0
Amazon

And the Heat Goes On and On and On.

Recommended Posts

billvon

>Has the climate EVER stopped changing?

Nope. We are just driving change much faster than it would change naturally.

Simple example - we will all someday die. That will never change. We still consider murder a bad thing.



MEH

More alarmism......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***

Quote

Climate alarmists are praying for El Nino...



Maybe "alarmists" are, but regular people who believe that climate change is happening are praying that it is all a bad dream.

Too bad it's not.



Climate change is happening
The debate is whether man has anything to do with it

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/among-global-warming-deniers-us-number-one-poll-20140722

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

'Murica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

******

Quote

Climate alarmists are praying for El Nino...



Maybe "alarmists" are, but regular people who believe that climate change is happening are praying that it is all a bad dream.

Too bad it's not.



Climate change is happening
The debate is whether man has anything to do with it

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/among-global-warming-deniers-us-number-one-poll-20140722

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!

'Murica

this is what happens when the population gets educated
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Climate alarmists are praying for El Nino just like Californians are.

Well, climate alarmists, Californians and RushMC. I remember his glee when he was able to post "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" Then apparently it ended in 2005, then 2010. If there is a strong El Nino this year, then in another 5 years he will be able to post "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2014!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

Quote

this is what happens when the population gets educated



Well now that is a very interesting theory. Can you provide proof of your statement in any tangible form??



the climate changed refered to in that article was temp increases
When using non manipulated data it appears that article was correct
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Climate alarmists are praying for El Nino just like Californians are.

Well, climate alarmists, Californians and RushMC. I remember his glee when he was able to post "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" Then apparently it ended in 2005, then 2010. If there is a strong El Nino this year, then in another 5 years he will be able to post "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2014!"



RushMC has as much evidence for the statement that "it ended in 1998" as you do for your assertion that it hasn't ended. As I pointed out, RSS and UAH datasets (satelllite lower troposphere temps - the ones that AGW theory says are supposed to rise) peaked in 1998. These data sets aren't adjusted.

Your evidence comes from NOAA and GISS datasets, which are surface temperatures. They are also heavily adjusted and smoothed, which the climate science community admits and explains why they are adjusted.

Do you acknowledge, Bill, that there is evidence in the data that RushMC is not incorrect with the "ended in 1998" claim? Rush acknowledges that the datasets say what you say. He then asserts that those datasets are heavily adjusted. I don't agree with Rush's tone but he is dead on.

Rush acknowledges the contrary data. He qualifies the contrary data but he at least acknowledges it is out there.

Do you acknowledge RSS and UAH? At least if you said, "yes, those data sets are out there, but they are unreliable or irrelevant because of.." then at least I'd see you thinking scientifically.

Here's RSS. I've used an arbitrary round number term of 25 years (1989-2013). [Url]http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1989/to:2013[/url]

To aver as "fact" that warming stopped in 1998 flies in the face of evidence. To aver as a fact that warming did not stop in 1998 flies in the face of other evidence.

Both sides show an indication of willingness to ignore contrary evidence. This only happens when there is an underlying dogma.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Do you acknowledge RSS and UAH?

Definitely; they are important data sets. They are low accuracy since they are not temperature measurements but radiance measurements.

>Rush acknowledges that the datasets say what you say. He then asserts that
>those datasets are heavily adjusted.

Right. You do realize that the radiance datasets are even MORE heavily adjusted, right? They come from several different satellites, so their sensors aren't the same, aren't calibrated the same, and they are slowly deteriorating so they adjust the results all the time.

That's not to say it's worthless - it is an excellent way of taking proxy temperature readings of the atmosphere. But instrumental readings will continue to be our most accurate source of data until we find something better.

(And BTW the radiance datasets ARE showing a steady increase in lower tropospheric temperatures as well.)

As an analogy, we have pretty good infrared thermometers out there. Let's say you have two measurements:

1) An infrared measurement of the temperature in a room taken with an infrared thermometer a mile away through two layers of glass while it's raining.

2) A thermometer in the room.

Which would be a better source of data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Which one says what I want it to say?

And which adjustment makes it say what I want it to say?

Adjustment 1 - No warming! These are HARD FACTS and the adjustments all are perfectly reasonable. What, you can't take HARD FACTS?

Adjustment 2 - Still no warming but flatter. Peer reviewed science PROVING there is no global warming! Take that, Al Gore. Good thing that real scientists are using their skills to adjust the data to make them closer to reality.

Adjustment 3 - shows close to predicted warming. Uh - they ADJUSTED the data? That's the same as lying! No wonder the climate change religion idiots believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Replly]>Do you acknowledge RSS and UAH?

Definitely; they are important data sets. They are low accuracy since they are not temperature measurements but radiance measurements.



They show trends. And they have global coverage. It's why they keep sending up new satellites - because they get good coverage. Antarctica has about 40 functioning weather stations - for the whole continent.

Satellites have accuracy issues but have precision - useful for noting trends. (Note: remember a few years ago when the letter came out saying that Antarctica was warming? They conjured ground station data by using satellite data. I recall you defended it then).

Satellites do indeed use a complicated algorithm. An error was identified about a decade ago in one of their processing system and it was fixed.

Nevertheless, the satellites show trends. With some precision. And a far greater sample size.

[Reply](And BTW the radiance datasets ARE showing a steady increase in lower tropospheric temperatures as well.)



Right. I said that. But they are showing a peak in 1998. Slow and steadily higher. But peaked in 1998. At least for now. Therein lies the problem - it's not enough for either side to show a slow and steady increase because it interferes with both of their dogmas.

[Reply]As an analogy, we have pretty good infrared thermometers out there. Let's say you have two measurements:

1) An infrared measurement of the temperature in a room taken with an infrared thermometer a mile away through two layers of glass while it's raining.

2) A thermometer in the room.

Which would be a better source of data?



Depends on what you are measuring. Do you want to measure the change in temperature in a room over time? I'd trust the thermometer. That's what a thermometer has always been good at doing.

In fact, we may want to take forty rooms and have the thermometer take the temperatures of those forty rooms across a whole continent. And call that the temperature. Or, we can put out infrared that measures every square meter over the continent with precisions in excess of its accuracy, and compare the trends that way.

Which would be a better source of data? Depends on what you want to measure, doesn't it? Want precision global trends, look at the satellite. Want accurate point trends? Look at a thermometer (though the GHCN and HCN data have been admittedly inaccurate and imprecise for the thermometers. This is why they have been adjusted).


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Climate alarmists are praying for El Nino...



Maybe "alarmists" are, but regular people who believe that climate change is happening are praying that it is all a bad dream.

Too bad it's not.



Just because it isn't all Pretty, Jumpie, Unicorns, it doesn't make a bad dream.

Life adapts, deal with it.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Life adapts, deal with it.

It does indeed, usually via mass extinctions that open up new ecological niches.



This world will end by fire...both science and the scripture agree. Global warming and floods are the least of our problems.

oh....and there is nothing you can do about it.

Get over it and move on with your life while it lasts...
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreece

This world will end by fire...both science and the scripture agree. Global warming and floods are the least of our problems.

oh....and there is nothing you can do about it.

Get over it and move on with your life while it lasts...



However the evaporation of the earth's oceans and the ending of all life due to heating of the sun is likely to occur about 1 billion years from now. I'd worry more about what can occur in this and the next few generations for now myself personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Get over it and move on with your life while it lasts...

Well, some of us care about our kid's lives, too.



According to some alarmists, you needn't bother . . .
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

***>Get over it and move on with your life while it lasts...

Well, some of us care about our kid's lives, too.



According to some alarmists, you needn't bother . . .

IMO, the thought that world climate can be controlled is the height of megalomania.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

******>Get over it and move on with your life while it lasts...

Well, some of us care about our kid's lives, too.



According to some alarmists, you needn't bother . . .

IMO, the thought that world climate can be controlled is the height of megalomania.

WHAT???

Well we all know Bush aimed Katrina at New Orleans!!!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO, the thought that world climate can be controlled is the height of megalomania.



No one is talking about controlling the climate. Influencing it, yes. Controlling, no.

Why do you think man can't influence the climate? Is it too big, or is it because you think it is in the Lord's full control?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]IMO, the thought that world climate can be controlled is the height of megalomania.



It isn't that hard to have a significant "influence." For a few billion bucks, we could get some aircraft and a few tons of sulfur dioxide aerosol and we'd be able to cool the earth - enough to make it noticeable. If you don't think that cities are hotter than undeveloped ground, then you aren't paying attention to your surroundings. Agricultural techniques contributed a bit to the Dust Bowl.

We no doubt can affect and have affected the climate. I don't think that human activities are the dominant factor. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Did God strike a lightining bolt at Venice Beach? Or did man-madeclimate change send a bolt from the firmament to smite polluters? "Neither" is, to me, an acceptable answer.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0