Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers,...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
I think you choose to believe the NASA study because it says something you want to hear. It stands as odds to nearly every other study that's been done recently.
To be fair Obama and any President doesn't have a choice about using Air Force One. The security apparatus and communication needs of a President preclude that.
They didn't predict 1.4 million cases of Ebola would happen. That was just the modeled result with no intervention. You'll notice there was a rather robust intervention even though it was slow to get going.
Modern environmentalism is a religion. It has deities, a set dogma, a clergy, heresy and excommunication, and even its own apocalypse (complete with punishment for sins).
Some of it even has actual scientific evidence to back it up.
You can certainly hear about models, but there isn't any actual evidence for the "A" in AGW, unless you consider models evidence.
Of course there is. It's easy to show that the increase in CO2 is due to human burning of fossil fuels. It's easy to show the infrared absorption properties if CO2. This study from 2000 to 2010 showed an increase in radiative forcing at ground level from increasing CO2.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.
How does Evaporation Rate data prove global warming claims are wrong? What is it about evaporation rates that show that. I'll admit that temperatures probably affect ERs but I imagine absolute humidity has an effect on them too. Evaporation slows down when the humidity is higher.
You should read this FAQ. It contains links to papers that explain the reasons and methods used for adjustments to the raw data. You might learn something. Even if you had the raw data you would still have to make your own adjustments to account for things like station moves, instrument changes, changes in the time of observation, etc.
The satellite record pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data.
Actually if you extend your WoodForTrees graph for just a little bit into 2016 it shows a completely different picture. Take a look at this. Of course your starting with 1998 is a huge cherry pick. If I change the start year to 1997 it looks like this. And if you extend it to a climatologically significant 30 years you get this.
To quote my reply to you above about the NASA study:
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in the mass of ice by changes in gravity disagree with the NASA study you cited. A study from 2015 found that Antarctica was losing a net 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014 mainly from West Antarctica. I tend to believe the GRACE data more than others because it's a relatively simple way of measuring changes in mass on the Earth. The NASA study you cited was measuring changes in the elevation of the ice in Antarctica with satellites but the elevation measurements have a lot error in them and the study made modeled assumptions about how the ice compacted rather than observations (it's a difficult place to send observers to).
Can you tell me where to find the conditions the original experiments were performed to determine CO2 raises the temperature? I know it was measured in a greenhouse but how was the CO2 generated? What was the delivery mechanism? What were the controls?
This is a very serious request: Where can we find the accurate details on how this experiment can be replicated?
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in the mass of ice by changes in gravity disagree with the NASA study you cited. A study from 2015 found that Antarctica was losing a net 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014 mainly from West Antarctica. I tend to believe the GRACE data more than others because it's a relatively simple way of measuring changes in mass on the Earth. The NASA study you cited was measuring changes in the elevation of the ice in Antarctica with satellites but the elevation measurements have a lot error in them and the study made modeled assumptions about how the ice compacted rather than observations (it's a difficult place to send observers to).
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers....
If you're worried about the money before you determine the validity of the science you're already behind the game. If the scientists are right and you are wrong it's going to cost you a whole lot more money and possible cost you other things as well than they are asking of you now. You're just betting the scientists are wrong and that's probably a poor bet to make.
A person can have the HIV virus for years before becoming symptomatic spreading it to other sexual partners. Someone with Ebola gets very sick within a week. Yes, Ebola can spread among caregivers if they're not using the proper protocols but it's easy to contain once you're aware of what it is. The only people who actually contracted it in the USA were the two nurses who were caring for Thomas Eric Duncan and they were caring for him for 2 days before they knew he had the disease. Both nurses recovered from Ebola after proper care. One of them even took a couple of airline flights before she was diagnosed and no one got it from her. It's obvious that Ebola is not that hard to contain once you're aware that it's there. Ebola is near the bottom of my list of things to be worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
I think oil extraction is fairly evenly spread around the world so it's probably a pretty small effect.
You'd have a better argument if he was doing any different than other Presidents.
I think you choose to believe the NASA study because it says something you want to hear. It stands as odds to nearly every other study that's been done recently.
To be fair Obama and any President doesn't have a choice about using Air Force One. The security apparatus and communication needs of a President preclude that.
They didn't predict 1.4 million cases of Ebola would happen. That was just the modeled result with no intervention. You'll notice there was a rather robust intervention even though it was slow to get going.
There are also insightful comments by ACs. I read everything down to -1.
It's not a fallacy in this case, because only a perfect (or at least nearly perfect) solution will actually make a difference.
So is there a problem with incrementally implementing the solution as opposed to an all or nothing approach?
You realize that if you can't afford to do it, you can't do it, right?
What if it costs you more in the long run to not do it than it does to do it?
One thing that nuclear power plants are not is cheap.
Don't bother. mi argues like a lawyer, not a scientist.
Modern environmentalism is a religion. It has deities, a set dogma, a clergy, heresy and excommunication, and even its own apocalypse (complete with punishment for sins).
Some of it even has actual scientific evidence to back it up.
The longest journey starts with the first step. Is it better to start making incremental changes now or wait until we can fix it all instantly?
You can certainly hear about models, but there isn't any actual evidence for the "A" in AGW, unless you consider models evidence.
Of course there is. It's easy to show that the increase in CO2 is due to human burning of fossil fuels. It's easy to show the infrared absorption properties if CO2. This study from 2000 to 2010 showed an increase in radiative forcing at ground level from increasing CO2.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.
How does Evaporation Rate data prove global warming claims are wrong? What is it about evaporation rates that show that. I'll admit that temperatures probably affect ERs but I imagine absolute humidity has an effect on them too. Evaporation slows down when the humidity is higher.
You should read this FAQ. It contains links to papers that explain the reasons and methods used for adjustments to the raw data. You might learn something. Even if you had the raw data you would still have to make your own adjustments to account for things like station moves, instrument changes, changes in the time of observation, etc.
The satellite record pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data.
Actually if you extend your WoodForTrees graph for just a little bit into 2016 it shows a completely different picture. Take a look at this. Of course your starting with 1998 is a huge cherry pick. If I change the start year to 1997 it looks like this. And if you extend it to a climatologically significant 30 years you get this.
Actually both satellite temperature series have set new records recently for temperature. Here's the graph.
Apparently you disbelieve him simply because of who he is.
To quote my reply to you above about the NASA study:
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in the mass of ice by changes in gravity disagree with the NASA study you cited. A study from 2015 found that Antarctica was losing a net 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014 mainly from West Antarctica. I tend to believe the GRACE data more than others because it's a relatively simple way of measuring changes in mass on the Earth. The NASA study you cited was measuring changes in the elevation of the ice in Antarctica with satellites but the elevation measurements have a lot error in them and the study made modeled assumptions about how the ice compacted rather than observations (it's a difficult place to send observers to).
Finally someone gets more to the point.
Can you tell me where to find the conditions the original experiments were performed to determine CO2 raises the temperature? I know it was measured in a greenhouse but how was the CO2 generated? What was the delivery mechanism? What were the controls?
This is a very serious request: Where can we find the accurate details on how this experiment can be replicated?
Of course John Tyndall first measured the infrared absorption characteristics of CO2 back in the 1850s. More recently an experiment that ran from 2000 to 2010 at sites in Oklahoma and the North Slope of Alaska directly measured the increase in radiative forcing from increasing CO2 from the ground.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.
The GRACE satellites which measure changes in the mass of ice by changes in gravity disagree with the NASA study you cited. A study from 2015 found that Antarctica was losing a net 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014 mainly from West Antarctica. I tend to believe the GRACE data more than others because it's a relatively simple way of measuring changes in mass on the Earth. The NASA study you cited was measuring changes in the elevation of the ice in Antarctica with satellites but the elevation measurements have a lot error in them and the study made modeled assumptions about how the ice compacted rather than observations (it's a difficult place to send observers to).
The game has been about money, which is where people hate and label people deniers. ...
If you're worried about the money before you determine the validity of the science you're already behind the game. If the scientists are right and you are wrong it's going to cost you a whole lot more money and possible cost you other things as well than they are asking of you now. You're just betting the scientists are wrong and that's probably a poor bet to make.
A person can have the HIV virus for years before becoming symptomatic spreading it to other sexual partners. Someone with Ebola gets very sick within a week. Yes, Ebola can spread among caregivers if they're not using the proper protocols but it's easy to contain once you're aware of what it is. The only people who actually contracted it in the USA were the two nurses who were caring for Thomas Eric Duncan and they were caring for him for 2 days before they knew he had the disease. Both nurses recovered from Ebola after proper care. One of them even took a couple of airline flights before she was diagnosed and no one got it from her. It's obvious that Ebola is not that hard to contain once you're aware that it's there. Ebola is near the bottom of my list of things to be worried about.
Take not just the money from Ebola, take the lesson: don't let something this virulent get away from us.
except Ebola virus was extremely virulent and deadly whereas the Zika virus is neither of those.
Ebola is virulent and deadly (isn't that redundant?) but it is only contagious through direct contact. It's easy to control once you're aware of it.