History of climate gets 'erased' online

page: 6
84
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I will pray for you.


Cheers, and I'll think for you.

Gut-thinker isn't actually an insult - more a description of an approach (emotion-based intuition). It might be seen as the basis of what you call 'common sense'. Not my cup of tea as a general approach in science, but it can be useful on occasion. Indeed, the basis of many a hypothesis.

Prefer the more evidential approach for science in general.

Gut-thinking is best for picking shirts and stuff. Makes one a happier bunny. A bit rubbish for informing a scientific position, easily leads to contamination via ideology and other biases.


Originally posted by wx4caster
spare the human race the rod on this one because there is some outside force or variable that we are not seeing. i can say with a dereen of certainty that if we humans still rode horses and had no industrial works, that this increase in global temps would still be occuring, and so would the increase in co2.


"Yeah, got to be. I just know it. I've got no evidence. Can't even see it, don't know what it is. But it's there. I can feel it in my gut. Fowgeddabowt that silly evidence and the physics stuff, my gut says otherwise."

[edit on 23-12-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Melatonin,

If everything is so cut and dried like you think it is, why did they feel the need to manipulate and hide data, and collude to quash dissenting opinions? And why do you place so much faith in the data when you know this is happening?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


you just lost kudos my friend.

you need to do some research on the history of j. Hansen and his people in world of climate change. these are the scientists that manipulate data in order to skew opinion.

and no, i am not a technician. i am a regional forecaster. sheesh....

and yes, one greenhouse gas can be different than the other. they all have different absorbtion bands. bodies, big or small, emit and absorb different wavelengths. so co2 has a different effect than water vapor.

and it is about small numbers.
you people who are all about co2 killing the earht are trying to tell us that 0.000019% of the atmosphere is going to kill us because it is made up of plant food, and the stuff we exhale, and the stuff that is all over the place.

carbon is bad run run run!!!

i bet you were all about the global cooling crisis of the seventies? or have you people forgot about that???



and finally, wha tis funny about it all, is that for every argument i have, i can display a grphic, and for every argument you have you can too. because... drum roll here...

THERE IS NO SOLID SCIENCE HERE

it is all just speculation without proof or trial and error. some of the mechanics are solid, but no one, and i mean absolutely no one, can show irefutable evidence that humans are causing the globe to warm...



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
you need to do some research on the history of j. Hansen and his people in world of climate change. these are the scientists that manipulate data in order to skew opinion.


Yes, you think the scientists are frauds. Nice to know where you're coming from.


and no, i am not a technician. i am a regional forecaster. sheesh....


Okie doke, a weatherman/technician. I don't really care, lol. Hope you enjoy the job.


and yes, one greenhouse gas can be different than the other. they all have different absorbtion bands. bodies, big or small, emit and absorb different wavelengths. so co2 has a different effect than water vapor.


They do. But they are still GHGs. Indeed, the fact they are IR active at different wavelengths is pretty relevant for the importance of CO2.


and it is about small numbers.
you people who are all about co2 killing the earht are trying to tell us that 0.000019% of the atmosphere is going to kill us because it is made up of plant food, and the stuff we exhale, and the stuff that is all over the place.

carbon is bad run run run!!!


I don't think CO2 is killing the earth. I'm sure the earth will be fine.

Again, look up that microgram of polonium.


i bet you were all about the global cooling crisis of the seventies? or have you people forgot about that???


There wasn't a global cooling crisis in the 70s. There was a small number of researchers who thought that cooling modulated by aerosols might dominate. The majority were more wary of an enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2.


Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Article: pp. 1325–1337 | Abstract | PDF (4.13M)

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Thomas C. Petersona, William M. Connolleyb, and John Fleckc

a. NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
b. British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
c. Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico

DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


ABSTRACT
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.


It's in the journal of your own society. Perhaps you might spend some time catching up with such issues. Quite pertinent actually, considering the thread is some pathetic attempt to swiftboat Connolley: how very dare an expert help out on wikipedia!


and finally, wha tis funny about it all, is that for every argument i have, i can display a grphic, and for every argument you have you can too. because... drum roll here...

THERE IS NO SOLID SCIENCE HERE


It's not some tit-for-tat picture war. It's about the data. Producing misrepresenting data from the likes of D'Aleo's denier's den isn't a good thing. Again, did they teach you how to research in uni? To use the primary literature?


it is all just speculation without proof or trial and error. some of the mechanics are solid, but no one, and i mean absolutely no one, can show irefutable evidence that humans are causing the globe to warm...


I'll repeat exactly what I told profemeritus, that's not how science works. We leave claims of absolute proof and troof to maths and religion.

The data overwhelmingly supports an important human influence. The vast majority of climate scientists accept an important human influence. And all the major scientific organisations accept an important human influence.

And the fact that you are just pushing denier's fallacies and BS shows that your basic education and job experience isn't much use or of much weight in this area. I can get the same BS from a number of the scientifically ignorant.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by wx4caster
 


Thank you for your experience, knowledge, and common sense. Your post makes some excellent points. I would take YOUR opinion over Melatonin's any day. You didn't have to, but you gave your credentials, and all Melatonin can do is mock you, and others, while admitting that his academic record is pathetic. The problem with AGW advocates is that when they have no real retort, they resort to name-calling, and making comments about people's research abilities.
The bottom line, as you said, is that there is far more that we DON'T KNOW about what affects the climate, and to what degree those factors play in climate change.
Thank you very much for your experienced contribution to this thread. It is very much appreciated.


Here Here! Well said.

Melatonin, should really rethink your argument base. You just don't make any scientific sense.

Thank you Wx4caster for a very well placed stance!

[edit on 24-12-2009 by palg1]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Dude - explain why most of the northern hemisphere is currently posting record LOWS?????

Please?

CO2 rises unabated, everything says we should be getting warmer, yet we are clean out of whack with the predictions. Every year for the last decade it has been getting further and further from the record highs recorded in 1998. My area posted record lows in 2007. Scotland is close to doing it again this winter.

Moncton, Canada just posted record lows - minus 37°C.

How, if CO2 is the biggest reason in existance for warming, are we are getting COOLER (and not just a bit cooler - record cooler)?

[edit on 25-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Well, that's somewhat an improvement over the vacuous denier fanbois.


Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by melatonin
 


Dude - explain why most of the northern hemisphere is currently posting record LOWS?????

Please?


Why shouldn't we see a number of record lows in a number of places across the globe?

The index to watch is the overall effect. Although a recent study did actually examine the ratio of record highs to lows over the last few decades in the US:


"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

dinky-link


How, if CO2 is the biggest reason in existance for warming, are we are getting COOLER (and not just a bit cooler - record cooler)?


You do know that 2009 is very likely to be the second warmest year in the modern record for GISS, even warmer than 1998? That the last decade is also the warmest on record? That 2010 is quite likely to be the warmest on record if El Nino keeps doing its thang?

We expect to see a pattern of long-term warming overlaying short-term variations. What we don't really expect to see is every year being warmer than the last. That would be ridiculous, even the models don't expect that.

Happy Festivus to all, by the way.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chett
 


No, the AGW scammers just keep releasing their kooks/zombies to claim the Medieval Warm, Roman Warm, and even the LIA were not global in nature, and also make them deny that the Medieval, and Roman Warm periods were warmer than anything we saw on the 20th, and 21st century, even though we have dozens, upon dozens of peer-reviewed research data that shows these two periods were warmer, and gobal than anything we have seen so far....

We have had some of these people, like Melatonin, making these claims and as proof they would point to research made by Jones, Mann, et al, and their favorite website is "FakeClimate.org" I mean "RealClimate.org".... where Mann et al are directors of that website, and this is the same website that has links to Al Gore, and even this website "FakeClimate.org/RealClimate.org receives funding from none other than George Soros through Fenton, so the globalists have a great deal of investment on the AGW scam...

BTW, if you read the responses from Mann, et al at FakeClimate.org, I mean RealClimate.org they claim there is nothing nefarious about the emails, and their dying fans agree... Phew, who knew that talking about finding legal, and illegal ways not to release data because of FOIA, finding ways to discredit anyone that dares to publish any papers that refute the AGW SCAM, and talking even about doing anything, even changing the "peer-revirew process if necessary to keep people in the dark, among other things was "just your every day science ordeal"....


[edit on 26-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



WOW...first the AGW zombies would just claim "day to day weather" is just WEATHER which is different than CLIMATE, and now they reverse their tactics?


And of course the AGW zombies don't like to point out that the GLOBAL temperatures dropped at the same time the Sun's activity dropped, and then REAL scientists, and not kooks, found the following....


Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.



Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.

Galactic cosmic rays are speeding charged particles that include protons and heavier atomic nuclei. They come from outside the solar system, though their exact sources are still being debated.

www.newscientist.com...



But knowing that the AGW scammers used disinformation tactics, talked about finding legal, and even illegal ways not to release research data even if asked through the FOIA, they talked about getting rid of anyone who dared present any research refuting their AGW religion, even to change the meaning of the "peer-review process" among other things, we know they, and their AGW zombies/kooks will deny, deny, and deny any and every piece of information that refutes their AGW religion....



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





No, the AGW scammers just keep releasing their kooks/zombies to claim the Medieval Warm, Roman Warm, and even the LIA were not global in nature, and also make them deny that the Medieval, and Roman Warm periods were warmer than anything we saw on the 20th, and 21st century, even though we have dozens, upon dozens of peer-reviewed research data that shows these two periods were warmer, and gobal than anything we have seen so far....

Thank you for addressing the OP. That is the issue here, the attempt by the GW advocates to erase 400 years of history or to say that it was not global. No one can deny that those 400 resulted in a higher level of food production because of that global warming. Those 400 years, of course, were pre-industrial and unless the GW advocates believe that the cows caused the Medieval Warm, human beings were certainly not the cause of it. However, I am sure that they will fabricate something, if their efforts to erase that history is not successful.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Okie doke, a weatherman/technician. I don't really care, lol. Hope you enjoy the job.


His job is more important than anything a kook working for the AGW scammers will ever be able to contribute....


Originally posted by melatonin
Quite pertinent actually, considering the thread is some pathetic attempt to swiftboat Connolley: how very dare an expert help out on wikipedia!


Riiight...it's not like wikipedia has been found erasing, and editing the input from real scientists who doubt AGW....

It's not like wikipedia loves to show the numbers for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and water vapor that the AGW proponents claim, but not the real numbers as they try to brainwash those who don't know the fact that in the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer which is close to the Earth's surface where all weather occurs, and which contains about 70% of the atmospheric mass, and holds 99% of water vapor, CO2, and aerosols (man-made and natural) and it is this atmospheric layer which contributes to surface temperatures, and in this layer WATER VAPOR contributes to 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 and the rest of the ghgs contribute 2% - 5% of the greenhouse effect, as far as we know.

Since during warming cycles the level of water vapor increases naturally, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, there is a feedback effect caused by WATER VAPOR, yet the AGW proponents put the feedback effect on CO2, when water vapor is the real culprit for the feedback effect.



Originally posted by melatonin
It's not some tit-for-tat picture war. It's about the data. Producing misrepresenting data from the likes of D'Aleo's denier's den isn't a good thing. Again, did they teach you how to research in uni? To use the primary literature?


The only data that you people have are FLAWED computer models which do not take into account all the natural factors that affect the climate...



Originally posted by melatonin
The data overwhelmingly supports an important human influence. The vast majority of climate scientists accept an important human influence. And all the major scientific organisations accept an important human influence.


BS, scientists are silenced, they lose funding, and even their jobs for doubting AGW, and we have seen how at least two scientific groups which claim "all scientists agree", that they did not ask for the opinion of their member scientists...

For example the council of AGU, which consitst of about 16-18 people, decided to back the AGW scam without asking for the opinion of their 50,000 member scientists...

The editor-in-chief of largest scientific group in the world, the American Chemical Society (ACS) decided to claim "all our scientists agree with the AGW scam, except that he received hundreds of letters from his member scientists and the mayority say they disagree with the editor-in-chief claims...

www.climatedepot.com... amor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

I am sure if there was an investigation we would find the same thing happening in every scientific group that the AGW fans keep showing as "the concensus of scientists that they agree with us" is nothing more than another scam...

The AGW industry is a multimillion, if not multibillion industry, and scientific groups are getting funding if they agree with the AGW claim.

It is time for SCIENCE to triumph and for the scam of AGW to be buried at last.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 



This thread sounds like something out of a Michael Crichton novel.
Anyone read "State of Fear."



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lacenaire
 





Anyone read "State of Fear."

Yes, I did.
BTW, I agree to a very large extent with Crichton, who has stated publicly that we know VERY LITTLE about true long term climate change, and that the actually problem is virtually unsolvable with the lack of true knowledge at this point. Unfortunately, I doubt that the book will EVER be made into a movie, although I certainly think it SHOULD. Hollywood would never allow a book which clearly targets the SHAM behind GW to see the light of day. The movie would be a HUGE success, but this is a case where political agenda is more important to Hollywood than money. Even if a producer agreed to make it, you would have a hard time getting any named actors or actresses to agree to do the film. It is really a shame.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Winston Smith would be proud.
I often wonder if the race to digitize our history isn't for some nefarious purpose...stories like this only affirm my paranoia.





new topics
 
84
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join