What a misleading argument! Scientists don't deny temperatures drives CO2, but that's only during the beginning of the interglacial cycle.. For 90% of the cycle, CO2 drive temps.
Intelligent, but burdened with severe errors, some standard climate change denier errors, some entirely new.
CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler; I stopped listening at that point. You really ought to spend some time with people with actual expertise.
mt78723: "CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler;"
Warren is absolutely clear that he is talking about atmospheric composition. Recent change is about 100 ppm, although most people don't talk about ppm. So he (correctly) expresses ths as a change of 0.01% and notes it as "an extraordinarily small change IN COMPOSITION".
Either you don't understand Warren's presentation, or you wish to complain that it is not sufficently alarmist for your personal taste.
um gufpott, it is not nice to take away an alarmists excuse to ignore counter evidence and arguments.
empty78723 will eventually find another excuse to discredit or ignore the information in this video. Alarmists are very effective at fishing, chery picking, holding double standards, group think, ad-hominems, and arguments from authority, which are benefitial for any other religious community.
Just leave them alone so that they can give thier lives/identities direction, purpose, and meaning.
@mt78723 - perhaps you should focus on the surface station problems; they alone would account for the "warming" - they started using latex paint instead of whitewash; guess what? It raised the temp. Not to mention that data didn't get recorded for half a month at one station. Funny thing about "averages" too: you can have a day hovering in the 70 for 24 hours have a higher average than a day that got hotter (say 80) with a low of 60.
@mt78723 Now we both know which day was hotter, but the warmist, who wants to go by the "average" temp, says that global warming exists because of higher averages, rather than by whether the actual temps are getting hotter. That makes it easy to manipulate the numbers. It's time to stop looking at averages and go by actual temps.
I like what a geologist said in a video somewhere here. That we are the first species that has ever feared warming. Warming is good for life, cooling is bad for it. Its pretty much that simple. If it is happening its a good thing and its good for plants.
CO2 has been helping plants grow to higher altitudes and latitudes. CO2 is not pollution, we should concentrate on actual polution.
"...we are the first species that has ever feared warming."
I think that you are wrong here.
We are the first species that has ever feared ITS OWN INFLUENCE on ITS OWN ENVIRONMENT.
And thats only because we are the first and only species with a brain big enough to do so.
Yes, CO2 is good for plants, but overall, do you believe that the positives of quickly doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere outweigh the negatives?
On what do you base your belief that doubling or tripling CO2 in the atmosphere would not be harmful? Do you have any evidence or is it just a belief?
Actually the current CO2 level as of May 2009 is 390 PPM - the highest in 600,000 years and rising. CO2 levels could well double by 2050 according to many estimates.
What you believe is irrelevant -- SCIENCE is the only thing that is relevant here
I could ask you them same questions. Where do you get your information. I preffer actual scientists, not political activists. If you listen to anythin Al Gore said no wonder you have a twisted view of science.
Ice Core samples show that CO2 has never driven the earths climate before and it doesnt now. The data shows that temperatures rise causing the CO2 to rise or fall after the temperature changes.
Al Gore did a lot of word twisting. The nobel peace prize is a joke now that he won it.
Like my buddies girlfriend, an old roommate of mine with a master degree in environmental sciences? Yeah she and her professors say the same thing. The data doesnt agree with the stuff told to you by political activists for global warming.
It is because of science and scientists that I dont believe in global warming. You obviously dont understand how much money can influence science. Its the political support and money that makes people believe global warming, not the facts.
Have your buddies or your girlfriend or the old roommate of yours with the master degree in environmental sciences written any papers published in the journal "Nature" or the journal "Science"?
look up peer reviewed journal chills global warming fears. it says doubling, even tripling co2 levels would not have a substantial impact on temperature. not to mention the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling. also GW is the only issue that is not debated in the UN. GW is a political issue. and when there is an even debate (i have seen 2) the "deniers" win
Its funny that political activists that support global warming always try and claim the debate is over when there has hardly been one in what is still a new area of science.
No area of science that young, or many times its age can say its got it all figured out. There is no point in calling it science when you "shun the non believers".
yea i know u are 100% right. and like i said global warming is completely political. i often get into debates with alarmists about GW and all i do is tell them that the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling, and that theres a peer reviewed paper on how double the amounts of co2 wouldnt increase temperature. i recently debated an alarmist who is now a "denier" because he checked out the sources i gave him. i also did a presentation, and convinced the whole class
She did publish a paper on Glacial melt patterns. There is nothing alarming about it which made it harder to publish, so she added "and the effects of global warming" to her title and it got published quickly. That one of the problems, even those who dont believe in global warming use its influence to get paid.
Did you know they only monitor 10% of the worlds major glaciers and only half of those monitored are receding? Dont believe in chicken little science.
Have your buddies or your girlfriend or the old roommate of yours with the master degree in environmental sciences written any papers published in the journal "Nature" or the journal "Science"?
"95% of the scientists within an entire field of study are participating in a fraud"
The ideal scientist is calm, objective and fiercely sceptical. But that's not what we see in practice. Scientists tend to settle into their own beleifs and become fiercely protective of them. Peer reivew is prone to confirmation bias.
That only says they can be too resistant to new ideas, preferring to bask where it is comfortable. Call it lazyness or ambitous if you like. But I did not say fraud.
"by all means feel free to throw away your money "
Good point gerjanp. BeondaPale and company should go right ahead and planet. What are they waiting for? I'm certainly not trying to get in the way of them living up to their principles.
If they get right into the fossil-fuel-free lifestyle, their life expectancy will shorten by 20 years or more ... saving even more CO2. Happy days indeed.
So better get on with it. Not much time to fall on the sword in pursuit of the cause.
Its money that corrupts. A friend of mine has published a paper on Glacial melt patterns and the effect of global warming. She is a couple courses from her masters degree in environmental sciences. She think global warming is a hoax to get money and only added the global warming part to her paprer to get it published easier and to get paid.
If a scientist or student is an open skeptic they have a difficult carreer and funding problems.
She once believed in global warming until her prof's convinced her otherwise. She was suprised to see the amount of data that doesnt support the AGW theory.
The funny thing about the paper she published is that it doesnt show and bad signs of over melting, just normal melting with normal warming.
Your right about scientists are supossed to be skeptical but they are also human. It happens in different fields not just this one. Just not to the extent that it has happened in this field.
"We were discussing whether it's even possible for an entire scientific field of study to be corrupted. "
We all know that it is possible for an entire scientific field to be wrong. The reasons why they are wrong is a different matter - but there may well be forms of personal vested interest in play.
"it is the job of scientists to be sceptical"
So why do you attack people like Prof Carter for daring to question your version of the orthodoxy?
To be honest, I find it quite noticeable how little open dissent there is, given the lack of solid evidence for AGW. It's too quiet, something's not right.
Did you read gerjanp's reference to the "scientific fraudster who dazzled the world".
Also I did not use the term "you people". You did not answer my question:
If a dissenting scientist is doing his job as you (correctly) say, why do you attack Carter for questioning your version of the orthodoxy?
"Yes, things in Finland have been very quiet ... "
Just as the climate appears to be doing nothing unusual. But that doesn't stop you from jumping up and demanding serious action against a claimed impending calamity.
Or would you like to cite the article (or articles) in the literature that you consider to be compelling evidence for catastrophe?
And I'll ask this again - why does Carter suffer personal attack for doing what you basically *expect* a scientist to do?
"Just as the climate appears to be doing nothing unusual."
...To you with your naked eye and uneducated brain
"Or would you like to cite the article (or articles) in the literature that you consider to be compelling evidence for catastrophe?"
Not necesarily catastrophe or calamity but certainly impending problems. -- just go to the website of ANY ACCERDITED CLIMATOLOGICAL INSTITUTION ON THE ENTIRE PLANET for more
"To you with your naked eye and uneducated brain" ... or according to the utter lack of evidence from those who have applied scientific methods and published their findings in the literature.
"ANY ACCERDITED CLIMATOLOGICAL INSTITUTION"
ahem ... I think you'll find that's not the scientific method.
"Again, WHO is attacking Carter personally."
Ok - do you agree that Carter is entitled to express his position and arguments without personal attack?
"[google] will return literally thousnds of compelling scientific articles "
That's not what I asked for. Please tell me which articles *you* find persuasive and why.
"go to the National Academies website "
Same again - I'm not interested in reports from workshops and worryfests. I want to understand what scientific research has been done to prove global warming.
No answer tells me you cannot answer the question.
I'm giving you everything you need and you ask for. You're just not accepting it. Which only proves that you are, and desperately wish to remain, willfully ignorant.
Read THIS one
"Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"
or THIS one
"Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States"
I find both of these and many others persuasive.
LOL @ the National Academy being a "workshop" or a "worryfest"
As I said, it must be based on more than your own scientifically worthless opinion.
YOU (an anonymous poster on YouTube) can grumble that the science fraudulent all you want - it doesn't matter.
The NAS and the NRC have come to a different conclusion.
If the entire field of study had been corrupted MOST scientists would be complaining -- they're not. People on the outside of the science, people with a political agenda are the ones complaining. It's very similar to creationism.
"Ok, What DO you see happening as a result of our CO2 emissions?"
A minor warming perturbation. Within 1dC. Possibly a net favourable effect.
The above video series sums up many of veiws BeondaPale, so it's worth watching again. But please don't take that as my position in totality. There is a much wider body of weak and even contrary evidence.
As you know, I look very sceptically at AGW. Right now, *all* the strands of evidence seem to be on really shaky ground to me.
Actually, Gofpott's position is more consistent with that of actual climate scientists than yours. A doubling of CO2 is expected to cause ~1.0C of warming - hardly an impending apocalypse. Check out the work of scientists like Ian Clark, Tim Patterson, Jan Veizer, Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, John Christie, Roy Spencer, etc. etc. and stop listening to policitians like Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
"Gofpott's position is more consistent with that of actual climate scientists "
You say this and without missing a beat mention creationist Roy Spencer "The official climatologist of the EIB Network" (for example), whose position could not be much farther away from being consistent with that of actual climate scientists.
I didn't say that. I simply said that most of the climatologists I've read are skeptical of the AGW theory. That shouldn't surprise you since scientists should be skeptical of unproven and (in the case of AGW... unprovable) theories.
There are two basic pillars supporting the AGW theory.
#1: Since there is a correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases, the former must have caused the latter.
#2 : CO2 is a GHG, therefore, it must cause warming.
What could I write that hasn't already been written? The "post hoc" fallacy can be used to shoot down the CO2 is causing global warming argument. Plus, the correlation isn't that good to begin with.
Also, basic physics can't account for the ~5C chance in temperature the IPCC is predicting. That's why they have to use crude and carefully "tuned" computer models to validate this fantasy. Too bad that...
I ask again... what could I write that hasn't already been written? The people who believe that AGW exists are not interested in science - they're interested in defending their dogmatic views. You could show people like James Hansen or Michael Mann incontrovertible proof that AGW is a fantasy and they'd still find a way to argue around it.
The fact remains: climate models "prove" nothing. They don't even accurately model climate. They cannot form the basis of any scientific conclusion.
"The people who believe that AGW exists are not interested in science"
And by this pure BS you mean just about every the SCIENTISTS in the entire world -- people who have devoted their entire lives to (read this next word 2 to 9000 times) science.
All while you sit YouTube making comments -- have not - have no training and no inclination to GET training
Gwynne -- I gotta tell ya -- yer hilarious.
...And I like dem big ole shoes you're wearing and that big red nose.
I've already given you a small list of the climate scientists who reject the AGW theory. I notice you've yet to offer any evidence to support it other than appeals to authority.
It doesn't bother you that CO2 increases don't correlate to temperature increases? It doesn't bother you that AGW advocates have to engage in blatant fraud to make their point (e.g. Michael Mann and his "Hockey Stick" graph)?
Try actually using your brain instead of just believing what politicians tell you.
There's currently more than $4 billion in US grants alone for research that relates to 'Climate Change'.
If worked in a field of science that struggled for funding, as most do, and someone was willing to fund my research saying all I had to do was factor climate in somewhere, I'm pretty sure I'd accomodate that request.
If you want to see dissent in the science community simply google 'minority report global warming' and read through the EPW site.
The NRC isn't the most commonly cited source for AGW, but I enjoy that you can't defend the IPCC.
You'll have to establish that even one of the scientists in that minority report were influenced by petro-dollars. Pure conjecture on your part. But I only need to point to the IPCC mission statement to demonstrate their fininacial interest in human-induced climate change.
You wanted a substantial list of scientists and their scholarship that were AGW skeptics, and I've pointed you to 700.
I really don't know how your mind works. I'm beginning to think that people like you don't have the ability or the capacity to think logically. I hope I'm wrong.
For instance, I didn't use the NRC as a source. I asked a question about the NRC regarding the govt, but you came to the illogical conclusion that the NRC was being used as a source.
Likewise, because I didn't defend IPCC, you illogically conclude that I am unable to defend the IPCC
As for the 700 scientists and their scholarship, I'm a skeptic too, I'll take a look. but if it's anything like the 31,000 scientists your comrades pointed to before, it will be nothing but an entertaining exercise
The reason I mentioned the NRC is because In 2001, they published "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.", which explicitly endorsed the IPCC view - without, of course, going though a govt agency of some sort.
A partial quote...
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
I'm not entirely sure what the NRC has to do with anything, besides being a pointless shifting of gears.
It was your suggestion that any study originating from a government commitee wasn't worth examining. I simply pointed out that the leading authority for the other side of the argument, the IPCC, is entrenched in government oversight.
I'm sorry, was I supposed to be impressed or persuaded by your example of the NRC because it may fit criteria that you invented? A logical person would attempt to refute or debunk the publication because it meets criteria that they hadn't themselves deemed important? Strange definition of logic.
The peer review process is stupid, filled with flaws, and would only ever produce mediocre science. Its usually the scientists who dont agree with the rest who are latter called geniuses and given credit.
-- the VERY POINT of science is to prove other scientists and theories wrong. ALL scientists are skeptics. Every single climatologists on the planet would LOVE to prove conclusions on climate change caused by humans to be wrong.
That is, in fact, their job.
To say that scientists walk in lock step with one another means that you don't understand science
Say what you like about Spencer's views on evolution, they're not relevant to the issue of climate change and don't change the fact that he is, in fact, a climate scientist - unlike, say, Al Gore.
Spencer's views on the issue of climate change aren't unusual and he's been published in the scientific journals so his peers don't disagree with them.
Ironically, it is the AGW people who have more in common with creationists. They draw a conclusion and then cherry-pick data to support it.
"An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient."
Been there and done it. Surgeons explained a procedure to me (the patient), including the risks and the benefits. We discussed, and I suggested not to go ahead.
An alternative course of action was agreed, also involving major surgery, and was a success. We avoided the risks of the intiial suggestion.
Talk to people, BeondaPale, and you'll be surprised at what they can learn.
You invented a hypothetical scenario to try to separate expert and lay opinion. I gave you my own REAL experience, where my opinion was taken into account and respected.
In the case of climate issues, you are going to have to learn to respect general public opinion. If you cannot, then you are going nowhwere.
So please try not to shout people down because you think you know best.
"An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient. (see? it says A patient... see?) Neither your nor my nor Mr Meyer's opinion on such a matter is relevant or needed and may, in fact, be harmful."
"I defy you to find a single instance anywhere ..."
Wikki: "Control theory is an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and mathematics, that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems. The desired output of a system is called the reference. When one or more output variables of a system need to follow a certain reference over time, a controller manipulates the inputs to a system to obtain the desired effect on the output of the system."
control theory as part of engineering is a human endevor and as such contains human intent. the dfinition of the WORD control is not the same as control theory in engineering.
no, I'm calling for us to STOP a controlling action. I have said several times now that we do influence the climate and therefore, by the definition of control, DO control the climate -- I seek to stop that control.
A simple look back will proove that this is the 3rd time I've repeated this. You just consistently refused to see it. In the same way, you consistantly rerfuse to admit (despite example after cited example) that control does not need intent.
"no, I'm calling for us to STOP a controlling action"
I know BeondaPale. Stopping a contolling action is still taking a controlling action.
You have acknowleded that we have a controlling influence over the climate - you just cannot bring yourself to the phrase "control the climate".
It is like sticking your hand out the window of the car. You might say that is a controlling influence over speed of the car. But it is insignificant against other factors determining the speed.
"you just cannot bring yourself to the phrase "control the climate"
We (read this very carefully now) -- control the climate -- in so far as influence equates to control. -- the same way I control leaves merely by walking passed them or the CO2 level of a room merely by breathing.
It began as a very tiny influence but as human populations and industrialization have grown, the corresponding influence has grown
Your car analogy is a good one - now stick 12 billion hands out the window
"Stopping a controlling action is still taking a controlling action."
I'll agree, but a controlling action such as stopping lasts only a nanosecond, while the controlling action opposing it (our continuing influence -- the one YOU favor) lasts infinitely longer.
Therefore, it is YOU who wants us to go on influencing (controling) the climate indefinately
Flicking a switch takes an instant, the time it takes is hardly the issue.
"... go on influencing (controling) the climate indefinately"
You can hold your hand outside the window of the car to create a braking effect. It doesn't mean that you are controlling the car.
That's my view of CO2 - we have a minor influence. A perturbation. But that's not controlling the climate. There are other, more significant influences in play.
BeondaPale - I don't come here with a grand unified theory of the operation of the climate. There are many factors at play and we all know them. I feel confident that nobody fully understands the dynamics and influencing factors over centuries, millenia and more.
However I will say this: I see *NO* convincing evidence for the theory of impending catastrophe as a result of our CO2 emissions.
To repeat my earlier comment, *that* is the issue at stake here.
my exact request was for the word INTENT in the definition of control -- not control theory, but control
-- you failed to find a definition that would satisfy what you WANTED the word to mean and so turned to a seperate concept - control theory -
Let me clarify AGAIN, because you STILL, don't seem to be following -- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves or the water.)
Living organisms come with a degree of complexity which may or may not require conscious intent.
I'm sure Intelligent Design would support the notion of control systems designed (intended) for survial by the hand of God.
Evolution would support complex feedback processes evolved without conscious intent, arsising because they help "pass the test" of survival in the gene pool.
I would prefer to steer clear of that kind of debate becuase I think it would get us nowhere fast.
BeondaPale-Does there need to be intent? Control systems do exist in nature - the tilt of the earth provides for seasonal differences between the two hemispheres. It's a little difficult for the polar ice caps to both melt when one of them is always frozen - or even for there to be "global" warming when half of it is experiencing winter while the other experiences summer.
As for us controlling the weather - our piddling .003% of CO2 isn't going to do anything compared to the external influences
"Question: Do control system exist in nature? and if so, do they involve intent?"
(I assume you mean to exclude living things like human beings, social insects and such like.)
Feedback exists in nature, but not control systems for the very point you make: there is no intent involved.
The universe is cooling, and that means quite complicated physical processes as physical entities move to lower energy states. But that's not control for any particular purpose.
I defy you to find a single instance anywhere of a definition that includes intent as necessary component of control -- it doesn't exist,
"I assume you mean to exclude living things like human beings, social insects and such like."
Not at all, there many cyles within the human body that control levels and keep our bodies at homeostasis - all WITHOUT our intent -- blood glucose, cardiac rythms, the sodium/potasium pump, etc
Homeostatic control mechanisms are a FOUNDATION of biology.
"A dam holds back a river, effectively controlling the water - does the dam INTEND to control the water?"
Wrong - a simple dam holds back water until the dam is full. After that point the water spills over the dam and the dam then has no effect on downstream flow.
If we add a gate to the dam, we have added a mechanism to manage the dam level and therefore downstream flow. There is scope to control the dam level and downstream flow. But exercise of that control involves intent.
Has anyone ever looked into the role that plants have on a global scale in CO2 levels? Is there another possibility of global temepratures affecting the global biomass of plants and algae?
Why not start from the asumption that Warren is trying to look at this objectively. If you then reply to his points, your posts might then be worth writing.
If you think this kind of negative comment advances your position, you'll need to think again BeondaPale.
You mean instead of starting from the fact (far beyond an assumption) that Mr Meyer has no more qualification to speak on climatology than you or me or the average fry cook?
Is YOUR position advanced by Mr Meyer?
What is your position, btw? Is it political or scientific?
Your comment was pure ad-hom BeondaPale. It doesn't make a case for AGW.
"Is YOUR position advanced by Mr Meyer? "
Yes. Significant decisions should be based on a good scientific basis. But the body evidence for AGW is far from conclusive. People should be properly informed about this and encouraged to understand before making up their minds.
But you, BeondaPale, don't welcome open scrutiny and debate. Why so defensive? Is it an indication that *your* position is political?
Nope, not ad-hom. I did not once attack Mr Meyer. I Just said he was unqualified, which is the truth.
"It doesn't make a case for AGW."
It is not up to me or you to open or close debate -- We are irrelevant within the SCIENCE
An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient. Neither your nor my nor Mr Meyer's opinion on such a matter is relevant or needed and may, in fact, be harmful.
" .. Mr Meyer has no more qualification to speak on climatology than you or me .. "
You had no problem debating with me at length when I asked if you believe we control the climate.
Control theory is my background and I have no doubt that you have no comparable qualifications. But I respected your opinion and sought to share my perspectives with you.
Until you called me a liar, when I concluded that trying to engage with you was a waste of my time.
If you allege a lie, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. You cannot go into a court of law and say "I know that I only call people who lie, liars Soooo, in order for me to have called you a liar you must have lied."
As I recall, the problem was your inability to following the logic I presented to you, compounded by your resistance to information which does not conform with your confirmation bias.
But I'll ask again: do you think we can control the climate BeondaPale?
Control -- To exercise influence over or dictate the behavior of
This definition suggests two seperate things I influence leaves on the ground merely by walking past them closely. I influence the water in a puddle by stepping in the puddle.
Now, do I control the leaves or the water?
We do and can influence the climate, but we can not (at least completely with any accuracy) dictate the behavior of the climate.
But if, like the leaves on the ground, we are unintentionally influencing the climate in a way that will have negative results for humanity, then reducing that unintentional influence reduces the negative results.
In this way we are not trying to control anything, but merely treading more softly
" then reducing that unintentional influence reduces the negative results"
By emitting CO2, you expect one outcome. Reducing emissions, you expect a different outcome.
The input you are proposing is a reduction in our CO2 emissions. The outcome you expect is a different climate. That means you beleive we can control of the climate (the difference in the two outcomes).
"merely treading more softly" - that sounds like we're back to futile gestures.
Control -- To exercise influence over or dictate the behavior of.
By this definition, control, as you can see, is a spectrum. I AM controling the water bty stepping in the puddle. I AM controlling the leaves by walking past them.
But this would mean that mearly by existing we "control" everything in the universe. This is why we have to define terms. We INFLUENCE the climate. but it should be clear now that influence is a form of control.
"The input you are proposing is a reduction in our CO2 emissions. The outcome you expect is a different climate. That means you beleive we can control of the climate (the difference in the two outcomes)"
But -- As you can see, by the definition of control -- influence IS control. we are currenty influencing (controlling) the climate negatively
I'm suggesting that we REDUCE our influence (control) of the climate.
Let me clarify AGAIN, because you STILL don't seem to be following
-- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves I pass or the water in the puddle I step in.)
"And to re-inforce your point about leaves on the ground, "control" is based on driving towards an objective."
Not according to ANY definition of control - which does not include the word intent.
Control is often merely unintentional influence
Let me clarify again, because you still don't seem to be following -- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves or the water.)
.....leasen guys, if you gotr information i dont have, just send them to the onu, and appy for the nobel price...it s 50000$ cash for you if you can prouve that global warminf is a not real...and you know what, i am sure that exon will quatrupal that amounbt, so you will be a rich mann immediatelly
once again, if you can prove me that climat models are wrong, i will follow you..if not,, stop speaking for nothing because i follow you on your point..problem is not for today, problem is for tomorrow, and mesurement for last century was not as acurate as it is now, and recent rising of temperature can be natural for lots of raisons...but as i have say, no major volcano appears last century
yes but on the wrong side....it is hjotter than what model predicted ..and if you have an other solution than to have a vitual earth to do the job, good luck .../perhaps you solution is to beleave in god and pray, but you know what, that is not mine
oh come on...dont be fool ...mesurement dont lie so, go to the north and see the ice melting.
of course somewhere in the workld a place is getting colder, but in average, it is getting hotter,...if it s not, explain to me why we could see a dam ice melting everyday on the newpapers
Measurement error and insonsistency is a cerntral issue for science. Just because you have a "reading" does not mean you have "truth". Data can be very misleading and a good scientist treats data with scepticism.
"go to the north and see the ice melting"
Arctic Sea Ice is 14.2 million sqkm. Nothing unusual there. Get the latest here:
"and mesurement for last century was not as acurate as it is now"
Very good point Frederic. That means the people who claim there has been a century of warming cannot do so any more accurately than the data they have for 100 years ago.
Why don't you watch the above video? It will teach you lots about the strength of data and analysis. At least with that you will be able to understand why some people do not accept your conclusions on climate change.
recent warming is on top of error mesurment of last century...problems of global warming is for tomorrow, and we have alrewady gain .6 degres on average...
the problem is that a difference bettween a glaciation and our days, is only 5 degres..
"recent warming is on top of error mesurment of last century"
The video shows a very badly managed weather station in the US. Many more like this in the surfacestations website. Nearly 90% of US stations are CRN=3 or worse, not good enough to measure an average change of < 1dC across the US. Do we expect other countries to be better? I think not.
When you see, you cannot stand the evidence before your eyes and you turn it off. None so blind as those who do not *want* to see Frederic.
even the rotation speed of the earth was different..382 days instead of 365, continent where not aqt the same place, volcanic activitty was different, flattness of the orbit was different, vegetation was different, inclinasion of the earth was also different, composition of the atmosphere was different........where did i say that recent warming was unprecedent
"where did i say that recent warming was unprecedent "
Well that seems to be something we can all agree on - Recent Warming is nothing special.
If we accept there is nothing special happening with temperature, we then have no link between Recent Warming and CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption. Right?
.. did i say that recent warming was unprecedent....of course not.. during quaternaire age for example, sun was 30% less powelfull than today, but it was hotter than today..
don t try to make your smart, i know what manau loa is, and what the Ipcc is... i did talk about them without your help..
anyway, for global warming, the athmosphere is not even the determinant point...ocean and ice is more important to determine what will be next century temperature
Comment removed
sekamenacerecords1 1 month ago
What a misleading argument! Scientists don't deny temperatures drives CO2, but that's only during the beginning of the interglacial cycle.. For 90% of the cycle, CO2 drive temps.
meercatdotcom 2 years ago
@meercatdotcom Thats not what ol Al Gore’s graph showed at all, it showed CO2 following temp increase by a few hundred years consistently.
TheKickerboy99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
treygraves 2 years ago
Intelligent, but burdened with severe errors, some standard climate change denier errors, some entirely new.
CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler; I stopped listening at that point. You really ought to spend some time with people with actual expertise.
mt78723 2 years ago
mt78723: "CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler;"
Warren is absolutely clear that he is talking about atmospheric composition. Recent change is about 100 ppm, although most people don't talk about ppm. So he (correctly) expresses ths as a change of 0.01% and notes it as "an extraordinarily small change IN COMPOSITION".
Either you don't understand Warren's presentation, or you wish to complain that it is not sufficently alarmist for your personal taste.
gufpott 2 years ago 5
um gufpott, it is not nice to take away an alarmists excuse to ignore counter evidence and arguments.
empty78723 will eventually find another excuse to discredit or ignore the information in this video. Alarmists are very effective at fishing, chery picking, holding double standards, group think, ad-hominems, and arguments from authority, which are benefitial for any other religious community.
Just leave them alone so that they can give thier lives/identities direction, purpose, and meaning.
St37One 2 years ago
@mt78723 - perhaps you should focus on the surface station problems; they alone would account for the "warming" - they started using latex paint instead of whitewash; guess what? It raised the temp. Not to mention that data didn't get recorded for half a month at one station. Funny thing about "averages" too: you can have a day hovering in the 70 for 24 hours have a higher average than a day that got hotter (say 80) with a low of 60.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
@mt78723 Now we both know which day was hotter, but the warmist, who wants to go by the "average" temp, says that global warming exists because of higher averages, rather than by whether the actual temps are getting hotter. That makes it easy to manipulate the numbers. It's time to stop looking at averages and go by actual temps.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
I like what a geologist said in a video somewhere here. That we are the first species that has ever feared warming. Warming is good for life, cooling is bad for it. Its pretty much that simple. If it is happening its a good thing and its good for plants.
CO2 has been helping plants grow to higher altitudes and latitudes. CO2 is not pollution, we should concentrate on actual polution.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
"...we are the first species that has ever feared warming."
I think that you are wrong here.
We are the first species that has ever feared ITS OWN INFLUENCE on ITS OWN ENVIRONMENT.
And thats only because we are the first and only species with a brain big enough to do so.
Yes, CO2 is good for plants, but overall, do you believe that the positives of quickly doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere outweigh the negatives?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I dont think doubling or tripling it would hurt us much at all, but that far from happening.
It has increased from 270 ppm, to 370 ppm. This still hasnt doubled and the increase isnt all from us.
The impact we have had on the climate is so remote its hard to measure. We have done far less then you think.
Actual pollution is a problem, CO2 is not a problem. Climate change is also not a problem and has always happened and has little to do with man.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
On what do you base your belief that doubling or tripling CO2 in the atmosphere would not be harmful? Do you have any evidence or is it just a belief?
Actually the current CO2 level as of May 2009 is 390 PPM - the highest in 600,000 years and rising. CO2 levels could well double by 2050 according to many estimates.
What you believe is irrelevant -- SCIENCE is the only thing that is relevant here
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I could ask you them same questions. Where do you get your information. I preffer actual scientists, not political activists. If you listen to anythin Al Gore said no wonder you have a twisted view of science.
Ice Core samples show that CO2 has never driven the earths climate before and it doesnt now. The data shows that temperatures rise causing the CO2 to rise or fall after the temperature changes.
Al Gore did a lot of word twisting. The nobel peace prize is a joke now that he won it.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
"Ice Core samples show that CO2 has never driven the earths climate before and it doesn't now."
This statement is out and out false. CO2 drives temperature as a feedback device. Doubling the CO2 level is therefore harmful
Al Gore is irrelevant - don't listen to him.
Warren Meyer is likewise irrelevant - don't listen to him.
Go to school and learn REAL SCIENCE
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Like my buddies girlfriend, an old roommate of mine with a master degree in environmental sciences? Yeah she and her professors say the same thing. The data doesnt agree with the stuff told to you by political activists for global warming.
It is because of science and scientists that I dont believe in global warming. You obviously dont understand how much money can influence science. Its the political support and money that makes people believe global warming, not the facts.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
Have your buddies or your girlfriend or the old roommate of yours with the master degree in environmental sciences written any papers published in the journal "Nature" or the journal "Science"?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
look up peer reviewed journal chills global warming fears. it says doubling, even tripling co2 levels would not have a substantial impact on temperature. not to mention the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling. also GW is the only issue that is not debated in the UN. GW is a political issue. and when there is an even debate (i have seen 2) the "deniers" win
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Its funny that political activists that support global warming always try and claim the debate is over when there has hardly been one in what is still a new area of science.
No area of science that young, or many times its age can say its got it all figured out. There is no point in calling it science when you "shun the non believers".
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
yea i know u are 100% right. and like i said global warming is completely political. i often get into debates with alarmists about GW and all i do is tell them that the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling, and that theres a peer reviewed paper on how double the amounts of co2 wouldnt increase temperature. i recently debated an alarmist who is now a "denier" because he checked out the sources i gave him. i also did a presentation, and convinced the whole class
tippman2k01 2 years ago
She did publish a paper on Glacial melt patterns. There is nothing alarming about it which made it harder to publish, so she added "and the effects of global warming" to her title and it got published quickly. That one of the problems, even those who dont believe in global warming use its influence to get paid.
Did you know they only monitor 10% of the worlds major glaciers and only half of those monitored are receding? Dont believe in chicken little science.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
Did she now? Tell me, what is the title of your friends published paper and where as well as when it was published?
As for only 50% of the world's monitored glaciers receeding; well, that's very interesting. Can you please cite where you got this information?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have your buddies or your girlfriend or the old roommate of yours with the master degree in environmental sciences written any papers published in the journal "Nature" or the journal "Science"?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Which journal was it first reviewed in. Point me to the original peer review
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Wait, what you said just a few minutes ago -
"Here a friend of mine who resigned from NASA because he dared to blow the whistle."
But now you say --
"He wasn't forced to resign but he had to in order to publish."
So are you saying that NASA actively prevented him from publishing?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
So your friend is Ferenc Miskolczi, right?
I've seen the paper. Because it disagrees does not mean that it is correct. It has in fact been widely panned.
According to the physicists I have contact with (for instance) - According to Miskolczi's physics, Venus's runaway temp can't even exist.
He resigned to publish this? Are you sure? is that what he told you - his friend in Austrailia?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"here is a doozy with hat tip to DrDave google
scientific fraudster who dazzled the world"
Great reference gerjanp.
Interesting case study of how peer reivew can fail, and how pandering to preconceptions can keep people off the scent.
Did you read it BeondaPale?
gufpott 2 years ago
I read this too.
It's one thing for a single scientist to participate in a fraud as Shon did.
It is another thing entirely to insist that 95% of the scientists within an entire field of study are participating in a fraud
Note too that "...he ended up without a job, and was forced to leave America in disgrace."
so you see, far from being widespread, scientific fraud is held as completely disgraceful by the scientific community.
Thanks for helping to prove my point.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"95% of the scientists within an entire field of study are participating in a fraud"
The ideal scientist is calm, objective and fiercely sceptical. But that's not what we see in practice. Scientists tend to settle into their own beleifs and become fiercely protective of them. Peer reivew is prone to confirmation bias.
That only says they can be too resistant to new ideas, preferring to bask where it is comfortable. Call it lazyness or ambitous if you like. But I did not say fraud.
gufpott 2 years ago
Scientist "friends" seem to be popping up everywhere.
This friend of yours at NASA was Ferenc Miskolczi? and you're from Australia, right?
How is introducing a theory "blowing a whistle"?
Are you sure he was forced to resign because he introduced this theory?
Excuse my skepticism.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"by all means feel free to throw away your money "
Good point gerjanp. BeondaPale and company should go right ahead and planet. What are they waiting for? I'm certainly not trying to get in the way of them living up to their principles.
If they get right into the fossil-fuel-free lifestyle, their life expectancy will shorten by 20 years or more ... saving even more CO2. Happy days indeed.
So better get on with it. Not much time to fall on the sword in pursuit of the cause.
gufpott 2 years ago
"go right ahead and save the planet"
Sorry for the typo.
gufpott 2 years ago
It's wasn't a point at all. We were discussing whether it's even possible for an entire scientific field of study to be corrupted.
I pointed out that gerry was a layman, outside the science and that his opinion was therefore uninformed, when he suddenly segued to his money.
It's really not surprising though - Money is really the only thing the "skeptics" care about. Objective science doesn't matter for an instant.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Its money that corrupts. A friend of mine has published a paper on Glacial melt patterns and the effect of global warming. She is a couple courses from her masters degree in environmental sciences. She think global warming is a hoax to get money and only added the global warming part to her paprer to get it published easier and to get paid.
If a scientist or student is an open skeptic they have a difficult carreer and funding problems.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I find the story about your friend wholly unbelievable.
It is the PRIMARY job of ANY scientist to be skeptical and also to attempt to disprove rather than to confirm standing science.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"I'm sorry, I find the story about your friend wholly unbelievable."
What if it is founded in fact ... that would make you a denier.
gufpott 2 years ago
a denier of the story of your friend - granted
BeondaPale 2 years ago
She once believed in global warming until her prof's convinced her otherwise. She was suprised to see the amount of data that doesnt support the AGW theory.
The funny thing about the paper she published is that it doesnt show and bad signs of over melting, just normal melting with normal warming.
Your right about scientists are supossed to be skeptical but they are also human. It happens in different fields not just this one. Just not to the extent that it has happened in this field.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
"We were discussing whether it's even possible for an entire scientific field of study to be corrupted. "
We all know that it is possible for an entire scientific field to be wrong. The reasons why they are wrong is a different matter - but there may well be forms of personal vested interest in play.
"it is the job of scientists to be sceptical"
So why do you attack people like Prof Carter for daring to question your version of the orthodoxy?
gufpott 2 years ago
" there may well be forms of personal vested interest in play." In 95% of the field? Absurd.
"So why do you attack people like Prof Carter for daring to question your version of the orthodoxy"
By "you people" who do you mean?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"In 95% of the field? Absurd."
To be honest, I find it quite noticeable how little open dissent there is, given the lack of solid evidence for AGW. It's too quiet, something's not right.
Did you read gerjanp's reference to the "scientific fraudster who dazzled the world".
Also I did not use the term "you people". You did not answer my question:
If a dissenting scientist is doing his job as you (correctly) say, why do you attack Carter for questioning your version of the orthodoxy?
gufpott 2 years ago
"I find it quite noticeable how little open dissent there is, given the lack of solid evidence for AGW. It's too quiet, something's not right."
LOL
Yes, things in Finland have been very quiet as well, what are the Fins planning? Should we arm ourselves against a possible invasion from Finland?
"Also I did not use the term "you people".
Oh yes, I see. I misread. You said that I attacked Prof Carter for questioning MY version of the orthodoxy -- ME -- When did I do that?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"Yes, things in Finland have been very quiet ... "
Just as the climate appears to be doing nothing unusual. But that doesn't stop you from jumping up and demanding serious action against a claimed impending calamity.
Or would you like to cite the article (or articles) in the literature that you consider to be compelling evidence for catastrophe?
And I'll ask this again - why does Carter suffer personal attack for doing what you basically *expect* a scientist to do?
gufpott 2 years ago
"Just as the climate appears to be doing nothing unusual."
...To you with your naked eye and uneducated brain
"Or would you like to cite the article (or articles) in the literature that you consider to be compelling evidence for catastrophe?"
Not necesarily catastrophe or calamity but certainly impending problems. -- just go to the website of ANY ACCERDITED CLIMATOLOGICAL INSTITUTION ON THE ENTIRE PLANET for more
Again, WHO is attacking Carter personally.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"To you with your naked eye and uneducated brain" ... or according to the utter lack of evidence from those who have applied scientific methods and published their findings in the literature.
"ANY ACCERDITED CLIMATOLOGICAL INSTITUTION"
ahem ... I think you'll find that's not the scientific method.
"Again, WHO is attacking Carter personally."
Ok - do you agree that Carter is entitled to express his position and arguments without personal attack?
gufpott 2 years ago
"Ok - do you agree that Carter is entitled to express his position and arguments without personal attack?"
Personal yes - scientific no
If someone is attacking him personally it would be wrong. But valid attacks on his scientific conclusions are to be expected
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"ahem ... I think you'll find that's not the scientific method."
What?? You asked for articles -- I pointed you to places where you could get them. What are you talking about re: not the scientific method?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"What?? You asked for articles -- I pointed you to places where you could get them. "
Then please give me references to the specific articles that you find compelling.
It was too vague to say: "just go to the website of ANY ACCERDITED CLIMATOLOGICAL INSTITUTION ON THE ENTIRE PLANET for more".
I took that to be a reference to institutional statements which are not reporting scientific research.
References to compelling articles please.
gufpott 2 years ago
Ahh, go to Google scholar, enter "anthropogenic climate change" then press search.
It will return literally thousnds of compelling scientific articles (not that you will read a single one)
...Knock yourself out
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"I took that to be a reference to institutional statements which are not reporting scientific research"
Ahh but they are -- go to the National Academies website (for one of many examples) and see for yourself
BeondaPale 2 years ago
You are being evasive BeondaPale.
"[google] will return literally thousnds of compelling scientific articles "
That's not what I asked for. Please tell me which articles *you* find persuasive and why.
"go to the National Academies website "
Same again - I'm not interested in reports from workshops and worryfests. I want to understand what scientific research has been done to prove global warming.
No answer tells me you cannot answer the question.
gufpott 2 years ago
I'm giving you everything you need and you ask for. You're just not accepting it. Which only proves that you are, and desperately wish to remain, willfully ignorant.
Read THIS one
"Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"
or THIS one
"Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States"
I find both of these and many others persuasive.
LOL @ the National Academy being a "workshop" or a "worryfest"
BeondaPale 2 years ago
As I said, it must be based on more than your own scientifically worthless opinion.
YOU (an anonymous poster on YouTube) can grumble that the science fraudulent all you want - it doesn't matter.
The NAS and the NRC have come to a different conclusion.
If the entire field of study had been corrupted MOST scientists would be complaining -- they're not. People on the outside of the science, people with a political agenda are the ones complaining. It's very similar to creationism.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"The system only works as long as it's not corrupt and the politicising of climate science has corrupted it."
You do have to come up with better evidence than merely saying it, right?
You stand on the outside of an entire field of study, looking in, calling MOST of the men and women in that field corrupt.
Do you blame me for being incredulous?
Can you give JUST ONE solid example based on ANYTHING more than your own scientifically worthless opinion?
My guess is that you can't
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Good to see you back again gerjanp.
There has been a distinct lack of quality around YT without the benefit of your comments.
gufpott 2 years ago
"Ok, What DO you see happening as a result of our CO2 emissions?"
A minor warming perturbation. Within 1dC. Possibly a net favourable effect.
The above video series sums up many of veiws BeondaPale, so it's worth watching again. But please don't take that as my position in totality. There is a much wider body of weak and even contrary evidence.
As you know, I look very sceptically at AGW. Right now, *all* the strands of evidence seem to be on really shaky ground to me.
gufpott 2 years ago
No don't worry, I've never seen you take a position - especially one that could be sustained in more scientific circles
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Actually, Gofpott's position is more consistent with that of actual climate scientists than yours. A doubling of CO2 is expected to cause ~1.0C of warming - hardly an impending apocalypse. Check out the work of scientists like Ian Clark, Tim Patterson, Jan Veizer, Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, John Christie, Roy Spencer, etc. etc. and stop listening to policitians like Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
Ahh, yet another clown clone...
"Gofpott's position is more consistent with that of actual climate scientists "
You say this and without missing a beat mention creationist Roy Spencer "The official climatologist of the EIB Network" (for example), whose position could not be much farther away from being consistent with that of actual climate scientists.
Ideologically driven science is not TRUE science
Good luck
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"whose position could not be much farther away from being consistent with that of actual climate scientists"
Congratulations - I see you are the self-appointed spokesman for the absent majority of climatologists.
That qualifies you to all sorts of baseless claims like: "ninety-odd percent of scientists agree with what I am saying".
gufpott 2 years ago
Question: how many climate scientists or ANY scientists believe in creationism?
I would dare to say not that many -- oh my
"ninety-odd percent of scientists agree with what I am saying"
Well it would be baseless if not for the poll that proves it
-- good luck
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I didn't say that. I simply said that most of the climatologists I've read are skeptical of the AGW theory. That shouldn't surprise you since scientists should be skeptical of unproven and (in the case of AGW... unprovable) theories.
There are two basic pillars supporting the AGW theory.
#1: Since there is a correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases, the former must have caused the latter.
#2 : CO2 is a GHG, therefore, it must cause warming.
Both are specious.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
Write a paper - save the world
BeondaPale 2 years ago
What could I write that hasn't already been written? The "post hoc" fallacy can be used to shoot down the CO2 is causing global warming argument. Plus, the correlation isn't that good to begin with.
Also, basic physics can't account for the ~5C chance in temperature the IPCC is predicting. That's why they have to use crude and carefully "tuned" computer models to validate this fantasy. Too bad that...
A: None of the models agree with each other.
B: None can predict the future.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
A paper that will convince the 90% of the scientific community that currently agrees that AGW does exists -- that it does NOT exist
write THAT paper
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I ask again... what could I write that hasn't already been written? The people who believe that AGW exists are not interested in science - they're interested in defending their dogmatic views. You could show people like James Hansen or Michael Mann incontrovertible proof that AGW is a fantasy and they'd still find a way to argue around it.
The fact remains: climate models "prove" nothing. They don't even accurately model climate. They cannot form the basis of any scientific conclusion.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
"The people who believe that AGW exists are not interested in science"
And by this pure BS you mean just about every the SCIENTISTS in the entire world -- people who have devoted their entire lives to (read this next word 2 to 9000 times) science.
All while you sit YouTube making comments -- have not - have no training and no inclination to GET training
Gwynne -- I gotta tell ya -- yer hilarious.
...And I like dem big ole shoes you're wearing and that big red nose.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I've already given you a small list of the climate scientists who reject the AGW theory. I notice you've yet to offer any evidence to support it other than appeals to authority.
It doesn't bother you that CO2 increases don't correlate to temperature increases? It doesn't bother you that AGW advocates have to engage in blatant fraud to make their point (e.g. Michael Mann and his "Hockey Stick" graph)?
Try actually using your brain instead of just believing what politicians tell you.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
"I've already given you a small list of the climate scientists who reject the AGW theory."
yep, a very very small list
BeondaPale 2 years ago
And I notice you STILL haven't offered any evidence to support your point of view. Do you enjoy being a parrot?
I also notice you didn't mention whether it bothers you that proponents of the AGW view resort to fraud to make their point.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
"And I notice you STILL haven't offered any evidence to support your point of view."
lol, it's not up to me to do so.
You and I could go back and forth on YouTube citing studies...
(the nuts and bolts of which we both don't fully understand)
...for all eternity -- it wouldn't make one wit of a difference.
In the end, science is settled by SCIENTISTS and the VAST majority agree AGW exists
-- I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad
BeondaPale 2 years ago
There's currently more than $4 billion in US grants alone for research that relates to 'Climate Change'.
If worked in a field of science that struggled for funding, as most do, and someone was willing to fund my research saying all I had to do was factor climate in somewhere, I'm pretty sure I'd accomodate that request.
If you want to see dissent in the science community simply google 'minority report global warming' and read through the EPW site.
Phule213 2 years ago
1st, Is ALL research funding governmental? Doesn't research funding regularly come from (for instance) the petroleum or coal industry as well?
2nd, If you falsified your research, would you be more or less likely to get ANY kind of funding in the future?
"simply google 'minority report global warming'"
I find it telling that you send me to a political blog for information on science.
Why can't you send me to a genuine science site like the National Academies or the AAAS ?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
1. With enough money you can have research say whatever you want, take the ACS and 'second-hand smoke' studies for example.
2. All you would have to do is account for climate variations in your research, it doesnt mean there has to be a correlation.
-If you are curious about the scientists involved and their scholarship.read the report.
-FYI the IPCC Assessments go through 2 government review processes before publication, a flow-chart for which you can find on their website.
Phule213 2 years ago
How about the findings of the national research council, Do THEY go through government review processes?
NO???
Whatever shall we believe now??
By the way, I notice that you didn't answer my questions. Care to try again?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
The NRC isn't the most commonly cited source for AGW, but I enjoy that you can't defend the IPCC.
You'll have to establish that even one of the scientists in that minority report were influenced by petro-dollars. Pure conjecture on your part. But I only need to point to the IPCC mission statement to demonstrate their fininacial interest in human-induced climate change.
You wanted a substantial list of scientists and their scholarship that were AGW skeptics, and I've pointed you to 700.
Phule213 2 years ago
I really don't know how your mind works. I'm beginning to think that people like you don't have the ability or the capacity to think logically. I hope I'm wrong.
For instance, I didn't use the NRC as a source. I asked a question about the NRC regarding the govt, but you came to the illogical conclusion that the NRC was being used as a source.
Likewise, because I didn't defend IPCC, you illogically conclude that I am unable to defend the IPCC
BeondaPale 2 years ago
As for the 700 scientists and their scholarship, I'm a skeptic too, I'll take a look. but if it's anything like the 31,000 scientists your comrades pointed to before, it will be nothing but an entertaining exercise
BeondaPale 2 years ago
That sounds very open-minded.
Phule213 2 years ago
The reason I mentioned the NRC is because In 2001, they published "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.", which explicitly endorsed the IPCC view - without, of course, going though a govt agency of some sort.
A partial quote...
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I'm not entirely sure what the NRC has to do with anything, besides being a pointless shifting of gears.
It was your suggestion that any study originating from a government commitee wasn't worth examining. I simply pointed out that the leading authority for the other side of the argument, the IPCC, is entrenched in government oversight.
Sorry if that is confusing for you.
Phule213 2 years ago
...and the lack of logic continues
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I'm sorry, was I supposed to be impressed or persuaded by your example of the NRC because it may fit criteria that you invented? A logical person would attempt to refute or debunk the publication because it meets criteria that they hadn't themselves deemed important? Strange definition of logic.
Phule213 2 years ago
LOL
BeondaPale 2 years ago
The peer review process is stupid, filled with flaws, and would only ever produce mediocre science. Its usually the scientists who dont agree with the rest who are latter called geniuses and given credit.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
Total BS
-- the VERY POINT of science is to prove other scientists and theories wrong. ALL scientists are skeptics. Every single climatologists on the planet would LOVE to prove conclusions on climate change caused by humans to be wrong.
That is, in fact, their job.
To say that scientists walk in lock step with one another means that you don't understand science
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Say what you like about Spencer's views on evolution, they're not relevant to the issue of climate change and don't change the fact that he is, in fact, a climate scientist - unlike, say, Al Gore.
Spencer's views on the issue of climate change aren't unusual and he's been published in the scientific journals so his peers don't disagree with them.
Ironically, it is the AGW people who have more in common with creationists. They draw a conclusion and then cherry-pick data to support it.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
"Say what you like about Spencer's views on evolution, they're not relevant to the issue of climate change"
Yes they are - they show that he has a mindset that is willing to go against fundamental tenets of the scientific method.
Creationism is wholly unsustainable if the scientific method is applied to it.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient."
Been there and done it. Surgeons explained a procedure to me (the patient), including the risks and the benefits. We discussed, and I suggested not to go ahead.
An alternative course of action was agreed, also involving major surgery, and was a success. We avoided the risks of the intiial suggestion.
Talk to people, BeondaPale, and you'll be surprised at what they can learn.
gufpott 2 years ago
no, the patient is not you -- it's a 3rd party. You can see this clearly because I said A PATIENT
-- see? Right there? It says A PATIENT. Not THE patient, not YOU . if it was about you it would have said something like.... well... YOU
Learn to read English, gufpott, you'll be surprised at what you can understand.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"no, the patient is not you -- it's a 3rd party"
You invented a hypothetical scenario to try to separate expert and lay opinion. I gave you my own REAL experience, where my opinion was taken into account and respected.
In the case of climate issues, you are going to have to learn to respect general public opinion. If you cannot, then you are going nowhwere.
So please try not to shout people down because you think you know best.
gufpott 2 years ago
In your case, where you were the patient - OF COURSE you have a valid input
in my case where the patient is a 3rd party, you of course DON'T have a valid input
The two scenarios are not at all analogous.
This ends today's lesson in the English language
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Now, my FULL quote, in context:
"An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient. (see? it says A patient... see?) Neither your nor my nor Mr Meyer's opinion on such a matter is relevant or needed and may, in fact, be harmful."
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"I defy you to find a single instance anywhere ..."
Wikki: "Control theory is an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and mathematics, that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems. The desired output of a system is called the reference. When one or more output variables of a system need to follow a certain reference over time, a controller manipulates the inputs to a system to obtain the desired effect on the output of the system."
Desired - see any hint of "intent" in there?
gufpott 2 years ago
the word intent is not there, no.
You're grasping
BeondaPale 2 years ago
control theory as part of engineering is a human endevor and as such contains human intent. the dfinition of the WORD control is not the same as control theory in engineering.
Come on, stop this pathetic display
BeondaPale 2 years ago
""I defy you to find a single instance anywhere ..."
I did, and your reply was:
"control theory as part of engineering is a human endevor"
You are calling for contolling actions in respect of future climate. Ummm human endeavour!
You have acknowledged that you believe we have control over the climate - although you cannot quite bring yourself to say it.
Come on, stop this pathetic display.
gufpott 2 years ago
no, I'm calling for us to STOP a controlling action. I have said several times now that we do influence the climate and therefore, by the definition of control, DO control the climate -- I seek to stop that control.
A simple look back will proove that this is the 3rd time I've repeated this. You just consistently refused to see it. In the same way, you consistantly rerfuse to admit (despite example after cited example) that control does not need intent.
You see only what you want to see
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"no, I'm calling for us to STOP a controlling action"
I know BeondaPale. Stopping a contolling action is still taking a controlling action.
You have acknowleded that we have a controlling influence over the climate - you just cannot bring yourself to the phrase "control the climate".
It is like sticking your hand out the window of the car. You might say that is a controlling influence over speed of the car. But it is insignificant against other factors determining the speed.
gufpott 2 years ago
"you just cannot bring yourself to the phrase "control the climate"
We (read this very carefully now) -- control the climate -- in so far as influence equates to control. -- the same way I control leaves merely by walking passed them or the CO2 level of a room merely by breathing.
It began as a very tiny influence but as human populations and industrialization have grown, the corresponding influence has grown
Your car analogy is a good one - now stick 12 billion hands out the window
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"Stopping a controlling action is still taking a controlling action."
I'll agree, but a controlling action such as stopping lasts only a nanosecond, while the controlling action opposing it (our continuing influence -- the one YOU favor) lasts infinitely longer.
Therefore, it is YOU who wants us to go on influencing (controling) the climate indefinately
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"lasts only a nanosecond"
Flicking a switch takes an instant, the time it takes is hardly the issue.
"... go on influencing (controling) the climate indefinately"
You can hold your hand outside the window of the car to create a braking effect. It doesn't mean that you are controlling the car.
That's my view of CO2 - we have a minor influence. A perturbation. But that's not controlling the climate. There are other, more significant influences in play.
gufpott 2 years ago
As I said before -- Your car analogy is a good one - now stick 12 billion hands out the windows
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"now stick 12 billion hands out the windows"
The AGW issue is whether we have a significant (in fact catastrophic) influence on the climate as a consequence of our CO2 emissions.
There are billions of atoms in your hand. That doesn't mean your hand necessarily has a controlling influence when you stick it out the car window.
gufpott 2 years ago
"There are other, more significant influences in play."
Ok lets look at these other, more significant influences - please list them.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
BeondaPale - I don't come here with a grand unified theory of the operation of the climate. There are many factors at play and we all know them. I feel confident that nobody fully understands the dynamics and influencing factors over centuries, millenia and more.
However I will say this: I see *NO* convincing evidence for the theory of impending catastrophe as a result of our CO2 emissions.
To repeat my earlier comment, *that* is the issue at stake here.
gufpott 2 years ago
"However I will say this: I see *NO* convincing evidence for the theory of impending catastrophe as a result of our CO2 emissions."
Ok, What DO you see happening as a result of our CO2 emissions?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
my exact request was for the word INTENT in the definition of control -- not control theory, but control
-- you failed to find a definition that would satisfy what you WANTED the word to mean and so turned to a seperate concept - control theory -
Let me clarify AGAIN, because you STILL, don't seem to be following -- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves or the water.)
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Living organisms come with a degree of complexity which may or may not require conscious intent.
I'm sure Intelligent Design would support the notion of control systems designed (intended) for survial by the hand of God.
Evolution would support complex feedback processes evolved without conscious intent, arsising because they help "pass the test" of survival in the gene pool.
I would prefer to steer clear of that kind of debate becuase I think it would get us nowhere fast.
gufpott 2 years ago
lol @ Intelligent Design and science in the same discusion. No where fast indeed.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Here is an extract from the introductory paragraphs in one of my old college text books:
"Control systems can be defined as devices which regulate the flow of energy, matter or other resources"
Interestingly, you are arguing for a course of action which is intended to regulate a flow of energy.
gufpott 2 years ago
I should add, the above words came from:
"Modern Control System Theory And Application" by Stanley M Shinners
A good book, but it's into The Residue Theorem by page 24. So you've got to be ready for some serious calculus.
gufpott 2 years ago
"Control systems can be defined as devices which regulate the flow of energy, matter or other resources"
Question: Do control system exist in nature? and if so, do they involve intent?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
BeondaPale-Does there need to be intent? Control systems do exist in nature - the tilt of the earth provides for seasonal differences between the two hemispheres. It's a little difficult for the polar ice caps to both melt when one of them is always frozen - or even for there to be "global" warming when half of it is experiencing winter while the other experiences summer.
As for us controlling the weather - our piddling .003% of CO2 isn't going to do anything compared to the external influences
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
"our piddling .003% of CO2 isn't going to do anything compared to the external influences "
lol, everyday I see our contribution of CO2 dwindle according to you people. A week ago it was 3%, then 0.3%, Now it's .003%
Tell me, where did you get that our contribution of CO2 to the climate was .003%?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"Question: Do control system exist in nature? and if so, do they involve intent?"
(I assume you mean to exclude living things like human beings, social insects and such like.)
Feedback exists in nature, but not control systems for the very point you make: there is no intent involved.
The universe is cooling, and that means quite complicated physical processes as physical entities move to lower energy states. But that's not control for any particular purpose.
gufpott 2 years ago
I defy you to find a single instance anywhere of a definition that includes intent as necessary component of control -- it doesn't exist,
"I assume you mean to exclude living things like human beings, social insects and such like."
Not at all, there many cyles within the human body that control levels and keep our bodies at homeostasis - all WITHOUT our intent -- blood glucose, cardiac rythms, the sodium/potasium pump, etc
Homeostatic control mechanisms are a FOUNDATION of biology.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"A dam holds back a river, effectively controlling the water - does the dam INTEND to control the water?"
Wrong - a simple dam holds back water until the dam is full. After that point the water spills over the dam and the dam then has no effect on downstream flow.
If we add a gate to the dam, we have added a mechanism to manage the dam level and therefore downstream flow. There is scope to control the dam level and downstream flow. But exercise of that control involves intent.
gufpott 2 years ago
lol
"a simple dam holds back water until the dam is full"
...and while it does so it is controlling the water - WITHOUT INTENT
other examples: A good house cat (without intent) controls the population of mice around your house
a volcano (without intent) controls the formation of new land on an island
an unseen mosquito (without intent) controls whether or not you will itch from its bite.
control is a spectrum.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Has anyone ever looked into the role that plants have on a global scale in CO2 levels? Is there another possibility of global temepratures affecting the global biomass of plants and algae?
pocoapoco2 2 years ago
It's a bird. it's a plane. it's SUPER LAYMAN, Warren Meyer
Write a paper Warren - if you can
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Why not start from the asumption that Warren is trying to look at this objectively. If you then reply to his points, your posts might then be worth writing.
If you think this kind of negative comment advances your position, you'll need to think again BeondaPale.
gufpott 2 years ago
You mean instead of starting from the fact (far beyond an assumption) that Mr Meyer has no more qualification to speak on climatology than you or me or the average fry cook?
Is YOUR position advanced by Mr Meyer?
What is your position, btw? Is it political or scientific?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Your comment was pure ad-hom BeondaPale. It doesn't make a case for AGW.
"Is YOUR position advanced by Mr Meyer? "
Yes. Significant decisions should be based on a good scientific basis. But the body evidence for AGW is far from conclusive. People should be properly informed about this and encouraged to understand before making up their minds.
But you, BeondaPale, don't welcome open scrutiny and debate. Why so defensive? Is it an indication that *your* position is political?
gufpott 2 years ago
Your comment was pure ad-hom BeondaPale."
Nope, not ad-hom. I did not once attack Mr Meyer. I Just said he was unqualified, which is the truth.
"It doesn't make a case for AGW."
It is not up to me or you to open or close debate -- We are irrelevant within the SCIENCE
An analogy - a number of sugeons are debating whether or not a procedure should be performed on a patient. Neither your nor my nor Mr Meyer's opinion on such a matter is relevant or needed and may, in fact, be harmful.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
" .. Mr Meyer has no more qualification to speak on climatology than you or me .. "
You had no problem debating with me at length when I asked if you believe we control the climate.
Control theory is my background and I have no doubt that you have no comparable qualifications. But I respected your opinion and sought to share my perspectives with you.
Until you called me a liar, when I concluded that trying to engage with you was a waste of my time.
gufpott 2 years ago
I don't remember calling you a liar, but I know that I only call people who lie, liars
Soooo, in order for me to have called you a liar you must have lied.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
If you allege a lie, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. You cannot go into a court of law and say "I know that I only call people who lie, liars Soooo, in order for me to have called you a liar you must have lied."
As I recall, the problem was your inability to following the logic I presented to you, compounded by your resistance to information which does not conform with your confirmation bias.
But I'll ask again: do you think we can control the climate BeondaPale?
gufpott 2 years ago
As I said I don''t remember calling you a liar -- but if I did, shame on you.
...and I'll answer again. No, we can not control the climate
BeondaPale 2 years ago
But I suppose we must define terms here.
Control -- To exercise influence over or dictate the behavior of
This definition suggests two seperate things I influence leaves on the ground merely by walking past them closely. I influence the water in a puddle by stepping in the puddle.
Now, do I control the leaves or the water?
We do and can influence the climate, but we can not (at least completely with any accuracy) dictate the behavior of the climate.
clear?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"We do and can influence the climate, but we can not (at least completely with any accuracy) dictate the behavior of the climate. clear?"
Yes that's clear enough. And to re-inforce your point about leaves on the ground, "control" is based on driving towards an objective.
You say (and I agree) that we cannot dictate the behaviour of the climate. This reduces targets to reduce CO2 as futile gestures.
That's the point I tried to make the last time we discussed this.
gufpott 2 years ago
But if, like the leaves on the ground, we are unintentionally influencing the climate in a way that will have negative results for humanity, then reducing that unintentional influence reduces the negative results.
In this way we are not trying to control anything, but merely treading more softly
BeondaPale 2 years ago
" then reducing that unintentional influence reduces the negative results"
By emitting CO2, you expect one outcome. Reducing emissions, you expect a different outcome.
The input you are proposing is a reduction in our CO2 emissions. The outcome you expect is a different climate. That means you beleive we can control of the climate (the difference in the two outcomes).
"merely treading more softly" - that sounds like we're back to futile gestures.
gufpott 2 years ago
Lets go back to the definition of control
Control -- To exercise influence over or dictate the behavior of.
By this definition, control, as you can see, is a spectrum. I AM controling the water bty stepping in the puddle. I AM controlling the leaves by walking past them.
But this would mean that mearly by existing we "control" everything in the universe. This is why we have to define terms. We INFLUENCE the climate. but it should be clear now that influence is a form of control.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"The input you are proposing is a reduction in our CO2 emissions. The outcome you expect is a different climate. That means you beleive we can control of the climate (the difference in the two outcomes)"
But -- As you can see, by the definition of control -- influence IS control. we are currenty influencing (controlling) the climate negatively
I'm suggesting that we REDUCE our influence (control) of the climate.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"influence IS control"
"Influence" can mean having power over something. Using that power with a view to achieving an objective IS exercising control.
"Influence" can mean having an effect on something, unintentionally. That IS NOT control. There is no purpose involved..
"I'm suggesting that we REDUCE our influence (control) of the climate."
That means you DO believe we can control the climate. Otherwise the actions you are suggesting would be futile gestures.
gufpott 2 years ago
I've tried several times to descibe how influence is control, but not complete control - you still don't get it
AGAIN, We DO influence the climate and by this very broad definition, control it
Where in the definition of control did you see the word intent? It's not there
A dam holds back a river, effectively controlling the water - does the dam INTEND to control the water?
We ARE influencing (controling by the chosen difinition) the climate NOW. I think we should lessen that control
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Let me clarify AGAIN, because you STILL don't seem to be following
-- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves I pass or the water in the puddle I step in.)
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"Where in the definition of control did you see the word intent? It's not there"
I don't know where you got your defintiion from, but is does seem rather inadequate to me.
Here's what my copy of the OED says:
control - dominate, command, exert control over, ..
(there are other things, but they don't add to this discussion - like financial control, controlling interest, and so forth).
gufpott 2 years ago
"And to re-inforce your point about leaves on the ground, "control" is based on driving towards an objective."
Not according to ANY definition of control - which does not include the word intent.
Control is often merely unintentional influence
Let me clarify again, because you still don't seem to be following -- I believe we can't COMPLETELY control the climate, but in exercising influence over it, we DO control it to some degree (the same way I "control" the leaves or the water.)
BeondaPale 2 years ago
.....leasen guys, if you gotr information i dont have, just send them to the onu, and appy for the nobel price...it s 50000$ cash for you if you can prouve that global warminf is a not real...and you know what, i am sure that exon will quatrupal that amounbt, so you will be a rich mann immediatelly
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
"and appy for the nobel price...it s 50000$ cash for you if you can prouve that global warminf is a not real"
No need for a prize or glory. I'm just not ready to sit back and watch the propogation of junk which likes to call itself "science".
"i am sure that exon will quatrupal that amounbt, so you will be a rich mann immediatelly"
Do you really believe you are so correct that other views must be paid for. That's pretty Boring stuff Frederic.
gufpott 3 years ago
Dave posted the following:
"Check out this site...
cdiac. ornl. gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.htm l"
Could the person (or people) who marked it as spam please explain their reasoning.
gufpott 3 years ago
once again, if you can prove me that climat models are wrong, i will follow you..if not,, stop speaking for nothing because i follow you on your point..problem is not for today, problem is for tomorrow, and mesurement for last century was not as acurate as it is now, and recent rising of temperature can be natural for lots of raisons...but as i have say, no major volcano appears last century
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
"once again, if you can prove me that climat models are wrong, i will follow you."
The temperatures are ALREADY deviating from the models!
It's highly unlikely that we will EVER be able to model climate.
Try here...
wattsupwiththat. com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
yes but on the wrong side....it is hjotter than what model predicted ..and if you have an other solution than to have a vitual earth to do the job, good luck .../perhaps you solution is to beleave in god and pray, but you know what, that is not mine
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
It is COLDER than the models predicted and COOLING!
We are now at the top of the sine wave & headed for cooling again.
I do not believe in God, just the observational science.
LOOK here...
wattsupwiththat. com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
If you want to believe, fine, just don't take ME with you.
Don't just repeat your prejudices & what you've been told.
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
oh come on...dont be fool ...mesurement dont lie so, go to the north and see the ice melting.
of course somewhere in the workld a place is getting colder, but in average, it is getting hotter,...if it s not, explain to me why we could see a dam ice melting everyday on the newpapers
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out this site...
cdiac. ornl. gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
"mesurement dont lie"
Measurement error and insonsistency is a cerntral issue for science. Just because you have a "reading" does not mean you have "truth". Data can be very misleading and a good scientist treats data with scepticism.
"go to the north and see the ice melting"
Arctic Sea Ice is 14.2 million sqkm. Nothing unusual there. Get the latest here:
ijis. iarc. uaf. edu/ en/ home/ seaice_extent. htm
gufpott 3 years ago
I recommend reading this Frederic...
greenworldtrust. org. uk/Science/Curious.htm
Lucy is an environmentalist & former AGW believer.
The above is her story of conversion to sceptic.
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
This is well worth reading too Frederic...
adamant. typepad. com/seitz/2007/02/global_warming_.html
The original is available at the NYT but you'll have to pay to see it.
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
"and mesurement for last century was not as acurate as it is now"
Very good point Frederic. That means the people who claim there has been a century of warming cannot do so any more accurately than the data they have for 100 years ago.
Why don't you watch the above video? It will teach you lots about the strength of data and analysis. At least with that you will be able to understand why some people do not accept your conclusions on climate change.
gufpott 3 years ago
recent warming is on top of error mesurment of last century...problems of global warming is for tomorrow, and we have alrewady gain .6 degres on average...
the problem is that a difference bettween a glaciation and our days, is only 5 degres..
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
"recent warming is on top of error mesurment of last century"
The video shows a very badly managed weather station in the US. Many more like this in the surfacestations website. Nearly 90% of US stations are CRN=3 or worse, not good enough to measure an average change of < 1dC across the US. Do we expect other countries to be better? I think not.
When you see, you cannot stand the evidence before your eyes and you turn it off. None so blind as those who do not *want* to see Frederic.
gufpott 3 years ago
Frederic.
You seem intelligent & well educated so I'm going to ask you this.
If you measure the peak to peak amplitude of a 0.6 unit sine wave from the low to the high, you get a rise of 0.6 units right?
That is the trick they've played. the 30s were as warm as now.
There was a Soviet icebreaker 'Sidoff' drifting in the Arctic within 300Mls of the pole in December '39. That's recorded in the New York Times.
Dave.
DrDave953 3 years ago
Oops.
Got the year wrong. Dec 11th 1938 & the icebreaker name is Syedoff.
It appeared in the Dec 12th edition of the NYT. Access used to be free but now they charge to view it.
See the story here...
wattsupwiththat. com/ 2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/
Dave
DrDave953 3 years ago
even the rotation speed of the earth was different..382 days instead of 365, continent where not aqt the same place, volcanic activitty was different, flattness of the orbit was different, vegetation was different, inclinasion of the earth was also different, composition of the atmosphere was different........where did i say that recent warming was unprecedent
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
"where did i say that recent warming was unprecedent "
Well that seems to be something we can all agree on - Recent Warming is nothing special.
If we accept there is nothing special happening with temperature, we then have no link between Recent Warming and CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption. Right?
gufpott 3 years ago
.. did i say that recent warming was unprecedent....of course not.. during quaternaire age for example, sun was 30% less powelfull than today, but it was hotter than today..
FredericDemouy 3 years ago
don t try to make your smart, i know what manau loa is, and what the Ipcc is... i did talk about them without your help..
anyway, for global warming, the athmosphere is not even the determinant point...ocean and ice is more important to determine what will be next century temperature
FredericDemouy 3 years ago