Temperature Fraud Expands

[OSUmetstud]

You have an agenda that all you think is that we are the only cause of AGW. Simply not true.

 

well agw global warming is caused by us by definition lol.

 

Don't you have some JB link to post?

[toronto blizzard]

Nope. I believe there have been many papers posted on this forum that show how CO2 doesn't have a great effect on temperatures. You just refuse to believe them. Oh well

[WeatherRusty]

Blizzard,

 

What you seem not to understand by inferrence in reading your posts and your reasoning, is that the glacial cycles are not caused by CO2. CO2 then acts entirely as a feedback mechanism. For the first time in maybe 55 million years (PETM)( methane breakdown chemical chain ), an increase in CO2 is taking a lead role. The initial radiative forcing is produced by CO2 rather than by orbital parameters. Your ideas concerning ice albedo, melt water and thermohaline circulation are of course just as relevant as you claim. However, so is the involment of CO2 in this instance because it is acting as the lead forcing (3.7W/m^2 per doubling).

[WeatherRusty]

Nope. I believe there have been many papers posted on this forum that show how CO2 doesn't have a great effect on temperatures. You just refuse to believe them. Oh well

 

You believe wrongly. Show us one such paper please. Just one.

 

No one anywhere disputes that a doubling of CO2 produces a Planck temperature response of about 1.2C..... Well I suppose if you look to some denier sites you may find some quack's opinion that differs, but you will not find an instance in the peer-reviewed literature.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Nope. I believe there have been many papers posted on this forum that show how CO2 doesn't have a great effect on temperatures. You just refuse to believe them. Oh well

 

Why throw your integrity down the drain for snow flakes?

 

We will wait while you produce these papers.

[skierinvermont]

It is the ice,clouds, ocean currents and albedo effect. Why has the climate been so stable during the Holocene? Glaciations had different boundary conditions that were far more sensitive to forcing than today...primarily melt water surges and changes in ocean currents which rapidly affected the Earth's climate. Now without large NH ice sheets, we don't see these wild swings anymore. You don't need CO2 to explain this. I believe the Earth;s climate is very sensitive when there are huge ice sheets in the NH and much less sensitive when there isn't. The paleorecords show this clearly. See graph below from my paleoclimate course...I have to look up the reference but believe me it is legit. Notice the flucuations in climate...even from deep sea cores...and meltwater flux in the past 20,000 years. Also notice how stable the holocene climate is. Different boundary conditions...different sensitivity. 

 

20000YBP.png

 

here is the ice accumulation rate for Greenland which is NOT just local. It is related to the north atlantic conveyor belt advecting warmth to the higher latitudes and thereby causing more snow at high latitudes and higher ice accumulation in Greenland. The great ocean conveyor belt distributes heat world wide so it is a macroscopic measure of the Earth's climate. Notice that this stabilizes in the Holocene. 

 

iceaccum.png

 

This graph was derived from GISP2 from my professor, who by the way believes in CAGW. So this is not made up stuff. 

 

Even if the ice albedo feedback is much weaker than it used to be due to the lesser expanse of ice and snow, net feedbacks would still be very positive. The ice albedo feedback during glacial cycles was only 3-4W/m2. That's just basic albedo calculations. By contrast the earth's energy flow must have changed by 15-20W/m2 to cause surface temperature changes of 6C. Ice albedo is only one of many positive (and negative) feedbacks, that provide a large net positive feedback.

 

You are neglecting one of the largest positive feedbacks: water vapor. 

 

 

The fact that water vapor is a large positive feedback is well-established. 

[BeastFromTheEast]

Why throw your integrity down the drain for snow flakes?

 

We will wait while you produce these papers.

 

 

Him and his ilk are just way too heavily emotionally invested into their own little Snow/cold feitish worlds to ever see this Climate Change issue as a whole crystal clearly and objectively..

 

Hopefully in the coming years and decades as their precious winters continue to get noticeably tamer and tamer will their eyes finally start opening up. 

I just hope it isn't too late by then though..

[blizzard1024]

Even if the ice albedo feedback is much weaker than it used to be due to the lesser expanse of ice and snow, net feedbacks would still be very positive. The ice albedo feedback during glacial cycles was only 3-4W/m2. That's just basic albedo calculations. By contrast the earth's energy flow must have changed by 15-20W/m2 to cause surface temperature changes of 6C. Ice albedo is only one of many positive (and negative) feedbacks, that provide a large net positive feedback.

 

You are neglecting one of the largest positive feedbacks: water vapor. 

 

 

The fact that water vapor is a large positive feedback is well-established. 

You are not including the effects of the ocean currents shutting down and restarting again. This is a big effect and leads to the rapid changes in climate observed in the paleorecord. I am not sure what the equivalent  W/m2 "forcing" would be in this case but I venture to say it is pretty high. The water vapor feedback is positive in the lower altitudes up to the convective mixed layer. This is around 850 to 800 mb. That is basic physics which we all know. Warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water. We all know this including yours truly. What is uncertain is how does water vapor respond in the higher altitudes where there is very little water vapor. It is in these areas also that there is little if any overlap with the CO2 IR absorption band. Thus when there is more water vapor at high altitudes (around 300 mb for example) it will have a significant effect. But remember, when air temperatures are warmer they have a higher capacity to "hold" water vapor. (Air actually does not "hold" water vapor but that is a topic for another time.) The end result is that more water vapor can be present in air that is warmer and the saturation vapor pressure is higher. However, you can't assume that the air is going to be saturated  or even close. Most if not all GCMs produce results that lead to a nearly constant RH which would mean that the water vapor pressure increases and leads to the positive feedback at higher altitudes that you cite. This is where there is uncertainty.  There is evidence that suggests the vapor pressure of H20 is slightly falling Paltridge (2009), and Lindzen and Choi (2001?). There is also evidence that it is increasing, various papers by Dressler and I believe a few others.  Paltridge's work is based on reanalysis data which even I agree could be suspect. But Lindzen and Choi have good arguments in my opinion.  How does cloud cover factor in as well? Spencer and Braswell 2008 suggest it is a negative feedback. But we know there are uncertainties in measuring cloud fraction trends globally. Also water vapor retrievals from satellites in the higher altitudes is also dicey. Radiosonde measurements are also dicey for water vapor at high altitudes. I once saw a debate between Dressler and Lindzen and there really was no clear winner. Both had good arguments. But Dressler unprovoked did attack Lindzen on a personal level (he blasted him for smoking and was not joking!). This was odd and uncalled for. Lindzen was professional. So this is where the science is not settled IMO. Until we can get proof from real data that the higher altitudes are moistening and can better quantify the effects of clouds, I am skeptical of a positive water vapor and cloud feedback that significantly amplifies a 1.2C warming from a doubling of CO2. I know there are error bars and a range of 2C to 4.5C. If I had to be constrained to this range I would pick 2C...but that is even high in my opinion.  The paleo record during interglacials has a very insensitive climate to change. I guess my main difference in opinion is the effects of ocean currents. I believe the ocean currents lead to the large swings in climate seen in glacial periods when there were large ice sheets. But now we have little land ice so ocean currents are rock steady with some variations...the speed of the thermohaline circulation which manisfests itself in the PDO/AMO. 

 

The Dressler vs Lindzen debate can be found here if you have time...it is long but interesting.   

[blizzard1024]

Wxtrix....so what is your qualifications to call these PHD climate scientists with peer reviewed papers frauds? You have no clue.

[blizzard1024]

the scientific climate change community has denounced these people as frauds.   why are you using them as resources?   Spencer and Braswell's work caused a journal editor to resign his position (their non-science could not be published in the major journals so they went to a journal that didn't specialize in climate and the subsequent furor over the problems with their paper cased the editor to step down).  these are people who have been shown to be frauds.  why are they your resources?

 

why can't you even get Andy's name right if you such an expert on the science?

 

I come from a scientific background. I think for myself. I don't just take anyone's word unless there is irrefutable proof. That is part of the scientific method.  The "scientific climate change community" from my own observations, studies and knowledge of atmospheric science has not proved climate sensitivity is significant from CO2 increases IMO. The water vapor and cloud feedbacks are far from settled and could be negative as much as they could be positive. They use models to validate paleoclimate changes. Models don't handle clouds and convection explicitly, which are main drivers of the climate system. So there is still a lot to learn and that is what I am after. Healthy skepticism is how everyone learns. You want to stifle this from your earlier posts. That is not how science works. I could only begin to understand your viewpoints on "stifling" those who don't agree with you if you didn't have a scientific background and lack knowledge of the scientific method. Otherwise, your viewpoints stifle debate and learning. You should really consider this. Also I don't know every scientist's name. Come on. are you serious? Many scientists publish papers and they are referenced with their last name. I know Dr Dressler's name is Andy. I just mentioned their last names. Why is this a big deal anyway? 

[blizzard1024]

it's hard to take you seriously when

 

1.  you still can't figure out that Andy's surname is Dessler

 

2.  you insist that the science that shows CO2 is driving global warming isn't legit

 

3.  you didn't address my question as to why you are using debunked skeptics (aside from Dessler) to support your assertions

 

4.  you insist that denier science deserves 'equal time' in this forum.

 

1. No. Its Dressler. 

 

2. You are not understanding my whole point here, CO2 does affect climate. I am skeptical of the climate sensitivity that CO2 forces. 

 

3. Who are you to judge if these scientists were "debunked"? Please provide me with who debunked them. If you use RC or

skepical science that is the same as a "denier" using WUWT or icecap. Both sides occasionally have good points but are polar opposites

and politically influenced. 

 

4. Who are you to judge? You are a "warmist" in my opinion which is a person who blindly accepts global warming without

really understanding the climate system. You are a "believer". You should think for yourself. That is what real scientists do. 

 

You will never take anyone seriously who does not believe what you believe in. That is how you come across. You will

never learn anything new with this attitude. 

[blizzard1024]

1. No. Its Dressler. 

 

2. You are not understanding my whole point here, CO2 does affect climate. I am skeptical of the climate sensitivity that CO2 forces. 

 

3. Who are you to judge if these scientists were "debunked"? Please provide me with who debunked them. If you use RC or

skepical science that is the same as a "denier" using WUWT or icecap. Both sides occasionally have good points but are polar opposites

and politically influenced. 

 

4. Who are you to judge? You are a "warmist" in my opinion which is a person who blindly accepts global warming without

really understanding the climate system. You are a "believer". You should think for yourself. That is what real scientists do. 

 

You will never take anyone seriously who does not believe what you believe in. That is how you come across. You will

never learn anything new with this attitude. 

 

My apologies, you are right it is Dessler. But it is Dressler on many websites. Look

at this one, (which is one of many)...  http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/dressler-and-lindzen-debate-climate.html

[LocoAko]

I know it's really crazy, but some people think for themselves and actually reach the same well-accepted conclusions that the IPCC reports. I'd go so far as to say you'd have to not truly be thinking for yourself to do otherwise... 

[blizzard1024]

right. it's a denier variant. you can say it's CO2 but then you constant post about how global warming isn't really an issue.

 

 

Spencer and Braswell issue:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-editor-resigns-over-fundamentally-flawed-paper-Roy-Spencer.html

 

Garth Paltridge:  his book on climate isn't a peer-reviewed work and he had Christopher Monckton write the forward, doubling the denier quotient.

Lindzen has gone so far over the denier edge he can only publish on blogs. 

 

 

people here can tell you I don't blindly accept *anything*.  I educate myself on issues before I form an opinion, and I have spent a great deal of time working directly with research scientists and publishing their peer-reviewed work. 

 

 

science is about facts, not about belief.  and no, I don't take people who constantly post nonsense, like stuff from Roy Spencer's blog, seriously.  why should I?  what is the value of non-factual information being posted in a science-based forum?

 

this entire thread was built on denier nonsense put out by FOX "news" and swallowed by people who blindly accept ANYTHING from any source that tells them that they won't get less of their precious snow.

 

I think for myself and have my own scientific opinions which differ from the mainstream. I never said CO2 does not produce some warming. How many times do I have to say that? 

I think you are inaccurately labeling me as a denier. I don't deny the Earth has warmed, I don't deny that CO2 has some influence. I have reservation on climate sensitivity which is

the most uncertain part of the whole science. The IPCC is a governmental organization where politics is involved. Just because I don't fully agree with their assertions does not make

me incompetent as you and others like to portray. Those who don't agree with the IPCC are cast aside and that is a shame because it hampers work related to climate sensitivity 

which is the 64 million dollar question in all this. The IPCC claims it has this solved and anyone who does not believe are deniers. That is my main problem with the IPCC and others on this

forum....being so arrogant and nasty to those who debate such uncertainties. I think it is arrogant by any scientist who thinks that all these feedbacks are understood and positive.

 

Good scientists are skeptical. Extraordinary claims(like many of these positive feedbacks) require extraordinary proof...and there is none so far and there are many reasons to

believe that many feedbacks are damping not positive. It would be amazing that a trace gas can have such an influence on our climate system given the vastness of the oceans

and their heat storage. It also would be amazing that clouds and water vapor feedbacks are all strongly positive. There is evidence that they are either neutral or even negative.

There is also evidence that they are positive too. That is where the debate is.  When it is proven by accurate satellite retrievals that water vapor and clouds are responding to a

slight increase in temperature and amplifying it I will believe. The evidence does not exist yet. 

[blizzard1024]

I know it's really crazy, but some people think for themselves and actually reach the same well-accepted conclusions that the IPCC reports. I'd go so far as to say you'd have to not truly be thinking for yourself to do otherwise... 

 

 

I know it's really crazy, but some people think for themselves and actually reach the same well-accepted conclusions that the IPCC reports. I'd go so far as to say you'd have to not truly be thinking for yourself to do otherwise... 

 

You are so wrong here about me. that is all i have to say.... 

[blizzard1024]

tell me how the IPCC process of producing its climate reports works.

since you know so much, why don't YOU tell all of us. i am all ears.  

[blizzard1024]

There are loads of peer reviewed papers that show that the modern warm period is nothing unusual despite higher levels of CO2

suggesting nothing unusual is going on now in the recent warm period. 

 

This website has a bunch of these papers. I read all papers... ones for and against CAGW. You have to read both sides

to get a better understanding, especially with something as complex as the climate system. 

 

see  http://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/

 

This is a right wing website but I look past that and look at the studies and conclusions. This is just like I look past RC and skepticalscience

as being left wing and read their papers and blogs too. 

[donsutherland1]

people here can tell you I don't blindly accept *anything*.  I educate myself on issues before I form an opinion, and I have spent a great deal of time working directly with research scientists and publishing their peer-reviewed work. 

 

From everything I've read from Wxtrix (back from before AmericanWx to the present), I believe it is quite clear that she is very meticulous about having support for her opinions. IMO, that's a good approach regardless of one's field. Hence, whether in agreement or disagreement, I have a lot of respect for her.

 

In terms of the Goddard blog entry cited at the beginning of this thread, it is an unsubstantiated attack on the temperature record in a bid to deny warming has been taking place. As usual, Goddard provides no methodology nor underlying data to evaluate his "comparisons." He draws upon no credible scientific work that undermines NCDC's adjustments, much less work that asserts that raw data should not be adjusted regardless of siting changes, instrument changes, or other factors that have changed. His attack on the temperature record is strictly an attempt to dispute the warming that continues to take place.

 

It is a futile attack. Even if one threw out all the temperature data, one would still find abundant evidence of warming via changing flowering dates, shifting plant hardiness zones, lengthening growing seasons, etc. In short, the observed warming is not an artificial construct of temperature record adjustments. If it were, nature would not be exhibiting responses consistent with warming, but it is. The warming is real.

[blizzard1024]

From everything I've read from Wxtrix (back from before AmericanWx to the present), I believe it is quite clear that she is very meticulous about having support for her opinions. IMO, that's a good approach regardless of one's field. Hence, whether in agreement or disagreement, I have a lot of respect for her.

 

In terms of the Goddard blog entry cited at the beginning of this thread, it is an unsubstantiated attack on the temperature record in a bid to deny warming has been taking place. As usual, Goddard provides no methodology nor underlying data to evaluate his "comparisons." He draws upon no credible scientific work that undermines NCDC's adjustments, much less work that asserts that raw data should not be adjusted regardless of siting changes, instrument changes, or other factors that have changed. His attack on the temperature record is strictly an attempt to dispute the warming that continues to take place.

 

It is a futile attack. Even if one threw out all the temperature data, one would still find abundant evidence of warming via changing flowering dates, shifting plant hardiness zones, lengthening growing seasons, etc. In short, the observed warming is not an artificial construct of temperature record adjustments. If it were, nature would not be exhibiting responses consistent with warming, but it is. The warming is real.

 

Thanks Don. that is good to know about wxtrix. She often is blasting people that I don't know how to take her.  as for the Goddard study which began this thread I agree w/ you and am in no way supporting this "study". It was the other developments on this thread. I just don't like people trying to stifle people if they don't agree with them and the name calling too. Unprofessional IMO which provokes many of the arguments on this forum. That is my main beef with some on this forum.  

[blizzard1024]

I asked you this question and you ignored it:  what is the value of non-factual information posted in this science-based forum?

 

What non-factual information are you talking about? Who determines what is factual when you are dealing with complex

science issues that abound in climate and weather?  Things are not always factual because they are not proven. 

Do all scientists agree with one another? No. Even ones who have similar views. So when you proclaim something

as non-factual it may be too you...but not to someone else. I hope we can discuss our differences in a civil manner 

in the future. You are really passionate about climate change and that is good. But don't let that take away from

your credibility. And don't dismiss someone else's credibility if they don't agree with your viewpoints. I really don't think

we are that far off in what we believe if you boil it down. I take a skeptical approach to all science. Its my nature.

 

Heck, I look back at my M.S thesis back in the 1990s and I am still skeptical of one of several process that I uncovered for

heavy snowfall production in snowstorms. The one process made it through peer review as I published it in an AMS

journal.  No one ever really has questioned it and I mentioned in my paper that it was a possible mechanism.

But I am still remain skeptical of it and no one has proven it so far...and its my own work! 

 

Anyway, I look forward to productive discussion in the future. have a good night. 

[WeatherRusty]

You are not including the effects of the ocean currents shutting down and restarting again. This is a big effect and leads to the rapid changes in climate observed in the paleorecord. I am not sure what the equivalent  W/m2 "forcing" would be in this case but I venture to say it is pretty high. The water vapor feedback is positive in the lower altitudes up to the convective mixed layer. This is around 850 to 800 mb. That is basic physics which we all know. Warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water. We all know this including yours truly. What is uncertain is how does water vapor respond in the higher altitudes where there is very little water vapor. It is in these areas also that there is little if any overlap with the CO2 IR absorption band. Thus when there is more water vapor at high altitudes (around 300 mb for example) it will have a significant effect. But remember, when air temperatures are warmer they have a higher capacity to "hold" water vapor. (Air actually does not "hold" water vapor but that is a topic for another time.) The end result is that more water vapor can be present in air that is warmer and the saturation vapor pressure is higher. However, you can't assume that the air is going to be saturated  or even close. Most if not all GCMs produce results that lead to a nearly constant RH which would mean that the water vapor pressure increases and leads to the positive feedback at higher altitudes that you cite. This is where there is uncertainty.  There is evidence that suggests the vapor pressure of H20 is slightly falling Paltridge (2009), and Lindzen and Choi (2001?). There is also evidence that it is increasing, various papers by Dressler and I believe a few others.  Paltridge's work is based on reanalysis data which even I agree could be suspect. But Lindzen and Choi have good arguments in my opinion.  How does cloud cover factor in as well? Spencer and Braswell 2008 suggest it is a negative feedback. But we know there are uncertainties in measuring cloud fraction trends globally. Also water vapor retrievals from satellites in the higher altitudes is also dicey. Radiosonde measurements are also dicey for water vapor at high altitudes. I once saw a debate between Dressler and Lindzen and there really was no clear winner. Both had good arguments. But Dressler unprovoked did attack Lindzen on a personal level (he blasted him for smoking and was not joking!). This was odd and uncalled for. Lindzen was professional. So this is where the science is not settled IMO. Until we can get proof from real data that the higher altitudes are moistening and can better quantify the effects of clouds, I am skeptical of a positive water vapor and cloud feedback that significantly amplifies a 1.2C warming from a doubling of CO2. I know there are error bars and a range of 2C to 4.5C. If I had to be constrained to this range I would pick 2C...but that is even high in my opinion.  The paleo record during interglacials has a very insensitive climate to change. I guess my main difference in opinion is the effects of ocean currents. I believe the ocean currents lead to the large swings in climate seen in glacial periods when there were large ice sheets. But now we have little land ice so ocean currents are rock steady with some variations...the speed of the thermohaline circulation which manisfests itself in the PDO/AMO. 

 

The Dressler vs Lindzen debate can be found here if you have time...it is long but interesting.   

 

No one really cares about your personal (think for myself) opinion. You do not represent any science, just your opinion based upon denier talking points produced by politically affiliated think tanks and their pseudo-scientific big name "scientists". Guys like Spencer and Linzden wear their political motivation on their sleives as most of the prominent skeptics do. When you characterise Skeptical Science as "leftist" you reveal similar motivation. On another site I had someone claim the National Academy of Sciences is nothing but a vehicle of government corruption in acknowledging the threat of AGW, no different from the IPCC, and that I am a fool for holding their opinion in high regard. Do you know that only 6% of all American scientists consider themselves politically conservative while a little more than 50% identify as liberal? These conservatives are no friend of science.

 

BTW, smokers should be blasted for their habit, especially when they have a history of working for tobacco interests while providing them with a "scientific opinion" denying an association between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

[Harry]

So i see my name got mentioned and the douche brigade continues with their lame insults. YET they cried foul when i shoved some back at them not long ago. Again if they want to be treated nicely then quit with the crap.

 

 

lol at using Harry as an expert on climate.

 

and there have been a series of papers on whether temps are correct, most famously the Berkeley study, which shows that all of these conspiracy theories are grounded on nothing.  even Anthony Watts had to give it up after the study he was involved in showed there was no conspiracy.

 

this is the kind of the stuff which really has no place in this forum.

 

 

LOL at you and your so called experts. OMG heaven forbid the dems don't get their money from their GREEN ENERGY FRIENDS. Please. Same reason why some on the GOP side has done it in the Oil etc sector. You people have destroyed the science because of your bs political views. Kudos to you and the rest of the dopes.

 

 

 

You sure like censorship.

 

She and the rest of them do. Very telling of how WEAK their arguments are. But going by their own methods only mets and those who have some published work should be posting in here. At last check none of them are so called climate experts. Have a few mets who share a similar view as them but they do atleast have the degree. Sorry but copying and pasting someone elses work does not make you a expert. Try again.

 

 

Perhaps Mich or Harry could explain to us why such quality control is not necessary. 

 

Perhaps you can STFU. Mind showing me where i said quality control is not necessary? Thanks.

 

 

LOL GTFO with that crap. You aren't the only special one here who has a life and responsibilities.. 

 

It's been 3 days since you said you'd bring up the references. You've been posting plenty the last few days so it's not like you haven't had the quick few minutes of time to find support for your claim..

 

And if you think we're being mean to you well, hate to break it to you this is a science board, and of course we won't take too kindly to unsupported claims and potential lies.

 

Says the douche spouting off bs and feeding off what others have said. When you get a clue and actually understand just a ounce of this stuff let the rest of us know. You need not call out anything or talk about science based stuff especially considering that joke of a outlook you put up with no scientific reason what so ever. So LOL at that..

 

 

 

there is zero reason to debate stuff that is not factual and the posting of stuff that isn't factual should indeed be stifled.

 

Then why are you still here? You should not be posting at all if thats the case. Now stifle that. Again when you get a degree in such stuff/published let us know. I can assure you and the others here that your lame attempt at trying to stifle debate here is not gonna happen. Reason why you all want it stifled is because NONE of you understand a damn thing you are copying and pasting from. NONE of you. Thus why the lame attempts to stifle the debate. So save it.

 

And i don't care what Don has to say either about your so called credibility. Granted i do respect his views unlike you. There is reasons why he does not get the same crap those like you do and is highly respected by both sides of the debate. Try figuring out why that is.

 

 

 

Him and his ilk are just way too heavily emotionally invested into their own little Snow/cold feitish worlds to ever see this Climate Change issue as a whole crystal clearly and objectively..

 

Hopefully in the coming years and decades as their precious winters continue to get noticeably tamer and tamer will their eyes finally start opening up. 

I just hope it isn't too late by then though..

 

I have your ILK for you. lol This one is really funny coming from the warm loving troll who posted a torchy winter outlook with no given reasoning. Now that IS the LOLZ.. So please you have no room to talk NONE. But you go on trying to act all cool and all knowing. It is a funny act and keeps giving me ( and a few others who have read your garbage here and on the wx side ) some damn good laughs.

 

 

This thread speaks volumes as to what is wrong with this forum. Thing is it is those who complain the most that are ones who are ruining it. Unfortunately the political views have hi-jacked this forum aka the subject matter. As usual you have the dems defending the dems and vice versa with conservatives. There is SOME who stick to the subject matter on both sides ( they leave the politics out of it ) of the debate but that is far and few between.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Wow man.  I have yet to see you speak about climate change in this thread.  But that is some heavy handed entitled trashing of others.

 

Why not just post your thoughts back them tried and true Science and I assure you it won't be dismissed.

 

Put it this way.  ORH is my barometer of skepticism. 

 

He is a real skeptic...why isn't his post's treated the same as the injustice you see in this thread?  There is a reason. 

 

He doesn't dabble in make believe hokum pokum science.  Nor does he post lies or blatant inaccuracies.  And if he or most of are wrong, we admit it and correct or just admit when it's pointed out.

 

If you start participating and using real(mostly peer reviewed) science as your back-up you won't be treated like we have gone over this a thousand times, and unless you have some compelling evidence to state something new, you really have nothing.

 

I got 5 posted for being wrong about an incoming weather storm being reminiscent of a 2006 storm and posting about it more than once. 

 

Why are people here allowed to repeat the same lies over and over and over and over and over sometimes hundreds of times over the years and still be allowed to do it.

 

Lastly, yes, posting in a questioning manner of NCDC and their adjustments while failing to mention they explain all of it with peer reviewed literature looks bad.  When the implied intent is to call into ethical question NCDC from the start of thread.

[Harry]

Wow man.  I have yet to see you speak about climate change in this thread.  But that is some heavy handed entitled trashing of others.

 

Why not just post your thoughts back them tried and true Science and I assure you it won't be dismissed.

 

Put it this way.  ORH is my barometer of skepticism. 

 

He is a real skeptic...why isn't his post's treated the same as the injustice you see in this thread?  There is a reason. 

 

He doesn't dabble in make believe hokum pokum science.  Nor does he post lies or blatant inaccuracies.  And if he or most of are wrong, we admit it and correct or just admit when it's pointed out.

 

If you start participating and using real(mostly peer reviewed) science as your back-up you won't be treated like we have gone over this a thousand times, and unless you have some compelling evidence to state something new, you really have nothing.

 

I got 5 posted for being wrong about an incoming weather storm being reminiscent of a 2006 storm and posting about it more than once. 

 

Why are people here allowed to repeat the same lies over and over and over and over and over sometimes hundreds of times over the years and still be allowed to do it.

 

Lastly, yes, posting in a questioning manner of NCDC and their adjustments while failing to mention they explain all of it with peer reviewed literature looks bad.  When the implied intent is to call into ethical question NCDC from the start of thread.

 

Unlike a few i don't like to assume on matters like this and thus why i don't post much in here. Everyone thinks they are a expert because they have read other peoples published stuff or whatever. I am not one and never claimed to be a expert in this arena. People in here need to quit doing that and thus the problem. Nothing wrong with sharing stuff but unless you are published or have a degree in this field you should not be telling people who or what should be posted here. I do enjoy reading alot of the stuff in here even stuff you post ( when you are not arguing ) on here but that's the extent of it for me.

 

And yes ORH is a good skeptic. As said there is a few on both sides who are good. Don is a great contributor as well and again you rarely see him get any flack from either side.  Wxtrix can be a good contributor as well when she is not posting like she has in this thread.

 

I did not know about the 2006 deal. You usually do offer some reasoning to support your view so that is a bit surprising.

 

 

As for the premise of this thread. I wont question NCDC or the poster for that matter. I am not the expert. As has been mentioned alot of this stuff has unfortunately been tainted by politics. I am skeptical of both sides as i know a ton of money is involved tied to politics/funding etc on both sides. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Anyways i am interested in the science not the politics which seems to rule alot of peoples thoughts who post in this forum whether they wanna admit it or not. So yeah i'll just continue to read. Keep me out of it and if some quit acting like douches i wont say a thing.

 

Thanks for the decent reply back.

[blizzard1024]

No one really cares about your personal (think for myself) opinion. You do not represent any science, just your opinion based upon denier talking points produced by politically affiliated think tanks and their pseudo-scientific big name "scientists". Guys like Spencer and Linzden wear their political motivation on their sleives as most of the prominent skeptics do. When you characterise Skeptical Science as "leftist" you reveal similar motivation. On another site I had someone claim the National Academy of Sciences is nothing but a vehicle of government corruption in acknowledging the threat of AGW, no different from the IPCC, and that I am a fool for holding their opinion in high regard. Do you know that only 6% of all American scientists consider themselves politically conservative while a little more than 50% identify as liberal? These conservatives are no friend of science.

 

BTW, smokers should be blasted for their habit, especially when they have a history of working for tobacco interests while providing them with a "scientific opinion" denying an association between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

The people who don't care about my opinions which ARE based on science are those who don't agree with my viewpoints. This is very childish and unscientific IMO and you clearly fall into this category. I

respect others differing opinions and don't insult them. 

[blizzard1024]

So i see my name got mentioned and the douche brigade continues with their lame insults. YET they cried foul when i shoved some back at them not long ago. Again if they want to be treated nicely then quit with the crap.

 

 

 

 

LOL at you and your so called experts. OMG heaven forbid the dems don't get their money from their GREEN ENERGY FRIENDS. Please. Same reason why some on the GOP side has done it in the Oil etc sector. You people have destroyed the science because of your bs political views. Kudos to you and the rest of the dopes.

 

 

 

 

She and the rest of them do. Very telling of how WEAK their arguments are. But going by their own methods only mets and those who have some published work should be posting in here. At last check none of them are so called climate experts. Have a few mets who share a similar view as them but they do atleast have the degree. Sorry but copying and pasting someone elses work does not make you a expert. Try again.

 

 

 

Perhaps you can STFU. Mind showing me where i said quality control is not necessary? Thanks.

 

 

 

Says the douche spouting off bs and feeding off what others have said. When you get a clue and actually understand just a ounce of this stuff let the rest of us know. You need not call out anything or talk about science based stuff especially considering that joke of a outlook you put up with no scientific reason what so ever. So LOL at that..

 

 

 

 

Then why are you still here? You should not be posting at all if thats the case. Now stifle that. Again when you get a degree in such stuff/published let us know. I can assure you and the others here that your lame attempt at trying to stifle debate here is not gonna happen. Reason why you all want it stifled is because NONE of you understand a damn thing you are copying and pasting from. NONE of you. Thus why the lame attempts to stifle the debate. So save it.

 

And i don't care what Don has to say either about your so called credibility. Granted i do respect his views unlike you. There is reasons why he does not get the same crap those like you do and is highly respected by both sides of the debate. Try figuring out why that is.

 

 

 

 

I have your ILK for you. lol This one is really funny coming from the warm loving troll who posted a torchy winter outlook with no given reasoning. Now that IS the LOLZ.. So please you have no room to talk NONE. But you go on trying to act all cool and all knowing. It is a funny act and keeps giving me ( and a few others who have read your garbage here and on the wx side ) some damn good laughs.

 

 

This thread speaks volumes as to what is wrong with this forum. Thing is it is those who complain the most that are ones who are ruining it. Unfortunately the political views have hi-jacked this forum aka the subject matter. As usual you have the dems defending the dems and vice versa with conservatives. There is SOME who stick to the subject matter on both sides ( they leave the politics out of it ) of the debate but that is far and few between.

 

Most of these are good points about this forum in general. It seems politicized to me also. If you don't buy the science is settled and everything the IPCC says you are automatically assumed to

be a right wing, Anthony Watt et al worshiper and a "denier". Nothing could be farther from the truth about my viewpoints. Those who are truly informed read ALL viewpoints and... yes... form an

opinion. I have worked as a MET for 20+ years and we are all scientists and we have opinions that can differ, sometime markedly and we don't insult each other, call each other names etc. I have learned

to use others viewpoints to my advantage and learn. I guess that is not how climate science works...or at least the discussion on this forum.  I respect others viewpoints. Sometimes I get pissed at

the insults hurled my way or at other well meaning posters and have come back with some myself...which I regret. Maybe we can have another real climate change forum on this site...we can call it

"climate reality". Then many on this forum can ban us from climate change and they are banned from "climate reality". In that way, they can continue to tow their viewpoints and we can actually consider

all viewpoints in a constructive manner!!  (of course I hope you know I am kidding here...just wanted to add this because some would probably take me seriously!) 

[bluewave]

Most of these are good points about this forum in general. It seems politicized to me also. If you don't buy the science is settled and everything the IPCC says you are automatically assumed to

be a right wing, Anthony Watt et al worshiper and a "denier". Nothing could be farther from the truth about my viewpoints. Those who are truly informed read ALL viewpoints and... yes... form an

opinion. I have worked as a MET for 20+ years and we are all scientists and we have opinions that can differ, sometime markedly and we don't insult each other, call each other names etc. I have learned

to use others viewpoints to my advantage and learn. I guess that is not how climate science works...or at least the discussion on this forum.  I respect others viewpoints. Sometimes I get pissed at

the insults hurled my way or at other well meaning posters and have come back with some myself...which I regret. Maybe we can have another real climate change forum on this site...we can call it

"climate reality". Then many on this forum can ban us from climate change and they are banned from "climate reality". In that way, they can continue to tow their viewpoints and we can actually consider

all viewpoints in a constructive manner!!  (of course I hope you know I am kidding here...just wanted to add this because some would probably take me seriously!) 

 

The basic science of global warming has been settled a long time ago, so opinion never should enter into the debate.

The only relevant fact to be concerned about is how humanity is going to adapt to an increasingly warmer climate

going forward. But your opinion actually matters in what the response should be since that's a public policy question

which is open to debate.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

 

 

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?

[toronto blizzard]

The science of global warming has been settled a long time ago, so opinion never should enter into the debate.

The only relevant fact to be concerned about is how humanity is going to adapt to an increasingly warmer climate

going forward. But your opinion actually matters in what the response should be since that's a public policy question

which is open to debate.

I'm sorry man but the science is far and I mean far from being settled.

[WeatherRusty]

The people who don't care about my opinions which ARE based on science are those who don't agree with my viewpoints. This is very childish and unscientific IMO and you clearly fall into this category. I

respect others differing opinions and don't insult them. 

 

I respect your right to hold an opinion, I don't have to and do not respect your opinion. Your level of skepticism is not supported by the science. I agree on every point of uncertainty which you mention, but not on the impact that uncertainty has on the conclusion. You are a skeptic in denial of the potential AGW holds for very disruptive climate change....including shifting climate zones, drought, extended heat waves, flooding rains and sea level rise. You argue from a very minority position fasioned mostly by people who deny first and then use the uncertainty in the science to make a plausible case second.

[toronto blizzard]

I respect your right to hold an opinion, I don't have to and do not respect your opinion. Your level of skepticism is not supported by the science. I agree on every point of uncertainty which you mention, but not on the impact that uncertainty has on the conclusion. You are a skeptic in denial of the potential AGW holds for very disruptive climate change....including shifting climate zones, drought, extended heat waves, flooding rains and sea level rise. You argue from a very minority position fasioned mostly by people who deny first and then use the uncertainty in the science to make a plausible case second.

Explain to me that if CO 2 is the driver of AGW, then why haven't we been seeing warming over the last 16 years?hmmmmm