectively test hypotheses Colpy.
No, the jet stream did...that's one of them newfangled findings them there lab geeks have discovered. When the air warms over the Arctic like it has, there are greater dips in the jet stream. Including blocking patterns that move very slowly. Feel free to google that one. Or read about it here:
Arctic ice melt sets stage for severe winters, scientists say | Cornell Chronicle
Absolute unmitigated bull$hit. Earth includes the oceans, and all told the planet has been accumulating heat. I guess if you want to say air temperatures over land since 2000, then I'd be fine with that caveat. And again I would say to you, so what? What significance do you actually think this holds? Do you think that man made climate change can only be real if the temperature over land increase is linear year after year? That would be pretty stupid...
Your opinion. I'll go with what the data says thanks.
Thank you Colpy but I'm well aware of what science tolerates. It's my trade after all. So maybe instead of looking to Gore you should try primary literature sources. You're a history buff after all. Try applying the same principles instead of parroting something you read on whatever blog you fancy.
Lead by Gore? You're dreaming. The science was well established before he ever started chattering about it.
Objective tests wow that's a new one for me. I always thought that science was about absolutes , I must have missed something .
Yup. What evidence is there of excess? All projections.
What is the hit and miss ratio so far? About the same as the Farmers Almanac?
If ifs and buts were fruit and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Well you're wrong. Very wrong. When we perform experiments, we analyze the data, objectively. If I apply an experimental treatment to one plot of land, and compare it against a control, do you think the outcome will be the same each time I repeat the test? If you think the answer is an absolute no, or an absolute yes, then you've certainly missed something along the way.
Scientists have to be comfortable with variability and uncertainty. It's part of the job. Likewise for climate modelers. No model is right in an absolute sense, and no study outcome is absolutely right either. That's really not how science works at all.
Increasing atmospheric concentration, increasing oceanic concentration. Measurements, not projections. :roll:
This from a guy who don't know the physics of clouds or basic planetary mechanics. The climate models of the establishment are all wrong simply because they do not incorporate the electrical driver, they are tools without handels. You say you understand them, well that's just frightening. I suppose you think you understand the mystery heat hidden deep in the ocean, black holes, relativity, and the commercial nonsense about CO2. You understand a lot of science fiction. You will please supply this long list of climate model predictions so that we may tear them apart.
Search Results for: ocean heat
The Missing Heat is in the Oceans and thus the energy source for cyclones and hurricanes.
Lately some controversy has occurred over the location of the missing heat identified by climate science. The climate sceptical position seems to have gone down the road of dismissing the idea, mocking it by pointing out that as the ocean … Continue reading →
Missing Heat Hides From Climate Scientists | The Resilient Earth
Another instance of Lyell’s Legacy Climate scientists have decided that as much as half of the heat energy, believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, is hiding somewhere it can not be found. By measuring the radiative …
Now it’s geophysicists wading into climate science
Normally I would not have picked up the latest kerfuffle about climate models because I would have been in the field and unaware of it but the sudden appearance of emails from Dave Stockwell under the FeedBlitz title caused a …
Down welling atmospheric IR
Clarifying the previous post, if it can be shown that the measured down welling atmospheric IR cannot be produced by a gas at a lower temperature than the object it is supposed to be heating for thermodynamic reasons, then that …
Let it Rain
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/author/steve-smith/
Sep 26, 2013 External electric flux influences Earth’s climate According to a recent press release, ten years of data analysis has revealed that cloud height changes over time in response to an electric field generated by “global thunderstorms”. Although Earth’s electric … Continue reading →
BILL NICHOLS: Electric Earth, Electric Weather | EU 2013
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/author/b-talbott/
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols offers a refreshing reconsideration of climate issues, with emphasis on the electrodynamic environment of the Earth, largely overlooked in the polarized debates on climate change.
BILL NICHOLS: Electric Earth, Electric Weather | EU 2013
Posted on March 19, 2013 by B Talbott
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols offers a refreshing reconsideration of climate issues, with emphasis on the electrodynamic environment of the Earth, largely overlooked in the polarized debates on climate change.
Posted on March 19, 2013 by B Talbott
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols offers a refreshing reconsideration of climate issues, with emphasis on the electrodynamic environment of the Earth, largely overlooked in the polarized debates on climate change.
Why haven't your chickens flown the coop yet? Your electric universe anti-gravity mumbo jumbo should have them floating about space by now.
Oh and my favourite bit of your conspiracy nonsense, how the greenhouse effect defies thermodynamics. I bet every person on this forum understands that wrapping up in a blanket will warm them up. Yet the blanket is colder than your body temperature. But according to you and your Electrodolts or whatever forum you get your anti-reality info from, that is surely impossible. For some unknown reason, you can't seem to grasp that the blanket isn't losing it's heat, but rather is reducing how much is emitted away by our body. That's what a gas that is opaque to longwave radiation does in our atmosphere...
I'll start you with one of the oldest, Arrhenius, 1896. Then we'll see how you handle that. Model predictions for increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere include: global warming, diurnal temperature change (night time temperatures increasing more than day time temperatures), that the winter temperatures would increase more than the summer temperatures, that the temperature change would be magnified in the polar regions, and that the Arctic would warm more than Antarctica.
Let's see how you handle those first.
And this is where the problem arises with the climate change believers. They started with the conclusion that burning fossil fuel is bad, then manipulated or invented data to back their conclusion. Much like the anti fish farm protesters used. We all know that computer modeling is only as good as the data inputed. Garbage in-Garbage out.
This is sort of the point with me starting out with Arrhenius. Read the list of predictions he made over 100 years ago. All of the predictions from his early work have come true. Please then provide some proof that these observations are in fact artificial.
Correct, which is why I say some models are better than others, and I specifically mentioned objective tests used to make such a distinction.
How about some names. As far as I know the vast majority believe human caused global warming to be true.
All I know after 40 years of this B.S. is winters are colder than summers. Funny I knew that 60 years ago .Some years we get snow some years we don't .Some summers are hotter than others some aren't .rivers still flow birds still thing and flowers still grow .
I heard a bird thing once LOL sing
Was the previous interglacial period 60 years ago? Was it the oil sands that made it 6C warmer during the last interglacial period?
Use England as the 'base model', if you are can use skates to cross the Thames River in the winter rather than drinking wine from locally grown grapes then you know what period we are in.
So why were the temps and CO2 so high during the last 20 interglacial periods without man? How does CO2 manipulate geomagnetics, orbit, angle of axis and wobble that have caused interglacial periods in the ice age we live in?
We are 80±100 ppm of CO2 short in comparison with the last interglacial period.