Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684993 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:53 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 19:17 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 18:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 22:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:03 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 07:24 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:44 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 19:08 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:45 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 12:23 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:34 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:13 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:31 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:47 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:25 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:58 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:23 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:31 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:32 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 18:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:44 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:36 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 13:59 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 18:13 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 17:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:26 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:35 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:56 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:10 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-13 12:48 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:07 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:49 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:39 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:29 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:04 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:47 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 14:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 10:04 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 19:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 11:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:57 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 12:19 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 12:20 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:33 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:54 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:00 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:00 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:11 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:31 -0700
Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-15 16:39 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:45 +1000
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:36 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 19:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 07:45 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:21 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 10:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 14:14 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 11:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fls5g3Fjv34U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685352 |
On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>>> matter in >>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>>> that is >>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>>> >>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>> causing the present warming? >> >> >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>>> >>>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>>> how wide are the filters? >>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>>> >>>>> and so on....... >>>> >>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: >>>> >>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>>> >>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), >>>> then read the IPCC reports. >>> >>> sure, lets go look at the data >>> >>> >>> >>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >>> >>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>> >>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>> *elimination of outliers* >>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>> >>> >>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>> >>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>> >>> >>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>> >>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>> and no ocean temps were used. >>> >> >> >> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >> insanity? >> > > whish!!!!!!! right over your head **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your insanity? > > here you go, read it for the first time > > > Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>> >>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>> *elimination of outliers* >>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>> >>> >>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>> >>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>> >>> >>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>> >>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>> and no ocean temps were used. > > > Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>> >>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>> *elimination of outliers* >>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>> >>> >>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>> >>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>> >>> >>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>> >>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>> and no ocean temps were used. **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your insanity? **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 20:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdanka$8j7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685353 |
On 5/13/2018 8:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this
>>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is
>>>>>>>>>>> causing and
>>>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many disagree:
>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists,
>>>>>>> botanists and
>>>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY
>>>>>>> matter in
>>>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS,
>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have
>>>>>>> caused the observed warming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up.
>>>>>
>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is
>>>>> causing the present warming?
>>>
>>>
>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is
>>> causing the present warming?
>
> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is
> causing the present warming?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "observed" by satellite ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me an error analysis,
>>>>>> what bands of IR are used?
>>>>>> how wide are the filters?
>>>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ?
>>>>>> what emissivity is assumed?
>>>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ?
>>>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy?
>>>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ?
>>>>>> sunlit vs dark ?
>>>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ?
>>>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and so on.......
>>>>>
>>>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
>>>>>
>>>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one
>>>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the
>>>>> slightest),
>>>>> then read the IPCC reports.
>>>>
>>>> sure, lets go look at the data
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
>>>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?)
>>>>
>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only)
>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity
>>>> adjustment*
>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
>>>>
>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated
>>>> *elimination of outliers*
>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3
>>>>
>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available
>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the
>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records."
>>>>
>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time
>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used,
>>>> and no ocean temps were used.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your
>>> insanity?
>>>
>>
>> whish!!!!!!! right over your head
>
> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your
> insanity?
>
>
>>
>> here you go, read it for the first time
>>
>>
>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only)
>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity
>>>> adjustment*
>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
>>>>
>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated
>>>> *elimination of outliers*
>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3
>>>>
>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available
>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the
>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records."
>>>>
>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time
>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used,
>>>> and no ocean temps were used.
>>
>>
>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only)
>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity
>>>> adjustment*
>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
>>>>
>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated
>>>> *elimination of outliers*
>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3
>>>>
>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available
>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the
>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records."
>>>>
>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time
>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used,
>>>> and no ocean temps were used.
>
>
> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your
> insanity?
>
> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is
> causing the present warming?
>
learn how to use google search, dude...
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global
climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for
temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not
conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too
high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate
due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[25][26][27][28]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences,
Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[29][30]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in
physics (1973).[31]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center
for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[32][33]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric
science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the
National Academy of Sciences.[30][34][35][36]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council
for Air and Stream Improvement.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable
Commerce, University of Guelph.[44][45]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[46][47][48]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the
INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution
(1999–2003).[49][50]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of
Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the
Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian
National University.[51][52]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of
Colorado at Boulder.[53][54]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa,
research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and
soil science.[55][56][57][58]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S.
Senator.[59][60]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm.[61][62]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University
of London.[63][64]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute.[65][66]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[67][68]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a
doctorate in chemistry.[69][70]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural
processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to
reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which
those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing
factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases,
man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and
volcanic emissions.[71]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to
be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views
on climate change are usually described in more detail in their
biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the
Russian Academy of Sciences.[72][73]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics.[74][75][76]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of
geography at the University of Winnipeg.[77][78][79]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa.[80][81]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of
Sciences.[82]
Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, Officer of the New Zealand
Order of Merit.[83]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology
and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[84][85]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of
Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[86][87]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University.[88][89]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy;
emeritus professor, Princeton University.[30][90]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[91][92]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the
University of Stockholm.[93][94]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to
World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[95][96]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the
Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[97][98]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of
Missouri.[99][100]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[101][102]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at
Carleton University in Canada.[103][104]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of
Adelaide.[105][106]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former
faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[107][108]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie
University and University of Colorado.[109][110]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at
Duke University.[111][112][113]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of
Oslo.[114][115]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and
climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[116][117]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia.[118][119][120][121]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics.[122][123]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University
of Alabama in Huntsville.[124][125]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[126][127]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at
Oregon State University.[128][129]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from
University of Ottawa.[130][131]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to
the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding
director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University
of Alaska Fairbanks.[132][133]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at
Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[134][135]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State
University.[136][137]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space
Centre.[138][139]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville,
contributor to several IPCC reports.[140][141][142]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los
Alamos National Laboratory.[143][144]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[145][146]
Deceased scientists
These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to
the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their
deaths.
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand
MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at
the University of Wyoming.[167][168]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and
oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[169][170]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth
Sciences at James Cook University.[171][172]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the
Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University.[173][174]
Yuri Izrael (1930-2014), former Chairman, Committee for
Hydrometeorology (USSR); former Director, Institute of Global Climate
and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); Vice-Chairman of IPCC,
2001-2007.[175][176][177]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist,
cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and
William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall
Institute.[178][179][180]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of
physics and former department chairman at the University of California,
Santa Barbara.[181][182]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president
of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C.
Marshall Institute in 1984.[183][184][185]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane
Research Division.[147][148]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal
ashes.[149][150]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at
Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[151][152]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, inventor of the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[153][154][155]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the
University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of
Scientists.[156][157]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of
little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the
United States Department of the Interior.[158][159][160]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona
State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation
Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[163][164]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired
research professor of environmental science at the University of
Virginia.[165][166]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 07:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm3nqmFaabfU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685356 |
On 14/05/2018 11:09 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 8:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, >>>>>>>> botanists and >>>>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>>>>> matter in >>>>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>> >>>> >>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>> causing the present warming? >> >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? >> >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>>>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>>>>> how wide are the filters? >>>>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>>>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>>>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and so on....... >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>>>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the >>>>>> slightest), >>>>>> then read the IPCC reports. >>>>> >>>>> sure, lets go look at the data >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >>>>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >>>>> >>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>> adjustment* >>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>> >>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>> >>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>> >>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>> insanity? >>>> >>> >>> whish!!!!!!! right over your head >> >> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >> insanity? **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your insanity? >> >> >>> >>> here you go, read it for the first time >>> >>> >>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>> adjustment* >>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>> >>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>> >>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>> >>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>> >>> >>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>> adjustment* >>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>> >>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>> >>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>> >>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >> >> >> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >> insanity? >> >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your insanity? **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? >> > > learn how to use google search, dude... > > Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections **CLIMATOLOGISTS, idiot. How many CLIMATOLOGISTS? Sheesh! Learn to read. And learn to read my questions, CAREFULLY! -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdil93$1ij7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685854 |
On 5/16/2018 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 11:09 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 8:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, >>>>>>>>> botanists and >>>>>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>>>>>> matter in >>>>>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>>>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic >>>>>>> CO2 is >>>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>>> causing the present warming? >>> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? > > **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is > causing the present warming? > I sent out an email, they will get back with me. > >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>>>>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>>>>>> how wide are the filters? >>>>>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>>>>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>>>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>>>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>>>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>>>>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>>>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>>>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and so on....... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my >>>>>>> reference: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>>>>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the >>>>>>> slightest), >>>>>>> then read the IPCC reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> sure, lets go look at the data >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >>>>>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >>>>>> >>>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>> >>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>> in the >>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>> >>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>> time >>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>>> insanity? >>>>> >>>> >>>> whish!!!!!!! right over your head >>> >>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>> insanity? > > **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your > insanity? munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no error analysis. > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>> here you go, read it for the first time >>>> >>>> >>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>> >>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>> in the >>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>> >>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>> time >>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>> >>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>> in the >>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>> >>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>> time >>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>> >>> >>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>> insanity? >>> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? > > **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your > insanity? munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no error analysis. > **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is > causing the present warming? I sent out email, waiting till they get back with me. > > >>> >> >> learn how to use google search, dude... >> >> Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections > > **CLIMATOLOGISTS, idiot. How many CLIMATOLOGISTS? > > Sheesh! Learn to read. And learn to read my questions, CAREFULLY! no need. You can do it yourself, use Google search, or duckduckgo > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 12:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm476sFdc6gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685876 |
On 17/05/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 11:09 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 8:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, >>>>>>>>>> botanists and >>>>>>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>>>>>>> matter in >>>>>>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>>>>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic >>>>>>>> CO2 is >>>>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>> >>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>> causing the present warming? >> >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? >> > > I sent out an email, they will get back with me. **Only one? More? How many emails? To whom? > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>>>>>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>>>>>>> how wide are the filters? >>>>>>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>>>>>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>>>>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>>>>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>>>>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>>>>>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>>>>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>>>>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and so on....... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my >>>>>>>> reference: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>>>>>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the >>>>>>>> slightest), >>>>>>>> then read the IPCC reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sure, lets go look at the data >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >>>>>>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>>>> insanity? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> whish!!!!!!! right over your head >>>> >>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>> insanity? >> >> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >> insanity? > > munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of > temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no > error analysis. **Let me be more precise, as I expect much more from you. Please issue a page by page critique of IPCC AR5. Provide supporting cites for your critique. Unsupported criticisms are unhelpful and smack of very lazy science. > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> here you go, read it for the first time >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>> >>>> >>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>> insanity? >>>> >>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>> causing the present warming? >> >> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >> insanity? > > munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of > temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no > error analysis. **Let me be more precise, as I expect much more from you. Please issue a page by page critique of IPCC AR5. Provide supporting cites for your critique. Unsupported criticisms are unhelpful and smack of very lazy science. > >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? > > I sent out email, waiting till they get back with me. **Only one? More? How many emails? To whom? > >> >> >>>> >>> >>> learn how to use google search, dude... >>> >>> Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections >> >> **CLIMATOLOGISTS, idiot. How many CLIMATOLOGISTS? >> >> Sheesh! Learn to read. And learn to read my questions, CAREFULLY! > > no need. You can do it yourself, use Google search, or duckduckgo **Oh, there is a great need. Again: Read my questions, CAREFULLY. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdkdkb$inf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685882 |
On 5/16/2018 9:19 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/16/2018 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 11:09 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 8:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2018 10:58 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, >>>>>>>>>>> botanists and >>>>>>>>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>>>>>>>> matter in >>>>>>>>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>>>>>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic >>>>>>>>> CO2 is >>>>>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic >>>>>>> CO2 is >>>>>>> causing the present warming? >>>>> >>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>>> causing the present warming? >>> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? >>> >> >> I sent out an email, they will get back with me. > > **Only one? More? How many emails? To whom? > >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>>>>>>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>>>>>>>> how wide are the filters? >>>>>>>>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>>>>>>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>>>>>>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>>>>>>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>>>>>>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>>>>>>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>>>>>>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>>>>>>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and so on....... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my >>>>>>>>> reference: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the >>>>>>>>> slightest), >>>>>>>>> then read the IPCC reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sure, lets go look at the data >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >>>>>>>> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = >>>>>>>> missing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not >>>>>>>> used, >>>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>>>>> insanity? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> whish!!!!!!! right over your head >>>>> >>>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>>> insanity? >>> >>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>> insanity? >> >> munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of >> temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no >> error analysis. > > **Let's be more precise, as you expect much more from me. Please issue a > page by page critique of IPCC AR5. Provide supporting cites for my > critique. Unsupported criticisms are unhelpful and smack of very lazy > science. > great idea, when are you going to get it done ? >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> here you go, read it for the first time >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = >>>>>>>> missing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not >>>>>>>> used, >>>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >>>>>>>> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity >>>>>>>> adjustment* >>>>>>>> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = >>>>>>>> missing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> => so the data has been manulipulated >>>>>>>> *elimination of outliers* >>>>>>>> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >>>>>>>> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not >>>>>>>> used, >>>>>>>> and no ocean temps were used. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>>>> insanity? >>>>> >>>>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>>>> causing the present warming? >>> >>> **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your >>> insanity? >> >> munged data, tripple averaged, smoothed, points excluded, 99.9% of >> temperature data points missing from the rest of earths surface, no >> error analysis. > >**Let's be more precise, as you expect much more from me. Please issue a > page by page critique of IPCC AR5. Provide supporting cites for my > critique. Unsupported criticisms are unhelpful and smack of very lazy > science. > "Unsupported criticisms are unhelpful and smack of very lazy science." so you are one lazy one unhelpful fat troll. > >> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? >> >> I sent out email, waiting till they get back with me. > > **Only one? More? How many emails? To whom? > >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> learn how to use google search, dude... >>>> >>>> Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections >>> >>> **CLIMATOLOGISTS, idiot. How many CLIMATOLOGISTS? >>> >>> Sheesh! Learn to read. And learn to read my questions, CAREFULLY! >> >> no need. You can do it yourself, use Google search, or duckduckgo > > **Oh, there is a great need. Again: Read my questions, CAREFULLY. do it yourself, troll. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 21:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <enphfdtt0l1i6lekdceu0p77h2e61srsjf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685353 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:01:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >**OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >causing the present warming? All of it, or some of it? <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> The main issue is not: Is human-caused climate change occurring? Repeatedly, Dyson tells us that “the fact that it exists is not a question.” To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. The crucial questions are, instead: 1. Is humanity’s effect on the climate large or small? 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqchfddj7g3g56vpb42ghm85a6h6b2uptq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685267 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:50:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>> >>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>> >>>> So you say. >>> >>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >> >> Many disagree: >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >> > >**You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in >this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is >precisely what I meant. ALL the climatologists agree that humans have >caused the observed warming. What about when you stated "every scientific organisation," was that also precisely what you meant? On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >**Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist and every >scientific organisation on the planet has stated, unequivocally, that >the problem lies with human induced CO2 emissions. You didn't seem concerned about which "scientific organisation" was affiliated with climastrology when you made that appeal to authority. Are you going to criticize Bill Nye for his views on AGW because he is neither a scientist nor a climatologist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrqrtFhs51U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685313 |
On 14/05/2018 7:54 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:50:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>> >>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>> >>>>> So you say. >>>> >>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>> >>> Many disagree: >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>> >> >> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in >> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is >> precisely what I meant. ALL the climatologists agree that humans have >> caused the observed warming. > > What about when you stated "every scientific organisation," was that > also precisely what you meant? > > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist and every >> scientific organisation on the planet has stated, unequivocally, that >> the problem lies with human induced CO2 emissions. > > You didn't seem concerned about which "scientific organisation" was > affiliated with climastrology when you made that appeal to authority. > > Are you going to criticize Bill Nye for his views on AGW because he is > neither a scientist nor a climatologist? > **I have no idea who 'Bill Nye' is. Is he a scientist of note? Is he a climatologist? If not, then I am not interested in what he has to say. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 12:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yriKC.72411$np1.37287@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #685258 |
On 5/13/2018 3:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:35:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>>>> others. >>>>>> >>>>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is that? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **For two reasons: >>>>> >>>>> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this >>>>> planet. >>>>> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. >>>> >>>> Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel >>>> consumption can be measured. >>> >>> **Why do you think that is important? >> >> How you plan to control emissions that can't be monitored or >> penalized? > > **_I_ don't plan to do anything. > >> >> How is that working for you with the oceans and water vapor? > > **Nothing humans can presently do, will stop water vapour from > continuing to contribute to global warming. We can, however, deal with > CO2 emissions. And, since rising temperatures from CO2 emissions is > causing more evaporation, it makes sense to deal with the problems we > able to. > >> >> >>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>> >>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >> >> So you say. > > **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist and every > scientific organisation on the planet has stated, unequivocally, that > the problem lies with human induced CO2 emissions. > >> >> >>> Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic >>> science? >> >> I am not an adherent of your religion. > > **Unlike you, I place my faith in science, not the Fox network. > >> >> There is no "gospel" (good news) in your religion. > > **Science is the antithesis of religion and the Fox network. You should > study it sometime. So should you Trevor! Libs always flunk every science course they ever took because they think that they can bullshit their way through. Works for journalism and politics but falls on its face in science. Trevor being just one example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 12:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZoiKC.72409$np1.9569@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #685254 |
On 5/13/2018 2:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>> others. >>>> >>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>> >>>> Why is that? >>>> >>> >>> **For two reasons: >>> >>> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this >>> planet. >>> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. >> >> Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel >> consumption can be measured. > > **Why do you think that is important? Hilarious! As Trevor pretends to be ignorant of global energy tax agenda! What me worry? >> BTW: What "problem?" > > **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have > contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. > That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and > will cause severe problems for our civilisation. Prove that 30% of CO2 emissions came came from human activity. You can't. Statement is science-ignorant as well since it implies that all CO2 increase came from fuel burning. Clearly a huge portion came from rain forest and other plant destruction. Yes, still man-made for sure, but just shows that propaganda isn't science. Since warming has only been a degree or so that this causes a "problem" is EXTREMELY unlikely. As for future predictions, we presume Trevor is using his "superpowers" again rather than any actual knowledge. > Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic science? It's so funny that when Libs get cornered they start calling names and the absolute WORST name they can think of is to call someone else "ignorant". Irony meter explodes from fact of lib calling a scientist "ignorant" for not blindly accepting their fantasies! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 09:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flujcpF65a7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685416 |
On 15/05/2018 2:00 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>>> >>>>> Why is that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> **For two reasons: >>>> >>>> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this >>>> planet. >>>> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. >>> >>> Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel >>> consumption can be measured. >> >> **Why do you think that is important? > > Hilarious! As Trevor pretends to be ignorant of global energy tax > agenda! What me worry? > > >>> BTW: What "problem?" >> >> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing >> and will cause severe problems for our civilisation. > > Prove that 30% of CO2 emissions came came from human activity. **Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png Until the mid-19th century, CO2 levels were reasonably constant for many thousands of years. Then, when humans began burning fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels rose dramatically. Since no natural CO2 emitting sources have been discovered, humans were the repsonsible party. You > can't. **Stop yapping, you stupid dog. Wait for the answer. Statement is science-ignorant as well since it implies that all > CO2 increase came from fuel burning. **Nope. Some has also come from land clearing. Clearly a huge portion came from > rain forest and other plant destruction. **Sure. Some has. Yes, still man-made for sure, > but just shows that propaganda isn't science. **Well, no. The sources of CO2 are well known. > > Since warming has only been a degree or so that this causes a "problem" > is EXTREMELY unlikely. **I see. For a lap-dog, you claim to be pretty smart. The sad thing is that your intellect does not match your yapping. You are an idiot. Sorry to be so brutal, but you need to know your place. I've owned dogs. I know how to treat them and I know how to treat you. You seem to be under the illusion that a 1 degree C rise is not a problem, but what you fail to understand is that the 1 degree C rise is an AVERAGE number. In some places on this planet, the rise is somewhat less than a 1 degree C and in others somewhat greater. Worse, in some areas, the hotter days get very hot indeed. Here, for instance, is the mean temperatures in Australia, over the past 100 years or so: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries OK, so the average 1 degree C rise is pretty easy to see, but you should note that we no longer see those average temps dipping below the long term average. Worse, we have this graph: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3DT Winter temps in Australia have demonstrated an extremely disturbing trend towards MUCH higher temperatures. This has caused significant problems for much of the flora and fauna in this nation. As a keen gardener, my partner tells me that she must now use significantly more water on her (indigenous) plants and that some plants are not able to survive the increased Winter temperatures, or they are not reproducing as expected. As for future predictions, we presume Trevor is > using his "superpowers" again rather than any actual knowledge. **It is entirely reasonable and rational to make future predictions on climate, based on the observed changes over the past 150 years. Something that a creature (like a lap-dog, for instance) would not understand, since such creatures live in the moment. Your assumptions are expected. You do, after all, lack the intellect to think for yourself. You are Sergio's lap-dog. > >> Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic >> science? > > It's so funny that when Libs get cornered they start calling names and > the absolute WORST name they can think of is to call someone else > "ignorant". **That's because it is the worst thing you can call another human. After being labelled (like your master, Sergio has been) a liar. Irony meter explodes from fact of lib calling a scientist > "ignorant" for not blindly accepting their fantasies! :-) **No. You are not a scientist. You are a lap-dog. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 11:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n3iKC.121877$LR2.100508@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #685249 |
On 5/13/2018 2:26 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>> others. >> >> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >> >> Why is that? >> > > **For two reasons: > > 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. No doubt we caused CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere. However the wird "excess" is the propaganda here. How does one determine what an "excess" amount is? Do we simply define "excess" as ANY amount that man creates whether it does anything or not? So of the man-generated amount is "excess" what is the baseline? is natural CO2 going up? Does anyone know. All these "facts" are guesses. The whole CO2 thing is BEYOND guesses into fabricated facts. > 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. A completely nonsensical statement. While obviously "we" can reduce man-made CO@ emissions what remains to be shown is that reducing them will have any effect at all. And what exactly the "problem" is remains a question as well. And who is to say the "problem" is "severe"? At what level does a problem become "severe"? All of this jus left to the imagination. Babbling drooling nonsense. Libs don't do science (Snicker).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 09:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flukedF6bmgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685410 |
On 15/05/2018 1:37 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:26 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>> others. >>> >>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>> >>> Why is that? >>> >> >> **For two reasons: >> >> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this >> planet. > > No doubt we caused CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere. However the > wird "excess" is the propaganda here. **Well, it's not propaganda. It's actually around 40,000,000,000 Tonnes PA. It's excess, because natural processes do not absorb that extra CO2. How does one determine what an > "excess" amount is? **Very, VERY simply, my yappy friend. We calculate how much CO2 is released via natural processes (approximately 440GT/yr) and then calculated how much CO2 is absorbed by natural processes (approximately 450GT/yr). Then we have the following calculation: 440^9 + 40^9 - 450^9 = 30^9 Tonnes/yr. Therefore, we have a surplus of approximately 30,000,000,000 Tonnes of CO2 per year entering the atmosphere. Do we simply define "excess" as ANY amount that man > creates whether it does anything or not? **Stupid question. It is now absolutely undeniable that CO2 is causing this planet to warm. Therefore, the excess CO2 is undesirable. The ONLY question that is uncertain (though it is barely that, since confidence level runs at around 95%) is: Will temperatures rise uncontrollably, if nothing is done to stop CO2 emissions? There is some debate over this question. And it is the ONLY question under any kind of debate among climatologists. Even the denier's poster boy, Lindzen, agrees that CO2 has warmed this planet. So of the man-generated amount > is "excess" what is the baseline? **280ppm was the baseline before humans began land-clearing and fossil-fuel burning. is natural CO2 going up? **No new natural sources of CO2 have been found. Does anyone > know. **To a very high degree of accuracy, yes. All these "facts" are guesses. **To a yappy lap-dog, they may appear to be guesses, but they're not. The whole CO2 thing is BEYOND > guesses into fabricated facts. **Again: With your lap-dog intellect, science may appear to be magical. It isn't. > >> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. > > A completely nonsensical statement. **Nope. Fact. While obviously "we" can reduce > man-made CO@ emissions what remains to be shown is that reducing them > will have any effect at all. **Really? Why would you think that? And what exactly the "problem" is remains a > question as well. **Let me be very clear: A rising average temperature on this planet IS a big problem. And who is to say the "problem" is "severe"? **Every human with a modest amount of intellect. Lap-dogs are, of course, excluded. At what > level does a problem become "severe"? **Well, if predictions of a 'tipping point' are factual, then that would be when it becomes EXTREMELY severe. All of this jus left to the > imagination. Babbling drooling nonsense. > > Libs don't do science (Snicker). **See, here's your problem: You keep bringing politics into a scientific discussion. Are you saying that only Liberals understand science? I don't agree. I am firmly of the opinion that some right wingers do understand science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 22:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <70hkfdht6ebfsjvqabtl62qfogan9rbm3v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685465 |
On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:28:58 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > Do we simply define "excess" as ANY amount that man >> creates whether it does anything or not? > >**Stupid question. It is now absolutely undeniable that CO2 is causing >this planet to warm. Therefore, the excess CO2 is undesirable. non sequitur. Why "therefore?" You are assuming *any* warming is bad. > The ONLY >question that is uncertain (though it is barely that, since confidence >level runs at around 95%) is: Will temperatures rise uncontrollably, if >nothing is done to stop CO2 emissions? "Uncontrollably?" First, our level of control is doubtful. If by "uncontrollably" you mean without limit, the answer is obviously "no" and it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that a finite system can't warm to an infinite temperature. >There is some debate over this question. And it is the ONLY question >under any kind of debate among climatologists. Even the denier's poster >boy, Lindzen, agrees that CO2 has warmed this planet. <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> The main issue is not: Is human-caused climate change occurring? Repeatedly, Dyson tells us that “the fact that it exists is not a question.” To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. The crucial questions are, instead: 1. Is humanity’s effect on the climate large or small? 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b098db4e-211b-4473-8be6-ee6cd533f84e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685499 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:27:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:28:58 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > > Do we simply define "excess" as ANY amount that man > >> creates whether it does anything or not? > > > >**Stupid question. It is now absolutely undeniable that CO2 is causing > >this planet to warm. Therefore, the excess CO2 is undesirable. > > non sequitur. > > Why "therefore?" > > You are assuming *any* warming is bad. > > > The ONLY > >question that is uncertain (though it is barely that, since confidence > >level runs at around 95%) is: Will temperatures rise uncontrollably, if > >nothing is done to stop CO2 emissions? > > "Uncontrollably?" > > First, our level of control is doubtful. We can only control our own contribution of CO2. > > If by "uncontrollably" you mean without limit, the answer is obviously > "no" and it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that a finite > system can't warm to an infinite temperature. But uncontrollably here refers to what happens even if we make changes to our contributions. Are we close to the point where, to make an analogy, if we remove the match from the paper, it is too late the paper burns on its own. IOW, it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that pushing a system into a positive feedback loop can lead to extreme behavior. And it doesn't have to be infinite to be a problem. > > >There is some debate over this question. And it is the ONLY question > >under any kind of debate among climatologists. Even the denier's poster > >boy, Lindzen, agrees that CO2 has warmed this planet. > > > <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/> > The main issue is not: Is human-caused climate change occurring? > Repeatedly, Dyson tells us that “the fact that it exists is not a > question.” To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – > that man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is > worthy of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. > > The crucial questions are, instead: > > 1. Is humanity’s effect on the climate large or small? > 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful? Two good questions. Trevor presented information as to the net tonnage increases in CO2. So question 1 is answered numerically. Why would we use weak words like large or small when we have the numbers? So it really boils down to question 2. and a related third question: 3. Is it worth the risk to wait for a clear answer before acting to deal with the potential damage to our planet and ourselves? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4e4304e-97a7-40d0-85ab-1ee44edbaa99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685595 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > 3. Is it worth the risk to wait for a clear answer before > acting to deal with the potential damage to our planet > and ourselves So, you admit you don't have a clear answer to your imagined emergency. There are thousands or even millions of unclear things that threaten hunan and our planet. You are one stupid SOB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 16:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.15--4.39pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #685595 |
> We can only control our own contribution of CO2. > > it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that > pushing a system into a positive feedback loop > can lead to extreme behavior. > > > 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful? > > 3. Is it worth the risk to wait for a clear answer before > acting to deal with the potential damage We need Oxygen ( from plants ), and plants need CabonDiOxide. We'll die, someday, because that's how nature works. Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can, and _any_ excuse will do, truthy or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 09:45 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. |
| Message-ID | <fm19q0Fo3ltU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685678 |
On 16/05/2018 9:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> We can only control our own contribution of CO2. >> >> it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that >> pushing a system into a positive feedback loop >> can lead to extreme behavior. >> >>> 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful? >> >> 3. Is it worth the risk to wait for a clear answer before >> acting to deal with the potential damage > > We need Oxygen ( from plants ), and plants need CabonDiOxide. > > We'll die, someday, because that's how nature works. > > Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can, > and _any_ excuse will do, truthy or not. > **"Politians" (sic) have a justifiably bad rap. Scientists don't. Ignore the "politians" (sic) and listen to the scientists (climatologists). -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. |
| Message-ID | <f0957c96-525c-4035-92b9-e0339382523f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685680 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 16/05/2018 9:39 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > >> We can only control our own contribution of CO2. > >> > >> it doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that > >> pushing a system into a positive feedback loop > >> can lead to extreme behavior. > >> > >>> 2. Big-picture, is it harmful or helpful? > >> > >> 3. Is it worth the risk to wait for a clear answer before > >> acting to deal with the potential damage > > > > We need Oxygen ( from plants ), and plants need CabonDiOxide. > > > > We'll die, someday, because that's how nature works. > > > > Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can, > > and _any_ excuse will do, truthy or not. > > > > **"Politians" (sic) have a justifiably bad rap. Scientists don't. > > > Ignore the "politians" (sic) and listen to the scientists (climatologists). > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au Climate scientists are politicians. They sure aren't scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web