Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON
|
Sept 13, ready to turn my furnace ON
I'm about to turn mine off, usually do it 1st of OctoberQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Will have to turn mine on soon too.
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 | Real ScienceQuote:
Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.
And this was the year the Arctic was supposed to be ice free
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3547283
It just goes to show we don't know everything, the genuses who gave us global warming have been leading us around by the ring in our nosesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, flat earthers:
Some people understand science, and some don't. Some people understand that weather ISN'T global warming, and some don't. Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.
excon
The lead climatologists promoting the nonsense of AGW certainly don't ,or if they do ,they distort the record with falsified data to "hide the decline" i.e. the fluctuations during various periods of geological time. None of them even come close the including other variables in their calculations that may include geological events ,but also solar and other cosmic events . I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,Quote:
Some people understand geologic time, and some don't.
Theories, and hypothesis fade from the minds of men getting out of the way of floods, and hurricanes, and tornadoes.
Hello again, tom:
I'm NOT a scientist, and I have NO idea who that is.. But, BECAUSE I'm NOT a scientist, I can CHOOSE to believe what 97% of the worlds scientists TELL me, or I can believe the other 3%.Quote:
I doubt if they've even heard of Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis,
Because I BELIEVE in science, I absolutely BELIEVE what scientists tell me. Of course, I'm also aware that science is DYNAMIC. What is today, is likely to CHANGE tomorrow.. Does that mean you DISCARD what you know today? I don't think it does.
What I DON'T believe is that scientists HAVE an agenda OTHER than pure science.. Yes, there are those who work for the oil companies, and THEY have an agenda. And, there are those who work for somebody else with an agenda.. BUT, the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists work for higher learning institutions what have NO agenda OTHER than science...
Those are the people who tell me man is affecting the climate of the planet, and I BELIEVE it... Besides, as I've said here TIME and TIME again, something bad happens when we throw our trash into the air. Nobody has to tell me that.
Excon
The emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh.Quote:
the emails confirmed that the scientist from those institutes of higher learning doctored their results with falsified data to achieve predetermined results. That appears to be that superior science you speak of .
ExconQuote:
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding NO EVIDENCE of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
If you were as open minded on the subject as you pretend to be then you should look up the hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark . As for the findings... if the hockey stick graph that is the basis of the whole AGW hypothesis was developed with excluded data from a significant period ,then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawed. It is a stretch to believe that they did not commit fraud when their emails indicate that they knew of the variations and intentionally hid them from their data.
Hello again, tom:
Call me close minded if you wish, but in MY non scientific view, you can't throw your trash into the air and expect NOTHING bad to happen.. I simply reject, out of hand, ANY hypothesis that says you CAN.Quote:
then the premise of the evidence that supports the hypothesis is flawed
Look.. I can't SEE that the earth is round.. Yes, I KNOW scientists have shown me pictures, but they could be doctored for all I know. Nonetheless, I simply take their word for it.
Excon
Usually only need my furnace on from mid Oct to mid MarQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Let's not get back to this trash in the air nonsense. You join the flat earth society if you want to ex or the round earth society if that pleases you but please don't tell us a naturally occurring substance is pollution. That is a political view, not a scientific one. Science has stumbled from one view to another since the enlightenment released man to pursue scientific reason. Many of the ideas they have explored are wrong and research wrongly applied, so if it is all the same to you I won't take their word for itQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Take their word for it when there is a significant dissenting view (and no ;they all don't work for the oil companies) ;and we have the evidence that they doctored their results... Take their word for it when the very models they constructed have not held for almost 2 decades .
Don't worry abot ex Tom he is a clone
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," will be published on Sept. 27.It will dial back the alarm of the harm cause by so called 'man made AGW' .
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail OnlineQuote:
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. 'The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.
What is it they say about computers... garbage in, garbage out?
Comparing weather stations reading that 30 years ago when they were installed were in the middle of a field... with no development around... to today when they are surrounded buy large structures and several acres of asphault parking lot adjacent to it.
Well DUH... create made made heat Island aorund a weather station... I'm niot surpriised IT sees a difference... Doesn't mean there is a change a few hundred yards away where it ISN'T developed.
If you change the criteria the data is collected under... then you can't use the date from before that change as a reference because it was collected under different conditions. But facts aren't part of Liberal "Science" tology.
We can't believe that either it's all based on flawed data and computer projections.
It's time to understand we are in a period of long term climate change in which the actions of man are incidental to the outcomes
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I have in the past proven that MANY of the "weather Stations" they are claiming the changes were measured at... when they were installed were in the middle of a grassy undeveloped area... but today are surrounded py pavemtn, ashphault and man made structures... By links that showed pictures of them before... and now. I'm not going to waste my time digging them up again. Because most of the Global Warming crowd also believe Obama is a demi-god... and their capacity to process data rationally is in question.
That renders any long term comparisons invalid because the basis of the data collection is no longer consistent.
Input flaws raw data.. and the results WILL be flawed as well.
If indeed man made structures/activity affect the data Smoothy, then you have proven beyond a doubt that man affects his environment in some way. Also we know removing the forest, and putting stuff in the land, air and sea, changes ecosystems, some times very dramatically.
Its very possible that man has speeded up a situation that possibly was going to happen anyway, and highly likely that he changes the balance of nature in some ways also. Now we can argue about what that is, but there are a lot of man made bubbles of activity around the world and a good example I submit is the Chinese experiment that has devastated their air quality and their search for more energy is eroding the farmlands at huge rates.
Now you can ignore it, and minimize the effects of man activity on the planet (Its quite profitable to do so), but that only hides the problem, not solves it, and it sure won't solve itself.
Scientists predict an ice-free arctic by 2013, and instead of being ice-free the ice expanded by 920,000 square miles and we're the flat earthers? Bwa ha ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You are missing the point I was making... you can't compare a mearurement in the middle of a grassy field... and one in the middle of a parkling lot 30 years late and claim the pemprature is rising...
Its no different than measuring the middle of a field... then measuing the inside of an occupied building at the same physical location before and after the building is put up.
Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.
Hello again, smoothy:
In MY world, scientists KNOW how to collect and evaluate data.Quote:
Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.
Excon
You can claim that man made the temperature rise. Same collection METHOD, different CONDITION, for comparison. You can't ignore your own observation of the difference between a location with man, and without.
Your methodology is flawed. Temperature over time is what changes water to steam, and more heat changes it to a GAS, still water, but the components have been broken down and separated and just as heat changes water, it changes CHEMICAL composition.
I guess you never look at the air quality reports on your local weather station either. Then you would know the differences in highly industrial areas and very low industrial areas. Rural, and urban. Hell don't you remember during the Olympics in China they had to shut down the industries to clear the air of pollutants? They wanted to hide how NASTY it was.
How do you ignore that data?
2007, arctic will be "ice-free"Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion
Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.
They may have missed a few variables.
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhhh... If you understand the science, then you'd get a sense of the TIME involved. Given that I DO understand the science, I can report that if they MISSED that projection by even a decade or two, it's STILL accurate.Quote:
2007, arctic will be "ice-free"
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion
Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.
Plus, given those same variables, NO scientist worth his salt would narrow down a projection like that to a particular year or even a particular decade.
excon
yes the extrapolated from a few obseravtions without checking their enviromment, thevariables they missed were the ability of sea water to absorb heat, the vegitation in urban areas, the variability of climate. What we had here were some academic nerdsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Less burning of fossil fuels, replacement of old coal burning power facilities, natural gas conversions, emergence of wind a solar power. The price of gas going up. Just to name a few of those variables. Doesn't solve the problem, but delays the effects.
No, ex said the know how to evaluate data. You guys wouldn't trust anyone else that is as consistently WRONG about their evaluations as climate scientists, not your doctor, not your financial adviser, probably not your spouse. Yet you do so with politicians and climate scientists. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh... Actually, I believe ME. I KNOW that you can't throw your trash into the air WITHOUT bad consequences... The MOMENT when we'll be awash is BESIDES the point. That you cling to a DATE certain to debunk the theory, DEBUNKS your debunk.Quote:
More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.
Excon
Your arguments, like your bats, are steadily devolving my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Low blow, but congrats. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Just trying to relay it in terms he can understand. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I think we should tear up the pavement on the city streets... and tear town the cities and make them live in tents... solve the heat island effect and water runoff issues right away...
Apparently they don't... not the liberal ones anytway.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:09 PM. |