The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Pwns]

You don't have to understand a certain scientific field to question scientific reasoning being used in the field.

Saying that skepticism of AGW is like flat earthism shows either dishonesty or ignorance of scientific reasoning. The "anti-science" canard is even more ridiculous and laughable.

Scientific consenses in non experimental sciences are not infallible, as the great food pyramid debacle shows.

[JohnStOnge]

You don't have to understand a certain scientific field to question scientific reasoning being used in the field.

That is an outstanding, absolutely true statement. There's a process. You don't need to understand the specifics of a field in order to judge the extent to which those in that field have deviated from the process.

Especially if the critic is a statistician. A statistician can legitimately evaluate the quality of quantitative inference in ANY field. And they don't have to do it in published literature for the criticism to have credibility either.

[∞∞∞]

I stated that things should be questioned (and the questioning encouraged), but let's not kid around here, what's going on in regard to "questioning" climate change is ridiculous.

But scientists have gone through these fights before. Unfortunately, more is at stake this time.

But it is what it is. I have a good book to read, so I bid y'all a good night.

[JohnStOnge]

what's going on in regard to "questioning" climate change is ridiculous.

No it's not. Let's go back to what was referenced at the start of this thread. In climate science, they can't conduct real experiments. So they create "virtual" earths through modeling and perform experiments that way. Unvalidated models, by the way.

That's a legitimate issue. It is not a small matter when you're using that as basis for recommending steps that are likely to have substantial negative impacts on some people.

[travelinman67]

You don't have to understand a certain scientific field to question scientific reasoning being used in the field.

That is an outstanding, absolutely true statement. There's a process. You don't need to understand the specifics of a field in order to judge the extent to which those in that field have deviated from the process.

Especially if the critic is a statistician. A statistician can legitimately evaluate the quality of quantitative inference in ANY field. And they don't have to do it in published literature for the criticism to have credibility either.

Wait! No! Listen to ME! I'm IMPORTANT!

I have a Crest!!!



Oops...wrong crest...

[Skjellyfetti]

It's not just models.

Look at a chart of CO2 emissions vs. global temperature

[travelinman67]

It's not just models.

Look at a chart of CO2 emissions vs. global temperature

You clearly haven't.

Plenty of datasets and analysis available at Wattsupwiththat.com ...

...the most accessed climate website on the internet.

There's an overwhelming amount of scientific study which has disproven the CO2-Anthropogenic theory.

Here's a tip...see if you can find the pre-2007 -AQUA satellite water vapor studies. NASA sat on the findings for two years, then the incoming Obama admin. scrubbed all pre-2007 AQUA data.

The findings: 87% of greenhouse gas effect due to water vapor; 12% due to methane gas; 1% due to CO2/Other.

And no, we're not going to play, "Prove it". I've given you some starting points, but you can do your own research. I've posted links to these sources REPEATEDLY over the past 10 years.

[kalm]

It's not just models.

Look at a chart of CO2 emissions vs. global temperature

You clearly haven't.

Plenty of datasets and analysis available at Wattsupwiththat.com ...

...the most accessed climate website on the internet.

There's an overwhelming amount of scientific study which has disproven the CO2-Anthropogenic theory.

Here's a tip...see if you can find the pre-2007 -AQUA satellite water vapor studies. NASA sat on the findings for two years, then the incoming Obama admin. scrubbed all pre-2007 AQUA data.

The findings: 87% of greenhouse gas effect due to water vapor; 12% due to methane gas; 1% due to CO2/Other.

And no, we're not going to play, "Prove it". I've given you some starting points, but you can do your own research. I've posted links to these sources REPEATEDLY over the past 10 years.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Please let us absorb all the peer reviewed data from notalotofpeopleknowthat.com and whatsupwithat.com before we move on to our own research!

[travelinman67]

You clearly haven't.

Plenty of datasets and analysis available at Wattsupwiththat.com ...

...the most accessed climate website on the internet.

There's an overwhelming amount of scientific study which has disproven the CO2-Anthropogenic theory.

Here's a tip...see if you can find the pre-2007 -AQUA satellite water vapor studies. NASA sat on the findings for two years, then the incoming Obama admin. scrubbed all pre-2007 AQUA data.

The findings: 87% of greenhouse gas effect due to water vapor; 12% due to methane gas; 1% due to CO2/Other.

And no, we're not going to play, "Prove it". I've given you some starting points, but you can do your own research. I've posted links to these sources REPEATEDLY over the past 10 years.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Please let us absorb all the peer reviewed data from notalotofpeopleknowthat.com and whatsupwithat.com before we move on to our own research!

Criticizes source.

Contributes nothing.

Liberal shoutdown.

Go away, Timewaster.

[Skjellyfetti]

Plenty of datasets and analysis available at Wattsupwiththat.com ...

...the most accessed climate website on the internet.

It may be the most accessed climate website on the internet*... but only because of a wealth of clickbait for mouthbreathers.







* If that is even true. It does say that on the top right corner their site... but, not seeing where they're getting that info from.

"Come eat at Bubba's Hamburgers - Home of the Best Hamburger in the World!!!"

[travelinman67]

Plenty of datasets and analysis available at Wattsupwiththat.com ...

...the most accessed climate website on the internet.

It may be the most accessed climate website on the internet*... but only because of a wealth of clickbait for mouthbreathers.







* If that is even true. It does say that on the top right corner their site... but, not seeing where they're getting that info from.

"Come eat at Bubba's Hamburgers - Home of the Best Hamburger in the World!!!"

Criticizes source.

Contributes nothing.

Liberal shoutdown.

Don't waste my time.

[kalm]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Please let us absorb all the peer reviewed data from notalotofpeopleknowthat.com and whatsupwithat.com before we move on to our own research!

Criticizes source.

Contributes nothing.

Liberal shoutdown.

Go away, Timewaster.

False. NOAA propoganda.

NOAA's climate research has no credibility

If so, the pause has gone from being not explained to explained twice over—once by aerosols and the solar cycle, and again by ocean winds and currents. These two accounts are not contradictory. The processes at work are understood, but their relative contributions are not.

Nor is the answer to what is, from the human point of view, the biggest question of all, namely what these explanations imply about how long the pause might continue. On the face of it, if some heat is being sucked into the deep ocean, the process could simply carry on: the ocean has a huge capacity to absorb heat as long as the pump sending it to the bottom remains in working order. But that is not all there is to it. Gravity wants the western-Pacific water wall to slosh back; it is held in place only by exceptionally strong trade winds. If those winds slacken, temperatures will start to rise again.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if that's not enough, visit these most excellent sites. They're right up your alley!

http://www.whodathunkit.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.fagettaboutit.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

It may be the most accessed climate website on the internet*... but only because of a wealth of clickbait for mouthbreathers.







* If that is even true. It does say that on the top right corner their site... but, not seeing where they're getting that info from.

"Come eat at Bubba's Hamburgers - Home of the Best Hamburger in the World!!!"

Criticizes source.

Contributes nothing.

Liberal shoutdown.

Don't waste my time.

Exactly! There's a petition somewhere, signed by 17 million scientists, proclaiming that global warming is a hoax. I think you linked to it once. Probably should again!

[travelinman67]

Criticizes source.

Contributes nothing.

Liberal shoutdown.

Don't waste my time.

Exactly! There's a petition somewhere, signed by 17 million scientists, proclaiming that global warming is a hoax. I think you linked to it once. Probably should again!

Read my posts, Timewaster.

[kalm]

Exactly! There's a petition somewhere, signed by 17 million scientists, proclaiming that global warming is a hoax. I think you linked to it once. Probably should again!

Read my posts, Timewaster.

Oh c'mon! Post it! Post it!

[SeattleGriz]

Hmmm...who to believe...an op-ed piece from a Heartland Institute fellow and Breitbart, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

I know one thing-

there is a heck of a lot more evidence that there has been some numbers fudging to fit preconceived notions than there is hard evidence that the climate change trends are in fact anthropogenic

Hey. I am still waiting for that link to a study that demonstrates a particular species evolved into a completely new species - since you went out on a limb and speculated that I don't follow evolution. You really sounded like you sat in on the current discussions.

That would really help me get up to speed.

Thanks!

[CID1990]

I know one thing-

there is a heck of a lot more evidence that there has been some numbers fudging to fit preconceived notions than there is hard evidence that the climate change trends are in fact anthropogenic

Hey. I am still waiting for that link to a study that demonstrates a particular species evolved into a completely new species - since you went out on a limb and speculated that I don't follow evolution. You really sounded like you sat in on the current discussions.

That would really help me get up to speed.

Thanks!

KALM,

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "evidence".

until you overcome THAT 3rd grade hurdle, there will be no bringing you up to speed

aside from that, discussions with you on this topic are so insignificant to me I dont remember what the hell you are talking about. so why dont you link the post you are referring to

[kalm]

Hey. I am still waiting for that link to a study that demonstrates a particular species evolved into a completely new species - since you went out on a limb and speculated that I don't follow evolution. You really sounded like you sat in on the current discussions.

That would really help me get up to speed.

Thanks!

KALM,

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "evidence".

until you overcome THAT 3rd grade hurdle, there will be no bringing you up to speed

aside from that, discussions with you on this topic are so insignificant to me I dont remember what the hell you are talking about. so why dont you link the post you are referring to

[CID1990]

KALM,

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "evidence".

until you overcome THAT 3rd grade hurdle, there will be no bringing you up to speed

aside from that, discussions with you on this topic are so insignificant to me I dont remember what the hell you are talking about. so why dont you link the post you are referring to

hey that was a textbook smug misdirect

i figured you had taken him as a pupil

[kalm]

hey that was a textbook smug misdirect

i figured you had taken him as a pupil

Oh well in that case ... Well played!

[JohnStOnge]

It's not just models.

Look at a chart of CO2 emissions vs. global temperature

It would take some effort to find out if anybody disagrees with the basic substance of the chart below. To me it does not show a strong correlation between estimated CO2 concentrations and estimated global temperatures over the long term history of the Earth. Now, those ARE estimates and to me there is reason to take estimates of what CO2 concentrations and global temperatures were millions and billions of years ago with a grain of salt. I think people automatically think those who do such things are correct and take things like that as fact but there really is no way to validate what they're doing. You can't take their estimates describing different points in pre-history, jump in a time machine, and go back and actually measure the CO2 concentrations as well as temperatures to verify that the estimates are reasonably close.

But if you look at what is believed to have transpired it does not look like a situation in which there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. It looks like there is an obvious correlation from about 50 million years ago through the end of the chart. But not overall before that. Also the last 50 million years is not the only time you see what looks like a correlation over some period if you just take THAT period so it's not unprecedented. The scale of years changes from left to right so the last 50 million years "look" longer on the chart but if you look at the first half of the Carboniferous Period, for example, you see a downward association that looks like it persisted for a period in the 50 million years ballpark. It doesn't look like the estimates would allow you to come up with any reasonably reliable prediction of what the global temperature was given a CO2 level. I'm sure climate scientists have an answer for why that is so but, still, there isn't a real strong association there just looking at it. Just as an example look at the estimates of CO2 levels and global temperatures for the Cambrian Period vs. the Triassic Period. The global temperature estimates are very similar yet the CO2 level estimates are dramatically different.

[travelinman67]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/a ... -ice-area/

[travelinman67]

Congressman Rohrbacher letter to Obama re: the damage resulting from alarmist schemes...

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... #pagebreak

[AZGrizFan]

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

It was not immediately apparent whether the record had occurred on Friday or Saturday. Requests for comment to Bill Chapman, who runs The Cryosphere Today, were not immediately returned.

The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007.

Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 0.991 million square kilometers above average. (The figure was arrived at by adding the Northern Hemisphere anomaly and the Southern Hemisphere anomaly. A graph provided by The Cryosphere Today showed the global anomaly as 1.005 million square kilometers.)

Although early computer models predicted a diminishment of both Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice due to anthropogenic global warming, subsequent modeling has posited that the results of warming around Antarctica would, counter-intuitively, generate sea ice growth.

The steady growth of Antarctic sea ice and its influence on global sea ice appeared to provide a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... z368k0zJF3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How inconvenient.

[89Hen]

But the ice growth is actually caused by global warming. You should know that Z.