Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.
Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.
If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.
Yikes
Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.
Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.
see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
As a meteorologist you read the weather and try and look pretty on TV. Sorry but climate and weather are two different things.
As for your curiosity concerning climate see previous link to IPCC predictions vs actual. ;--)
“Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?”
Both.
But it’s mostly political.
That’s why virtually everyone in denial is a conservative.
Conservatives who propagate the wrongheaded notion that addressing climate change will result in everyone being ‘forced’ to live in multifamily dwellings without A/C, massive job losses, and cars being ‘confiscated’ and driving ‘outlawed.’
The usual rightwing demagoguery and fear-mongering.
Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.
So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.
Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)
Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite
Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite
However, there is little agreement about the size or even the sign of the cloud feedback. Cloud feedback is the change in the net CRE that we can expect from a 1°C change in temperature. The models say that cloud feedback is a 0.69 ± 0.10 W/m2 INCREASE in downwelling radiation for each additional degree of temperature. In other words, if there is a small warming, the models say the clouds amplify it to make a large warming. This implies a positive correlation between temperature and the net CRE.
Fortunately, the CERES data can give us actual observational data regarding this question. Figure 2 shows the correlation between temperature and the net CRE.
....
This is very bad news for the models … they all claim that there is a positive correlation between CRE and temperature, which makes the model-projected warming much larger … but in fact the global average correlation is negative.
Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.
If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.
Yikes
Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.
Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.
see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
Show us a prediction that came true. I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed. It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly. How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991? Hmm? Or how about that ice free Arctic. How many years ago was it supposed to be open water? Hmmm?
No problem
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP0PjSvfbOAhUT32MKHYYlC18QFggcMAA&url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm&usg=AFQjCNE7zSj1vqvRMpK9tWt_5erzP_QRdg&sig2=DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Once again your phony claim has absolutely zero merit in reality.
And once again I'm betting you will ignore the actual science in favor of your preferred idiological based belief .
As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue
Any luck in your search?
Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )
So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.
He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.
If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.
the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry
He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.
So when Michael Mann claimed he won......he was lying.
If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.
The flaws go much further than Michael Mann's lies.
I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.
If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Yikes
Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.
Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.
see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
As a meteorologist you read the weather and try and look pretty on TV. Sorry but climate and weather are two different things.
As for your curiosity concerning climate see previous link to IPCC predictions vs actual. ;--)
And you ignore that I am an atmospheric physicist. Nice brush off and attempt to avoid the facts I posted.. Tell me again where your mid tropospheric hot spot is..
Love the mimicking Crick crap of "I gave you a link to the IPCC..."
Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.
If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Yikes
Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.
Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.
see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
Show us a prediction that came true. I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed. It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly. How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991? Hmm? Or how about that ice free Arctic. How many years ago was it supposed to be open water? Hmmm?
No problem
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP0PjSvfbOAhUT32MKHYYlC18QFggcMAA&url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm&usg=AFQjCNE7zSj1vqvRMpK9tWt_5erzP_QRdg&sig2=DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Once again your phony claim has absolutely zero merit in reality.
And once again I'm betting you will ignore the actual science in favor of your preferred idiological based belief .
This is a joke right? The facts are that the global temps have not gone up save in the feverish imaginations, and falsified data sets that these clowns release. If you look at the local weather records they all show either no increase or a slight decrease in temperature. It's only when they are all amalgamated that they suddenly show a rise in temp. The magic of science fiction.
Too funny..I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
As a meteorologist you read the weather and try and look pretty on TV. Sorry but climate and weather are two different things.
As for your curiosity concerning climate see previous link to IPCC predictions vs actual. ;--)
And you ignore that I am an atmospheric physicist. Nice brush off and attempt to avoid the facts I posted.. Tell me again where your mid tropospheric hot spot is..
Love the mimicking Crick crap of "I gave you a link to the IPCC..."
Which just goes to prove you are refusing to follow the links provided. I linked to Skepticalscience, not the IPCC concerning the IPCC accuracy issue.
There is no issue. The IPCC is extremely accurate in its climate predictions, yes, many of which are based off model projections.
PS if you are an atmospheric physicist, please link to what papers you have had peer reviewed and published that refute the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ;--) or do you have nothing to say to your peers that might actually be anything other than ideological based denial
Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?
The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?
I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.
So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.
Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)
Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite
Where exactly does it warm? And who has that data?LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious
Interesting, so your technique is to declare the other guy a "know nothing" and bail out of the conversation. Thats a great scientific argument, lets go with that.
What would happen if attempted to publish a refutation on a paper and that was the body of your work ?
Do you think the review board would even remotely consider that a valid position ? I mean if you are all that familiar with getting work published, surely you'd present a better argument. ;--)
Maybe you can explain to us how the increase in CO2 won''t lead to warming.
I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you
So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?
Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?
Have you ever actually studied climate science ?
Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?
As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"
Really ??????
And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?
This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.
Brilliant, simply brilliant
You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day
LOL you know nothing of my track record but are instead descending into personal insults as just another avoidance.
The fact is if you add greenhouse gassed to the atmosphere you inevitably end up with warming. Considering the residency time of that material and you end up with an overall change in the climate system.
Its really quite simple.
So what is this about my track record again ???? ;--)
fact is you have no viable argument against the theory of rapid global climate change
Any luck in your search?
Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )
So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.
He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.
If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.
the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry
He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.
So when Michael Mann claimed he won......he was lying.
If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.
The flaws go much further than Michael Mann's lies.
LOL you are clinging with a death grip to a false accusation in leu of facing the subject at hand. Mann's site does not claim "he" won a Nobel, it claims he was a coauthor of a work that won a Nobel. You are desperately making mountains out of mole hills.
The facts are what they are, tens of thousands of scientists have all come to the same conclusion in what's the largest consensus view of any science. Hell the theory of gravity doesn't have a 98+% consensus.
The science is in, the predictions are accurate, the empirical evidence is overwhelming, yet you go on and on about one man and a presumed claim.
Pretty lame excuses in the denial world these days
Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?
LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.
Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)
Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance
Show us a prediction that came true. I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed. It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly. How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991? Hmm? Or how about that ice free Arctic. How many years ago was it supposed to be open water? Hmmm?
No problem
See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjP0PjSvfbOAhUT32MKHYYlC18QFggcMAA&url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm&usg=AFQjCNE7zSj1vqvRMpK9tWt_5erzP_QRdg&sig2=DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc
Once again your phony claim has absolutely zero merit in reality.
And once again I'm betting you will ignore the actual science in favor of your preferred idiological based belief .
This is a joke right? The facts are that the global temps have not gone up save in the feverish imaginations, and falsified data sets that these clowns release. If you look at the local weather records they all show either no increase or a slight decrease in temperature. It's only when they are all amalgamated that they suddenly show a rise in temp. The magic of science fiction.
You are hallucinating, the four major temp studies all agree, there is significant warming. Even the Berkley Earth study, which actually found a touch MORE warming
See
