Why do so many people deny climate change

[JoeNormal]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Hey Rott, where ya been buddy? It's been a while since I've seen you put your 80 point IQ on full display. You know, if you want to participate, there's a whole thread devoted to the Ice Cap thing. Of course, it's been fully thrashed but I'm sure that won't stop you from stepping in it.

 

[JoeNormal]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

Rottweiler and NPR? As well intentioned as this suggestion is, I'm sure he thinks they're a bunch of intellectually elite communists.

 

[PMZ]

From Wikipedia on Antarctica.

''The lowest reliably measured temperature on Earth of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) was in Vostok on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[2][3] For comparison, this is 11 °C colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 14.6°C (58.3°F) in two places, Hope Bay and Vanda Station, on 5 January 1974.[4] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −28°C (−18.4°F) in August to −3°C (26.6°F) in January.[citation needed] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3°C (9.9°F) on 25 December 2011.[5] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15°C (59°F) have been recorded, though the summer temperature is usually around 2°C (36°F). Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation. The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.''

Denialists have been instructed to express surprise that the ice and snow are not melting there.

Surely there must be a 12 step program for entertainment media addiction.

 

[P@triot]

I

Another Dunning Kruger poster boy. Big oil has you completely wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like fiddle.

The link is there my friend. READ it. How do you explain that?

Seems to me [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] big "green energy" corporations have you wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like a fiddle. Al Gore is laughing all the way to his multi-billion dollar bank account...

This is the Y2K scare tactic all over again. Al Gore knew that liberals never learn from history...

The most compelling science the denialists can come up with is that Al Gore is rich and Antarctica is cold. Both evidence and explanation of the ease of misleading them.

Yeah - and people like you said Antarctica would be melted by now...

By the way, don't forget TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" in which "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) were caught in emails talking about how they LIE and falsify data to dupe weak-minded lap-dogs like [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION]...

 

[P@triot]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Hey Rott, where ya been buddy? It's been a while since I've seen you put your 80 point IQ on full display. You know, if you want to participate, there's a whole thread devoted to the Ice Cap thing. Of course, it's been fully thrashed but I'm sure that won't stop you from stepping in it.

Hey JN - how've you been? You surviving the post-apocalyptic Y2K crisis ok? You haven't lost your tinfoil hat I hope? After all, tinfoil is no longer available now that we no longer have stores or computers. And how in the hell would you keep up with all of the fear mongering conspiracies like Y2K and climate "change" without it?

 

[westwall]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort. What do you suppose is the common source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?

Some common source is feeding the misinformation to the cult and they are lapping it up like it made sense.

Ignore science and embrace pseudoscience. How bizarre.

A grander example of D-K effect would be hard to find.

 

[westwall]

From Wikipedia on Antarctica.

''The lowest reliably measured temperature on Earth of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) was in Vostok on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[2][3] For comparison, this is 11 °C colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 14.6°C (58.3°F) in two places, Hope Bay and Vanda Station, on 5 January 1974.[4] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −28°C (−18.4°F) in August to −3°C (26.6°F) in January.[citation needed] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3°C (9.9°F) on 25 December 2011.[5] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15°C (59°F) have been recorded, though the summer temperature is usually around 2°C (36°F). Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation. The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.''

Denialists have been instructed to express surprise that the ice and snow are not melting there.

Surely there must be a 12 step program for entertainment media addiction.

Sure thing D-K poster boy.....This is what you global warmers have to say... Interestingly enough their observations don't seem to jibe with reality.... yet again.


West Antarctic Glacier Rapidly Melting - Science News - redOrbit

Global warming is melting Greenland and Antarctic ice and contributing to sea level rise

Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say

 

[PMZ]

I

The link is there my friend. READ it. How do you explain that?

Seems to me [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] big "green energy" corporations have you wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like a fiddle. Al Gore is laughing all the way to his multi-billion dollar bank account...

This is the Y2K scare tactic all over again. Al Gore knew that liberals never learn from history...

The most compelling science the denialists can come up with is that Al Gore is rich and Antarctica is cold. Both evidence and explanation of the ease of misleading them.

Yeah - and people like you said Antarctica would be melted by now...

By the way, don't forget TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" in which "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) were caught in emails talking about how they LIE and falsify data to dupe weak-minded lap-dogs like [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION]...

''Yeah - and people like you said Antarctica would be melted by now.''

Screams for evidence. Alas, there is none. Merely one more thing that you wish was true. Unfortunately for conservatives, telling lies does not make them true regardless of what Rush told you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the problem right here.

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand, much less contribute to, climate science.

It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU...

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming" get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results..

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..

If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate.

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

 

[flacaltenn]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort.

Silly goose.. NOBODY needs to do the job of discrediting the IPCC.. They are doing a SUPERB job of that themselves..

What do you suppose is the common source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?

Really?? "Trivialities of Antarctic ice" ??? Are you that desperate to hang on to your religious beliefs?? "Not connected in ANY WAY" ??? How about a link for that??

 

[PMZ]

It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU...

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming" get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results..

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..

If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate.

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

Power always includes time. It's the rate of doing work. Watts are units of energy. Watts per meter*2 is energy flux, not power.

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.

 

[PMZ]

For Rottweiler:

You said:
The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics. He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it. It was worthwhile.

In the meantime? In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread. Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that. In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment. I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words.

K.

One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort.

Silly goose.. NOBODY needs to do the job of discrediting the IPCC.. They are doing a SUPERB job of that themselves..

What do you suppose is the common source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?

Really?? "Trivialities of Antarctic ice" ??? Are you that desperate to hang on to your religious beliefs?? "Not connected in ANY WAY" ??? How about a link for that??

If global warming ever gets enough to melt significant Antarctic ice, the rest of the world would be cooked. Everybody understands that except you who merely follow a script.

 

[PMZ]

It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU...

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming" get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results..

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..

If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate.

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

''TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??''

Tell us why nothing that you believe has any science behind it, not to mention ''full scientific paper''(whatever that's supposed to mean), not to mention theory, data, experimental evidence, resources. Absolutely nothing but what a talking fat head told you to believe.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate.

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

Power always includes time. It's the rate of doing work. Watts are units of energy. Watts per meter*2 is energy flux, not power.

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.

I'd quit before you lose any last ounce of integrity.. But you won't..

Watt-hours or Watt-seconds would be ENERGY. When you DIVIDE by time as in d(energy)/d(time) you get watts --- a unit of POWER...

You are Flat wrong -- dumbass.

A lightbulb power is in Watts --- It's energy consumption is in W-hrs. A Joule (energy) is a Watt-sec. Or Joule/sec requires a watt of power.

Before you go back on ignore for your ignore--ance. Let's get something else straight. Why do you think academics chose the phrase "defending your thesis" to describe the rite of passage to an advanced degree?

Do you think that panel of lazy overpaid academics passing judgement on you is REQUIRED to have BETTER ANSWER to that esoteric problem you've been thrashing on for years?

NO --- they are NOT REQUIRED to have a better answer. They are only required to MAKE YOU DEFEND your work and tear it to shreds when possible to appear interested in your work. So you show your ignorance of the process by suggesting that skeptics NEED to pony up alternate explanations before they destroy the current fad theory.

Don't know where you got your "science" background. But I'd get a refund...

 

[westwall]

One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort.

Silly goose.. NOBODY needs to do the job of discrediting the IPCC.. They are doing a SUPERB job of that themselves..

What do you suppose is the common source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?

Really?? "Trivialities of Antarctic ice" ??? Are you that desperate to hang on to your religious beliefs?? "Not connected in ANY WAY" ??? How about a link for that??

If global warming ever gets enough to melt significant Antarctic ice, the rest of the world would be cooked. Everybody understands that except you who merely follow a script.

Oh, looky...pms is moving the goalposts yet again... How unsurprising. The reality D-K boy is you asshats have claimed that the Arctic and Antarctic are the "cannaries in the coal mine" which means D-K boy that they will melt first! Thus giving you that warning so you can escape the mine.


Of course you have to go back to the past posts that you idiots made because now you are feverishly rewriting the tripe you posted back then so you don't look like complete fools but as usual you forget that once it's out there...you can't bury it...

Jackasses...
Bob McKerrow - Wayfarer: Ice is the canary in the coal mine for global warming

Polar bears focus of Senate hearing - US news - Environment | NBC News

http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opens...tic_Peninsula_Canary_in_a_coal_mine_OER_4.pdf

"Canary in the Coal Mine" Pointing to Warming - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums


I can go on and on and on...but what's the point. You dumbasses will just cover your eyes and ears and go "lalalalalala" so that you aren't exposed to facts.

 

[westwall]

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

Power always includes time. It's the rate of doing work. Watts are units of energy. Watts per meter*2 is energy flux, not power.

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.

I'd quit before you lose any last ounce of integrity.. But you won't..

Watt-hours or Watt-seconds would be ENERGY. When you DIVIDE by time as in d(energy)/d(time) you get watts --- a unit of POWER...

You are Flat wrong -- dumbass.

A lightbulb power is in Watts --- It's energy consumption is in W-hrs. A Joule (energy) is a Watt-sec. Or Joule/sec requires a watt of power.

Before you go back on ignore for your ignore--ance. Let's get something else straight. Why do you think academics chose the phrase "defending your thesis" to describe the rite of passage to an advanced degree?

Do you think that panel of lazy overpaid academics passing judgement on you is REQUIRED to have BETTER ANSWER to that esoteric problem you've been thrashing on for years?

NO --- they are NOT REQUIRED to have a better answer. They are only required to MAKE YOU DEFEND your work and tear it to shreds when possible to appear interested in your work. So you show your ignorance of the process by suggesting that skeptics NEED to pony up alternate explanations before they destroy the current fad theory.

Don't know where you got your "science" background. But I'd get a refund...

He got it from the back of the cereal box his mom tossed down into the basement for him...

 

[PMZ]

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

Power always includes time. It's the rate of doing work. Watts are units of energy. Watts per meter*2 is energy flux, not power.

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.

I'd quit before you lose any last ounce of integrity.. But you won't..

Watt-hours or Watt-seconds would be ENERGY. When you DIVIDE by time as in d(energy)/d(time) you get watts --- a unit of POWER...

You are Flat wrong -- dumbass.

A lightbulb power is in Watts --- It's energy consumption is in W-hrs. A Joule (energy) is a Watt-sec. Or Joule/sec requires a watt of power.

Before you go back on ignore for your ignore--ance. Let's get something else straight. Why do you think academics chose the phrase "defending your thesis" to describe the rite of passage to an advanced degree?

Do you think that panel of lazy overpaid academics passing judgement on you is REQUIRED to have BETTER ANSWER to that esoteric problem you've been thrashing on for years?

NO --- they are NOT REQUIRED to have a better answer. They are only required to MAKE YOU DEFEND your work and tear it to shreds when possible to appear interested in your work. So you show your ignorance of the process by suggesting that skeptics NEED to pony up alternate explanations before they destroy the current fad theory.

Don't know where you got your "science" background. But I'd get a refund...

Try not to hurt yourself learning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget

 

[PMZ]

And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap..

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature"..

TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY???

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper..

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has.

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..

Power always includes time. It's the rate of doing work. Watts are units of energy. Watts per meter*2 is energy flux, not power.

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.

I'd quit before you lose any last ounce of integrity.. But you won't..

Watt-hours or Watt-seconds would be ENERGY. When you DIVIDE by time as in d(energy)/d(time) you get watts --- a unit of POWER...

You are Flat wrong -- dumbass.

A lightbulb power is in Watts --- It's energy consumption is in W-hrs. A Joule (energy) is a Watt-sec. Or Joule/sec requires a watt of power.

Before you go back on ignore for your ignore--ance. Let's get something else straight. Why do you think academics chose the phrase "defending your thesis" to describe the rite of passage to an advanced degree?

Do you think that panel of lazy overpaid academics passing judgement on you is REQUIRED to have BETTER ANSWER to that esoteric problem you've been thrashing on for years?

NO --- they are NOT REQUIRED to have a better answer. They are only required to MAKE YOU DEFEND your work and tear it to shreds when possible to appear interested in your work. So you show your ignorance of the process by suggesting that skeptics NEED to pony up alternate explanations before they destroy the current fad theory.

Don't know where you got your "science" background. But I'd get a refund...

It is an interesting point. I could not find anyone calling it earth's power budget. Everyone calls it earth's energy budget.

Here's why I think that's true.

By definition, a budget is an accounting of something for a period of time. Most often for financials the period might be a year or a month.

Also, because we expect the sun to shine on earth for billions of years, there really is no sense, ever, in talking about the total energy the earth has or will receive from the sun. It's the rate that is important. And that is power.

So, we could, and maybe should, say that the power incident on the earth from the sun at the TOA is 1,360 watts per sq meter, for those sq meters that are perpendicular to the sun's rays. If our budget is defined as each second, then we can say the same thing, in another way, that for each budget period the incoming solar energy is 1,360 joules per sq meter. Or, sometimes we say that if we consider the fact that the poles get less direct rays, and it takes 24 hours to illuminate the whole earth, and a year to run through all of the seasons, than over a year the average sq meter has 260 watts per sq meter of power incident upon it, or 260 joules of energy per sec.

So somehow science decided to call it an energy budget but express it in units of power, the rate of energy change. Not, I don't believe, because scientists don't understand units as you would like to believe. But to use terms that the average man in the street has a chance to understand.

 

[Abraham3]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

 

[itfitzme]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.