There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[gowlerk 2,190]

5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I wasn't aware that pro AGW climate scientists work for free.

What kind is crap is this? There are no "pro" AWG industries. There are no giant corporations or Koch brothers funding climate science. You really should stick to topics that you have a hot clue about.

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

My predictions are that your predictions are wrong. Brent, you continue to point at instances in time and places. This is the same as those who are Bull or Bears pointing at an uptick or dip in the stock market to prove their point and when the next tick or dip happens;shouting from the rooftops, See!!! See!! I was right!!! 
 

National trends for Mean Temperature, Maximum Temperature, Minimum Temperature, and Precipitation for each month and season

I know you won't give a shit about the data, but it may be helpful for others on the site.  

Cherry picked start date.  If they went back twenty years instead of thirty, it would show cooling.

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I wasn't aware that pro AGW climate scientists work for free.

They get money to conduct research.  The woman you linked gets money to say that their research is wrong.  If she doesn't say it's wrong she doesn't get paid for the article you posted.  Understand the difference?

Also, would you like to acknowledge how incredibly misleading your article is?

[airdvr 210]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

They get money to conduct research.  The woman you linked gets money to say that their research is wrong.  If she doesn't say it's wrong she doesn't get paid for the article you posted.  Understand the difference?

Also, would you like to acknowledge how incredibly misleading your article is?

Say that again...they get paid to do research.  I know it's blasphemous to question these things.

To which article are you referring?

[airdvr 210]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

What kind is crap is this? There are no "pro" AWG industries. There are no giant corporations or Koch brothers funding climate science. You really should stick to topics that you have a hot clue about.

Wow.  If your assumption is there are no scientists researching AGW that will benefit I'd say you might not have a hot clue as well.

[DJL 235]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Cherry picked start date.  If they went back twenty years instead of thirty, it would show cooling.

No, if you went back 20 years it would begin at the year 2000 and show a mean rise.  If you went back 23 years it would show the high 1998 temps you're probably trying to use to make a point and then you have a mean rise with other higher peaks.  So, if you're trying to just use that 1998 peak temp and say "that's it" then you're still wrong because there have also been higher peaks since then.  So, any way you cut it either with an evaluation of the averages or the peaks there is nothing that shows cooling.

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

4 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wow.  If your assumption is there are no scientists researching AGW that will benefit I'd say you might not have a hot clue as well.

Follow the money. Then get back to me. Energy companies have invested huge amounts of time and money into fighting against the idea of global warming in the past. Although now the biggest ones have come around to admitting the truth.

Edited January 10, 2020 by gowlerk

[DJL 235]

15 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Say that again...they get paid to do research.  I know it's blasphemous to question these things.

To which article are you referring?

Yes, they get paid to conduct research.  Their pay does not change because of the results of their research.  Understand that?  The subject of this conversation is a woman who LITERALLY GETS PAID for articles that deny manmade global warming and the effect of CO2.  And sorry, didn't see which denier I was responding to.  This article is what Brent posted. https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/01/it-has-been-hotter-fires-have-burnt-larger-areas/  The woman makes a claim that temperatures in Australia in 1939 were hotter.  In fact what she's doing is showing a graph and data for the three summer months in Victoria, a very small part of Australia.  Do we follow?  Do we catch the fact that she used the three hottest months of the year in her claim that 1939 was hotter than the year-long average (averaged with winter months) of 2019?  Do we understand this to be misleading?

Edited January 10, 2020 by DJL

[wmw999 2,439]

Maybe some people just don't understand that one can get paid for seeing where the information takes you, rather than finding the data to go somewhere. 

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 220]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

They get money to conduct research.  The woman you linked gets money to say that their research is wrong.  If she doesn't say it's wrong she doesn't get paid for the article you posted.  Understand the difference?

Also, would you like to acknowledge how incredibly misleading your article is?

So I ask this cynical little question . . . What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW?  I think we know.  So, at its core, no matter which side of the issue you are on, that incentive is pretty strong with getting paid to say a certain thing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW?  I think we know

Oh, here you do know. But if homosexuality is a choice, you don't know, cause there are also people who believe in God.

[turtlespeed 220]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh, here you do know. But if homosexuality is a choice, you don't know, cause there are also people who believe in God.

Yes - because it is a measurable, recreatable set of circumstances.

You can actually do a study with verifiable facts. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

Yes - because it is a measurable, recreatable set of circumstances.

You can actually do a study with verifiable facts. 

Really? So where is the study that shows this:

What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW? 

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Really? So where is the study that shows this:

What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW? 

 

 

I don't know.  You tell me. I said it was possible.

Just because a thing is possible, doesn't make it already in existence.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't know.  You tell me. I said it was possible.

Just because a thing is possible, doesn't make it already in existence.

No you said:

I think we know

Then when challenged you said:

it is a measurable, recreatable set of circumstances.

 

Now you don't know?

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

No you said:

I think we know

Then when challenged you said:

it is a measurable, recreatable set of circumstances.

 

Now you don't know?

Wriggly slippery fellow, isn't he?

[kallend 2,026]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So I ask this cynical little question . . . What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW?  I think we know.  So, at its core, no matter which side of the issue you are on, that incentive is pretty strong with getting paid to say a certain thing.

If they PROVED CONCLUSIVELY that the AGW research carried out to date was so flawed as to be incorrect, they would probably win a Nobel and get job offers at all the top research universities.

Nobels are given out for novel results that overturn conventional wisdom, not for confirming the results of others.

Edited January 11, 2020 by kallend

[kallend 2,026]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't know.  You tell me. I said it was possible.

Just because a thing is possible, doesn't make it already in existence.

In an infinite universe anything that is possible will happen, has happened, and will happen again.

[BIGUN 1,297]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Cherry picked start date.  If they went back twenty years instead of thirty, it would show cooling.

So to your point . . .  here's a couple of links ( one for mapping and one for time series) for you and others to "cherry-pick" your own dates and develop your own graphs. (i.e., go back November 1888, then to November of 2019 or any range in-between if you like) Please note the source of this information:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/mapping/201911

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series

Brent, I can be as stubborn as the next guy, but when someone puts a ribeye in front of you and you want to argue that its chicken - that's beyond stubborn. We're not discussing "opinions" on gun control, abortion or social science and cultural values - we're discussing physical science. Shit that "may" affect you, but will definitely affect your children or grandchildren. We as a planet; have to do something different about what we as a human race are doing to this planet.

I mean; it's like looking at all the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and you saying, "It's not there."     

[aonsquared 9]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Cherry picked start date.  If they went back twenty years instead of thirty, it would show cooling.

You avoided answering my question on standing in front of a glass tube filled with CO2 in the other thread. It's almost as if you don't know what was going to happen with such a "harmless" gas. Are you chickening out?

For further clarification, the gas is not pressurised, it will not leave the glass tube and will not be inhaled or otherwise come into contact with you. You just need to stand in front of it while it is switched on.

Edited January 11, 2020 by aonsquared

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You avoided answering my question on standing in front of a glass tube filled with CO2 in the other thread. It's almost as if you don't know what was going to happen with such a "harmless" gas. Are you chickening out?

For further clarification, the gas is not pressurised, it will not leave the glass tube and will not be inhaled or otherwise come into contact with you. You just need to stand in front of it while it is switched on.

No problem, I'm game.  But why are you so hell bent on giving me a facial?

https://www.webmd.com/beauty/laser-resurfacing#1

[brenthutch 444]

On 1/9/2020 at 12:51 AM, billvon said:

 Welcome to the new normal.

Funny, it looks just like the old normal.

[airdvr 210]

22 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Maybe some people just don't understand that one can get paid for seeing where the information takes you, rather than finding the data to go somewhere. 

Wendy P.

I hold no illusion that anything will change W/R/T AGW.  That ship has already sailed.  Once again younger generations will be forced to spend more and turn over a bit more control of their lives.  I just enjoy playing devil's advocate.

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

No problem, I'm game.  But why are you so hell bent on giving me a facial?

https://www.webmd.com/beauty/laser-resurfacing#1

Well you did get the laser part right - I'm talking about a 120 Watt CO2 laser that I use regularly for work.

It will take off wrinkles and pretty much the rest of your face. With long enough exposure, it will punch a hole through you (it's only 120 watts, so will take a minute or so). It will actually make your eyeballs explode too.

You see, CO2 has this property that it absorbs energy into its molecular bonds, then re-transmits it in the 10-micron wavelength. This property is useful for cutting through steel, but it's also the exact thing that's causing climate change. Now since the mathematics is too hard even for supercomputers to simulate properly, the exact effect of the energy is hard to predict, but we are effectively pumping Gigawatts, if not Terawatts of extra energy into the atmosphere via CO2.

So, shall we arrange a time and date for your "facial"?

[brenthutch 444]

19 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Really? So where is the study that shows this:

What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW? 

 

 

Right here'

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/

Here

https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2017/02/15/reporter-fired-for-questioning-climate-change

Here

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/

Here

https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/index.html

I could go on all day, but you get the idea.  With regard to the money, Penn State hired Michael Mann because of the federal research dollars that would come with him not because of his ground breaking (fraudulent) research.