You mean the scientific explanation that buckets and water taken from engine intakes (warmed up by hull friction and other factors, as well as taken a hugely differing depths) is better or on the same level as ARGO?
So we'll just merge them together and average it. Thats a whole lot better now. You see, its warming!
Come back to us when you understand the difference between "Science", "Research", "Scientists" and "Government grants".
Also, stop talking like Science is the bible and holds the "truth".
When you start realizing that individual research and scientists are fallible, you'll start looking and reading papers with open eyes instead of ideological blinders.
Why is it that people distrust the government, but dont distrust government paid studies?
If the government in power has an agenda, do you not think it possible that grants would be awarded only on subjects that align with that agenda?
Somehow, research paid for by the government seems to get a pass on scrutiny, but when its paid for by anyone else it doesn't.
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
The intellectual dishonesty on this subject is mind boggling.
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. About my 70s comment: I did read it in there somewhere, however cannot pin point it right now.
You will find in D.3 though: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess... "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}"
Since there was a cooling phase from 1944 until about 1975 it is clear CO2 wasnt warming the planet before that... according to the IPCC.
3. You'll also see that the reference for the last claim I made is in there too.
Now, of course climate has always had an effect on climate. We aren't talking about natural forcing, we are talking about AGW.
Your last sentence is conjecture and speculation as are the supposed feedback's that is supposed to create this runaway warming.
About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them. You would like to imply I have not, as if reading should automatically turn me into a believer.
It has not.
Its unfortunate your superiority complex prevents any proper discussion. You are assuming I am wrong and thus linked, off offhandedly to the IPCC reports saying I'm wrong.
As usual, your side doesnt debate anything, only appeals to authority.
What are yours? What are Pew's? What are Obama's? What are Gavin Schmidt's? What are the qualifications of the 67 scientist who supposedly represent 98% of the entire SCIENTIFIC community?
The intellectual dishonesty or out right laziness is very strong on this subject. As long as it fits your ideology, right?
"the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity"
I think you don't quite understand the subject.
Let me break it down for you.
- The earth is getting warmer... Fact (well, depends on the period you look at and time scale... but generaly yes) - How much warmer... Debatable (statistical error for "global average temperature anomalies" are LARGE) - Are humans responsible by way of CO2... Somewhat and debatable (Climate sensitivity from a double of CO2 is constantly being revised, currently at around less than 1C) - How much warming exactly are we talking about?
- We are talking about 0.85c over the last 100 years (per the IPCC)
- CO2 has only started affecting our climate since the late 70s (per the IPCC)
- Since the late 70s temperature average increase is only in the range of about 0.5c
- Humans are responsible for little more than half of that warming by way of CO2 (per the IPCC)
- Half of 0.5c is 0.25c
So in FACT if we take all of those numbers (from the official scientific alarmist sources), humans are only responsible for about 0.25c increase over the last 40-50 years, 20 of those years (more like 18.5) where it has been statistically stable (for now, of course.)
So you see, the statement above, is utterly meaningless without context.
Go back and ask the question: 1. Is it alarming that temperatures over the last century have increased by 0.25c (as far as we know FOR NOW) directly because of human activity?
Also... you still need to establish that 0.25c does and or will affect our global climate and is linked to all the non statisticaly significant events that the media has tried to tie it to.
You are aware that there has not been an increase in extreme weather, hurricains, precipitation, tornados, droughts or other... right?
The thing is, if it does increase dramatically, which it hasn't yet and the evidence becomes clear, which it currently is not, then I would change my mind about it.
If the reverse is true, would you? Somehow, I highly doubt it.
I've had enough of all this bullshit about breaking the planet.
The ignorance and arrogance it takes to make that argument is astounding.
0.85C over the last 100 years or so and all the idiots are panicking, the MSM is licking its lips to the bank while scaring the shit out of the dumb ones, and those who know better are using all of this for political advantage.
It has gotten so insane, that many of those scared idiots actually BELIEVE that they can SEE and observable change on the planets climate when they look outside. WAKE UP, YOU CANT!!!
That 0.85c increase is most notable in daily LOW temperatures and in colder months. That means, it has nothing do with heat waves or daily extremes at the moment. You CANT observe it.
Also, the science shows there isn't more of any of the symptoms MSM is trying to get us scared about:
NOT MORE: - Extreme hot days; - Extreme precipitation; - Extreme tornadoes; - Extreme droughts; - Extreme hurricanes; - Extreme weather of any kind;
We see scientists manipulating data left and right, barely justifying why and then greeny blogosphere spend years coming up with justifications for the actions and stating thats how real science works.
I sometimes feel like I'm falling down a rabbit hole into a world where black is white and hot is cold.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the scientific explanation that buckets and water taken from engine intakes (warmed up by hull friction and other factors, as well as taken a hugely differing depths) is better or on the same level as ARGO?
So we'll just merge them together and average it. Thats a whole lot better now. You see, its warming!
It's not.
Because you are currently living through extreme weather, does not mean it is historically exceptional.
Do some research and look up historical precipitations, droughts and other factors for the PSW.
Don't feed yourself on mainstream medias alarmist scaremongering.
So its great that CO2 has been increasing and that crop yields have increased in the last years with less and less agricultural land.
But... there is no proof of more extreme weather.
Statistically and historically... none of the weather we are seeing in the last decade is exceptional.
I believe you are projecting from your side of the Maginot line.
And comparing gravity with how the climate works, is the same as comparing why a wheel needs to be round with the science behind nuclear fission.
Your ignorance is showing, or your bias.
Come back to us when you understand the difference between "Science", "Research", "Scientists" and "Government grants".
Also, stop talking like Science is the bible and holds the "truth".
When you start realizing that individual research and scientists are fallible, you'll start looking and reading papers with open eyes instead of ideological blinders.
Your not entitled to your own model outputs to shape public policy, especially when it contradicts observations.
Charts and models are NOT "objective reality".
Why is it that people distrust the government, but dont distrust government paid studies?
If the government in power has an agenda, do you not think it possible that grants would be awarded only on subjects that align with that agenda?
Somehow, research paid for by the government seems to get a pass on scrutiny, but when its paid for by anyone else it doesn't.
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
The intellectual dishonesty on this subject is mind boggling.
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Oh come off, you are sounding more and more like a petulant little child.
Talking down to me, trying to ferment in the mind of readers that I'm retarded, lying or just plain ignorant.
Make an effort and read the other thread replies below your first post and you'll find what I mentioned.
If you are too lazy, then shut up and move along.
Your replies in this thread have been all about trying to knock me down a peg and not about addressing the issue.
How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.
1. About climate sensitivity estimates, as you know, are all over the place, however whats important is they keep shrinking as we learn more.
https://landshape.files.wordpr...
2. About my 70s comment:
I did read it in there somewhere, however cannot pin point it right now.
You will find in D.3 though:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}"
Since there was a cooling phase from 1944 until about 1975 it is clear CO2 wasnt warming the planet before that... according to the IPCC.
3. You'll also see that the reference for the last claim I made is in there too.
Now, of course climate has always had an effect on climate. We aren't talking about natural forcing, we are talking about AGW.
Your last sentence is conjecture and speculation as are the supposed feedback's that is supposed to create this runaway warming.
About the Bloomberg graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
You would like to imply I have not, as if reading should automatically turn me into a believer.
It has not.
Its unfortunate your superiority complex prevents any proper discussion.
You are assuming I am wrong and thus linked, off offhandedly to the IPCC reports saying I'm wrong.
As usual, your side doesnt debate anything, only appeals to authority.
What are yours?
What are Pew's?
What are Obama's?
What are Gavin Schmidt's?
What are the qualifications of the 67 scientist who supposedly represent 98% of the entire SCIENTIFIC community?
The intellectual dishonesty or out right laziness is very strong on this subject. As long as it fits your ideology, right?
I meant correct some IF they are wrong.
An infographic for children filled with lines that have no data points is useless.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
The CO2 trend alone is below actual readings.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Point out what is wrong or dont bother posting.
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Its all nice and dandy to say the sky is falling, but which of the points above do you not agree with?
"the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity"
I think you don't quite understand the subject.
Let me break it down for you.
- The earth is getting warmer... Fact (well, depends on the period you look at and time scale... but generaly yes)
- How much warmer... Debatable (statistical error for "global average temperature anomalies" are LARGE)
- Are humans responsible by way of CO2... Somewhat and debatable (Climate sensitivity from a double of CO2 is constantly being revised, currently at around less than 1C)
- How much warming exactly are we talking about?
- We are talking about 0.85c over the last 100 years (per the IPCC)
- CO2 has only started affecting our climate since the late 70s (per the IPCC)
- Since the late 70s temperature average increase is only in the range of about 0.5c
- Humans are responsible for little more than half of that warming by way of CO2 (per the IPCC)
- Half of 0.5c is 0.25c
So in FACT if we take all of those numbers (from the official scientific alarmist sources), humans are only responsible for about 0.25c increase over the last 40-50 years, 20 of those years (more like 18.5) where it has been statistically stable (for now, of course.)
So you see, the statement above, is utterly meaningless without context.
Go back and ask the question:
1. Is it alarming that temperatures over the last century have increased by 0.25c (as far as we know FOR NOW) directly because of human activity?
Also... you still need to establish that 0.25c does and or will affect our global climate and is linked to all the non statisticaly significant events that the media has tried to tie it to.
You are aware that there has not been an increase in extreme weather, hurricains, precipitation, tornados, droughts or other... right?
Look, stop trying to shape the argument by building strawman arguments.
They believe its a big lie, because the predictions do not match with observational data.
The statements about current weather being affected by 0.85c (approx) of warming, does not fit observable data.
When your theories do not fit observable data, what normally happens is you adjust the theory, not the other way around.
The thing is, if it does increase dramatically, which it hasn't yet and the evidence becomes clear, which it currently is not, then I would change my mind about it.
If the reverse is true, would you? Somehow, I highly doubt it.
Show me the data that demonstrates the direct effects of 0.85c increase in temperature.
Observable problems NOW.
Not bullshit sensationalist propaganda about Indias heat wave or the flooding in Texas, which is NOT unprecedented nor un usual.
Discredit the opponent by stating he is inferior in intelligence, knowledge and honesty.
Then ask, why anyone should listen to him.
Tell your "scientists" to debate skeptical client scientists, on the SCIENCE.
Lets see how they defend their lies in front of observational data and facts.
OMG.
I've had enough of all this bullshit about breaking the planet.
The ignorance and arrogance it takes to make that argument is astounding.
0.85C over the last 100 years or so and all the idiots are panicking, the MSM is licking its lips to the bank while scaring the shit out of the dumb ones, and those who know better are using all of this for political advantage.
It has gotten so insane, that many of those scared idiots actually BELIEVE that they can SEE and observable change on the planets climate when they look outside. WAKE UP, YOU CANT!!!
That 0.85c increase is most notable in daily LOW temperatures and in colder months. That means, it has nothing do with heat waves or daily extremes at the moment. You CANT observe it.
Also, the science shows there isn't more of any of the symptoms MSM is trying to get us scared about:
NOT MORE:
- Extreme hot days;
- Extreme precipitation;
- Extreme tornadoes;
- Extreme droughts;
- Extreme hurricanes;
- Extreme weather of any kind;
We see scientists manipulating data left and right, barely justifying why and then greeny blogosphere spend years coming up with justifications for the actions and stating thats how real science works.
I sometimes feel like I'm falling down a rabbit hole into a world where black is white and hot is cold.
You see. You throw a whole bunch of insults. You put everyone you disagree with in 1 basket, point to it, and say they are all liers.
This has the need little benefit that those in that basket who do know WTF they are talking about, get discredited with the rest.
In the end, you dont need to debate, because hey, what do deniers have to contribute anyways?
Propaganda 101. And either you are part of the problem OR your already brainwashed.
Which of the 2 is worst... I'm not sure.
I simply replied to your statement.
If you do not stand by your statements, why should we even read what you say?
Or more importantly, why even bother making a statement?