Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In some cases what you say is true, certainly.
But that whole "heat island" excuse is pretty much dead, except for the die hard deniers.

Can I chalk you up for one who doesn't think the world is warming then?

Not exactly. I don't view this as a one side or the other issue. I don't believe human emissions are contributing to a warming Earth. I think humans are contributing to warmer spots at the surface via development, but I also believe temperature changes are cyclic in nature. We'll start cooling down sooner or later, and in man's terms it may take a long while, but in geologic terms it could happen "tomorrow." no telling, too many variables and factors I don't even believe mankind understands yet.

It's SUPER obvious the sun is the biggest player driving climate change in either direction

www.loc.gov...

During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures.

During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!

it's alllllll about the sun

a reply to: DBCowboy

Can I ask why you believe Google is your friend ? There's so many different opinions and pages you can pick and choose the ones that fit your beliefs.

So Google is not your friend .

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: DBCowboy

Can I ask why you believe Google is your friend ?

Google helped me pack and once drove me to the airport.

There's so many different opinions and pages you can pick and choose the ones that fit your beliefs.

Then people should stop calling it science and start calling it opinion.

So Google is not your friend .

Google once lent me 20 bucks.

We're bro's.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

Go find out yourself. You're not here for a rational debate. You well know the immensity of what you request, as you point out with your 'little hint.'

Your line of inquiry is irrelevant anyway, because you cannot disprove the simple underpinnings of human-induced climate change:
Humans are emitting massive amounts of CO2.
A large portion of the CO2 that humans emit is sticking around in the atmosphere.
CO2 redistributes heat in the atmosphere nearer to the surface.
Ergo, humans are inducing warming.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Touche, lol

a reply to: burdman30ott6

What do you think about satellite data which shows warming.
Ocean heat content?

a reply to: toysforadults

it's alllllll about the sun

So, the Sun is getting hotter?
That would seem to be a pretty easy thing to provide evidence for.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In some cases what you say is true, certainly.
But that whole "heat island" excuse is pretty much dead, except for the die hard deniers.

Can I chalk you up for one who doesn't think the world is warming then?

Not exactly. I don't view this as a one side or the other issue. I don't believe human emissions are contributing to a warming Earth. I think humans are contributing to warmer spots at the surface via development, but I also believe temperature changes are cyclic in nature. We'll start cooling down sooner or later, and in man's terms it may take a long while, but in geologic terms it could happen "tomorrow." no telling, too many variables and factors I don't even believe mankind understands yet.

It's SUPER obvious the sun is the biggest player driving climate change in either direction

www.loc.gov...

During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures.

During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!

it's alllllll about the sun

The Sun has not appreciably changed in terms of total solar irradiance. It fluctuates a tiny bit from year-to-year - two Watts per square meter out of 1360ish.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

Go find out yourself. You're not here for a rational debate. You well know the immensity of what you request, as you point out with your 'little hint.'

Your line of inquiry is irrelevant anyway, because you cannot disprove the simple underpinnings of human-induced climate change:
Humans are emitting massive amounts of CO2.
A large portion of the CO2 that humans emit is sticking around in the atmosphere.
CO2 redistributes heat in the atmosphere nearer to the surface.
Ergo, humans are inducing warming.

I looked. I have done due diligence. There isn't any paper or papers out that would answer my questions.

I question things because I am a trained engineer, a scientist.


I don't take things on faith or simply believe. That's called religion.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: toysforadults

it's alllllll about the sun

So, the Sun is getting hotter?
That would seem to be a pretty easy thing to provide evidence for.

I never said the sun was getting hotter did I?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you think you were the first to think of that? Steps were taken along time ago to mitigate the effects of the terrain. Heres is thr rules airports must follow

pretty straight-forward.

1. Sensor must be 5 feet above the ground (+/- 1 foot).
2. Must be over a level terrain with an open area clearing so the thermometers are freely ventilated by air flow.
3. Sensor should be no closer than 4 times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.).
4. Sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.

a reply to: toysforadults

I never said the sun was getting hotter did I?

No. You didn't

So you don't think the Sun has anything to do with the current warming trend? You're on board with the science then. Good for you.

a reply to: Phage

I made no comment on whether it's warmer or cooler? I accept climate change, I'm skeptical of the cause and the doom porn aspect of it.

What I did was simple at that time. I downloaded the data they used themselves to come to averages. Did it for three months if I recall right and in each case the monthly average was 3 dergrees lower than the number coming from them. It obviously was not calculated from raw data, so it was weighted.

I'm just providing where my thoughts come from on this.

After the brainwashing about global cooling in college, the emails that exposed data about trees being faked by using data from another geographical location, the carbon credits scam that even global warming enthusiasts now admit to and knowing the competition for research dollars is intense, I've come to the conclusion I hold now.

Climate change is the norm and always has been. Researches can't always be trusted to be up front as they fight for every research dollar and politicians, well they lie and twist it for political reasons.

We should be planning for what might become a problem in the next hundred years or more, instead of this endless debate over minutia.

a reply to: Phage

stop putting words in my mouth, stop creating strawmen and then responding to something I never said it looks ridiculous

it's like talking to yourself

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I have read.

Show me, post me, answer my questions.

Google is your friend.

Little hint, you won't be able to answer my questions.

Go find out yourself. You're not here for a rational debate. You well know the immensity of what you request, as you point out with your 'little hint.'

Your line of inquiry is irrelevant anyway, because you cannot disprove the simple underpinnings of human-induced climate change:
Humans are emitting massive amounts of CO2.
A large portion of the CO2 that humans emit is sticking around in the atmosphere.
CO2 redistributes heat in the atmosphere nearer to the surface.
Ergo, humans are inducing warming.

I looked. I have done due diligence. There isn't any paper or papers out that would answer my questions.

I question things because I am a trained engineer, a scientist.


I don't take things on faith or simply believe. That's called religion.

The physics is irrefutable - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just as H2O in the air is:

Humans are burning millions of barrels of oil a day.
Burning carbon combines C with O2, reducing O2 and increasing CO2 over time:


Ergo, humans are inducing climate change.

Arguing about the imprecision of equipment is a smokescreen. Can you argue against this?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Xtrozero

Please show me Boston Temps in the range you state. I looked and didn't see them.

What's Boston?

originally posted by: Greven

Ergo, humans are inducing climate change.

Arguing about the imprecision of equipment is a smokescreen. Can you argue against this?

Actually its the Chinese...

a reply to: Greven

what you are putting out there is a total falsification because the earth actually responses to this by creating more plant life (carbon based life forms) that then circulate more oxygen it's like a big cycle

a reply to: Blaine91555

Did it for three months if I recall right and in each case the monthly average was 3 dergrees lower than the number coming from them.

As I implied, perhaps your idea of what a "monthly average" is was different from theirs.

We should be planning for what might become a problem in the next hundred years or more, instead of this endless debate over minutia.

There are things being said about adaptation by the government. That's good. But, as you know, I think actions can be taken which will slow the rate of change. Allowing more time do, perhaps, do something about adaption.