Eskimo Joe Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 11 hours ago, Blizzard92 said: ah, well thank you! You're my go-to for news on the cryosphere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 since this is "science" i must point out the temporary warming of the area is WEATHER and not "climate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 The emcwf era interim and NCEP reanalysis have similar trends in the arctic. The reanalysis series have the advantage of being able to incorporate sea ice information. Other series maybe underestimating warming due to lack of coverage in areas where sea ice has retreated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 lol at BillT for citing Goddard as a reputable source. Even his fellow skeptics have criticized him. Quote In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000. The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. ... Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis. Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus." Quoted from the BillT's posted wiki link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 19 minutes ago, Brewbeer said: lol at BillT for citing Goddard as a reputable source. Even his fellow skeptics have criticized him. Quoted from the BillT's posted wiki link. i posted NO link to wiki........mock me all you desire, but this is supposed to be a civil discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 36 minutes ago, BillT said: i posted NO link to wiki........mock me all you desire, but this is supposed to be a civil discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard the guy you're quoting is a quack who has been denounced by climate deniers. Your conspiracy theories are not based in science or fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, LithiaWx said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard the guy you're quoting is a quack who has been denounced by climate deniers. Your conspiracy theories are not based in science or fact. i put forward NO conspiracy theories......i only posted that the raw data was altered and that is simply FACT........fact confirmed by links others posted in this very thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, BillT said: i put forward NO conspiracy theories......i only posted that the raw data was altered and that is simply FACT........fact confirmed by links others posted in this very thread. Yeah but you believe there were ulterior motives in the adjustments. That is not supported by anything. The adjustments are legit. Why won't you read the links posted that back up the changes with science? for you to believe the adjustments were not legitimate is a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 this is pointless.....i suggested no conspiracy but since you insist indeed there are emails in the public domain showing warming folks indeed conspiring to make the LIA and warm period disappear......there are emails showing attempts to publish ONLY "peer reviewed" warming papers.....and you assume i havent checked to see why the raw data was altered i DID and the explanations are BOGUS.....please just agree to disagree? ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 52 minutes ago, BillT said: i posted NO link to wiki..... Sorry, it was another poster who put up the wiki link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 Just now, Brewbeer said: Sorry, it was another poster who put up the wiki link. no problem accurate info is my goal....ty for correcting that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 BillT, you aren't going to get accurate info from Goddard, or from the cable TV network that shills for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 5 minutes ago, Brewbeer said: BillT, you aren't going to get accurate info from Goddard, or from the cable TV network that shills for him. and that is why i do my own research and form my own opinions.....was the cable tv comment some political statement? i ask because i primarily watch SPORTS on tv......and if it was directed at fox news i consider them to be utterly dishonest....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, BillT said: this is pointless.....i suggested no conspiracy but since you insist indeed there are emails in the public domain showing warming folks indeed conspiring to make the LIA and warm period disappear......there are emails showing attempts to publish ONLY "peer reviewed" warming papers.....and you assume i havent checked to see why the raw data was altered i DID and the explanations are BOGUS.....please just agree to disagree? ok Why did you put peer reviewed in ""? Do you have a problem with the peer review process? A scientific paper that hasn't gone through the peer review process isn't recognized by the scientific community. Period, end of story on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, BillT said: this is pointless.....i suggested no conspiracy but since you insist indeed there are emails in the public domain showing warming folks indeed conspiring to make the LIA and warm period disappear......there are emails showing attempts to publish ONLY "peer reviewed" warming papers.....and you assume i havent checked to see why the raw data was altered i DID and the explanations are BOGUS.....please just agree to disagree? ok Please post links to evidence supporting these assertions. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Bill - I couldn't even get 30 seconds into those videos - like watching paint dry. If you want to talk some "science" we are all ears, but your comments and citing anti-science groups like GWPF makes you appear dis-interested in science. I suggest you start your own thread if you don't want to talk about arctic warmth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Bill - that video is a typical Appeal to Authority fallacy - a favorite, I know, of climate science deniers but still a fallacy. If you think one Nobel Laureate is credible and impressive then the recent open letter from 375 climate scientists, including 30 Nobel Laureates, on the on the reality and dangers of AGW should be much more convincing. http://responsiblescientists.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, PhillipS said: Bill - that video is a typical Appeal to Authority fallacy - a favorite, I know, of climate science deniers but still a fallacy. If you think one Nobel Laureate is credible and impressive then the recent open letter from 375 climate scientists, including 30 Nobel Laureates, on the on the reality and dangers of AGW should be much more convincing. http://responsiblescientists.org/ the OPPOSITE is true those video were NOT appeals to authority what YOU wrote " then the recent open letter from 375 climate scientists, including 30 Nobel Laureates, on the on the reality and dangers of AGW should be much more convincing." that was an appeal to authority.....my posts had actual discussion of what is going on and pointed out you do NOT appeal to authority in science.....and there were far more than one or 2 of them saying the same things i have......simple reality the climate is NOT a force and exerts NO control over the weather.....that co2 is a very MINOR player in the whole concept and to assign it the role of controller or driver is LUNACY......that the claims carbon is harming us are IDIOCY......that there is NO such thing as carbonless sugar......simple basic SCIENCE......I am dealing in the basic science while your side indeed is appealing to authority and NOT discussing any of the actual science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, bluewave said: Congratulations, you guys and other the post-truthers have successfully derailed threads like this and any attempt to put effective climate change strategies into place. Enjoy your victory. But you guys will be remembered by history in the coming centuries pretty harshly. What will people of this planet in 100-500 years think of you when coastal cities go under water and they are forced into one of the greatest ages of mass migration this world has ever seen? Heck of a legacy to leave future generations. not one shred of science in your attack on me......please understand i am an individual discussing science, and science has no agenda other than TRUTH........care to dispute anything i wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 minute ago, bluewave said: You guys are doing a fantastic job. By creating doubt around the science of climate change you have slowed any movement to address climate change. I know several people with advanced degrees in the sciences that believe climate change is a hoax. Just goes to show how effective a simple disinformation campaign can be. "you guys" i am ONE person........i clearly have never doubted "climate change" there is no question the climate constantly changes.....any statistic using constantly changing data to arrive at an average constantly changes......the problem is the terms being used i doubt ANY of those you claim dont believe "climate change" actually dont they are more likely expressing they dont believe that HUMANS CAUSE the climate changes.....and what "disinformation" have i posted please??? put any quotes anything showing that please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 On 12/29/2016 at 11:14 AM, BillT said: since this is "science" i must point out the temporary warming of the area is WEATHER and not "climate". Oh man - thanks for sharing! Literally NO ONE here had any idea about the difference between weather and "climate". Thank you so much for your invaluable contributions here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 minute ago, BillT said: .i clearly have never doubted "climate change" there is no question the climate constantly changes.. What do you think is the cause of these constant climate changes? Please be specific and link to supporting evidence. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 21 hours ago, BillT said: i put forward NO conspiracy theories......i only posted that the raw data was altered and that is simply FACT........fact confirmed by links others posted in this very thread. Raw data gets adjusted literally ALL THE TIME in research. Have you ever done research before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 54 minutes ago, bluewave said: Congratulations, you guys and other the post-truthers have successfully derailed threads like this and any attempt to put effective climate change strategies into place. Enjoy your victory. But you guys will be remembered by history in the coming centuries pretty harshly. What will people of this planet in 100-500 years think of you when coastal cities go under water and they are forced into one of the greatest ages of mass migration this world has ever seen? Heck of a legacy to leave future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 52 minutes ago, BillT said: not one shred of science in your attack on me......please understand i am an individual discussing science, and science has no agenda other than TRUTH........care to dispute anything i wrote? There hasn't been one shred of science in the totality of your posts here. We've been asking for links, credible research to back up what you state, etc. You have provided NOTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, pazzo83 said: Oh man - thanks for sharing! Literally NO ONE here had any idea about the difference between weather and "climate". Thank you so much for your invaluable contributions here! sarcasm noted and since this topic area is "climate change" indeed a WEATHER in the arctic post doesnt belong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 minute ago, BillT said: sarcasm noted and since this topic area is "climate change" indeed a WEATHER in the arctic post doesnt belong here. The frequency of such events in the arctic is certainly relevant. It's not like >0C temps near the North Pole in winter are routine (or have been any time in modern history). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, pazzo83 said: There hasn't been one shred of science in the totality of your posts here. We've been asking for links, credible research to back up what you state, etc. You have provided NOTHING. NOTHING? i posted correctly about the precision in measurements we do not have the ability to assign one global temperature to accuracy within hundredths of a degree that is "something".......i have posted correctly that co2 is a tiny player in an equation with countless factors and assigning the power to control or drive temperatures is simply silly.....i have posted saying carbon is harming the earth is utter nonsense..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.