Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Angus
Gtora2:
"Nothing you do will change it either way."

What exactly?

And BTW wasn't Churchill also a Politician? After all he saw and defined a threat, responded, fought, and then a little while later the USA found itself in the brew as well....

Guess he was overstating stuff....

Yeah he was a politican from a different era, one I would like to think was more honest.

Also Hitler was a real threat.  Global warming is not.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by bj229r
Point taken, but if a guy has a PHD and FIVE MASTERS, excuse me for listening to his opinion--and my point was more the level of hysteria with which he has BEEN beat down--dissenting views in this area are simply NOT allowed--
 

Sir, he has a PhD and 5 master's in aeronautical engineering.  He is well versed in preparing a vehicle for safe passage through said atmosphere, and outside of it.  His "opinion" on said matter should be taken no heavier nor lighter than if he offered an opinion on banking practices.  The danger herein, is people such as yourself designate his education as the end all, and since it concurs with your viewpoint, you determine he must be correct, and that it lends weight to your argument.  The reason he backed off his statements, is he realized he overstepped his position, and was irresponsible.  He is an engineer, and I get the impression he was steered into the response by the interviewer.  Yes, I think he was coerced a bit, to give that statement... maybe led, is a better word.  His opinon on the affects on any presence or lack of any gas in the atmosphere and it's affect on climate is negligible in it's worth.


When someone stands up with a hypothesis, AND supporting data, then I will look at it objectively, and so should you.  Currently, the hypothesis is testing out true, and their predictions are actually BEHIND what is going on.  Perhaps some of you should familiarize yourself with scientific papers, and not science column writers.  I know that reading a scientific paper can be tedious, but it is written that way in order to limit the amount of opinion.  Science writers, interpret papers written by authors into general language and disseminate it into the mainstream.  I feel alot of the real information is being lost in this interpretation process, myself.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Sir, he has a PhD and 5 master's in aeronautical engineering.  

Actually he has a PhD in Aerospace Science, and Masters in Aerospace Science,  Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Applied Physics, and Business Administration.

Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Terror
Looks like a Y2K bug hit the NASA temperature model.  Shows that 5 of 10 hottest years occured before WWII.... And 1934 out does 1998 as the hottest year on record.

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

Terror

You are posting a blogger site as a reference?  A guy by the name of "masher".  Give me a break.  He gives absolutely no way to backcheck his statistics, no way to cross reference. Even if his dispute is correct and now 1934 is the warmest year on record, also something very improbable...and any scientist will tell you, one plot on a graph is not indicative of anything, just looking at the data set he uses, (of which most are hidden, btw)  you CAN STILL SEE THE UPWARD TREND over the century.  

This individual is attempting to discredit on the basis of singular plot point flaws.  It is cheap, and anyone knowledgeable would laugh.  Unfortunately,  most americans don't think past the story they just read.  Technically speaking, he could be correct, yet there is no way to prove either.  I reserve my right to trash this reference, who obviously is taqking a cheap shot.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.

lol. I was trying to figure that out myself.

-Sik

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually he has a PhD in Aerospace Science, and Masters in Aerospace Science,  Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Applied Physics, and Business Administration.

Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.

You are absolutely correct, those are his list of accredited degrees.  I was saving time in my posts by not referencing them directly.  I was not aware my post was being dissected in such a way.  I used an amalgomation of his degrees to make my post shorter and therefore readable.  My apologies if I should be more concise.

I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by MORAY37
You are absolutely correct, those are his list of accredited degrees.  I was saving time in my posts by not referencing them directly.  I was not aware my post was being dissected in such a way.  I used an amalgomation of his degrees to make my post shorter and therefore readable.  My apologies if I should be more concise.

I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.

Would not the 'climatologists' and the 'meteorologists'be the folks who predicated the worst hurricane season EVER? Water was cooler, no hurricanes.....hmm 17 named storms were predicted....9 were created (and only 5 of those were hurricanes), and only one got into the Gulf. Obviously, a lot of things came together to squash the creation of storms, but it isn't hard to conclude that it's not a precise science, and some settling of contents may occur during handling

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.

In the mid 1970s, it would have been hard to find a hundred scientists with high ability and consistent dedication to solving the puzzles of climate change. Now as before, many of the most important new findings on climate came from people whose main work lay in other fields, from air pollution to space science, as temporary detours from their main concerns.

History of Climatology

[Angus]

News update. Nothing surprizing.
The N-arctic ice is below all-time low. Total all-time low, as well as sesonal. It's therefore going to put a new record every day for the next month or two.
In the meantime the forum people and the scientists are going to be pulling each others hairs in a fight for credibility.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
News update. Nothing surprizing.
The N-arctic ice is below all-time low.

What's your time scale on all time?

If all time is since say 1850, I would agree with you.

The ice in Eric the Red's time was at what level?

[bj229r]

Ozone layer, anyone?

[Angus]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What's your time scale on all time?

If all time is since say 1850, I would agree with you.

The ice in Eric the Red's time was at what level?

Actually, all time since the end of the Iceage.
However some glaciers on land were smaller in Eric's time. At least on the N-Arctic areas. Not sure of the alps.
And Ozone layer? Well, it was about to leave the party, but is now recovering a little.

[moot]

I noticed this in the news tubes: "Global warming and cooling linked to the sunspot cycle".  I'm a cheapo so I can't report anything more than what the non-subscriber teaser article says.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
Actually, all time since the end of the Iceage.
However some glaciers on land were smaller in Eric's time. At least on the N-Arctic areas. Not sure of the alps.
And Ozone layer? Well, it was about to leave the party, but is now recovering a little.

...and the stratospheric Ozone level in 1250 AD was...?

[lazs2]

moray... yep.. I noticed that you like to "save time" in your posts by not really saying anything.

nothing but...  you are a scientist and we are not... you read articles that are correct and we don't..  that anyone who disagrees doesn't have the right degrees...

Do you have a degree in climate?  did you know that more than 90% of the signatories on the UN document do not have any degree in the field of climate science?  Why should I listen to them?

19,000 scientists with advanced degrees think the math does not add up...  the leftie scientists are not even allowing debate.   They, like you, say... well... we can't give you numbers and we can't predict next week or nest year and... we are wrong about just about everything we have predicted so far but...  you just have to trust us... it is really bad and gonna get so bad that only we can save you.

How can our contribution to greenhouse gas of which 99.72% is natural, not man made... how can our tiny bit of contribution be causing the planet to heat?

how can any amount of reduction of our contribution make any difference?   30% of nothing is nothing.  

How is algore burning up 2500 bucks a month in oil and then paying someone to plant trees half a world away gonna help?

Why is it that only when it becomes obvious that the sun has a lot more to do with the heating of the planet 25-50% by even the most rabid co2 is king scientists... why is it that only when people nail em to the wall do they hastily put out some articles to say it is nothing and that just now studies are starting?

Just now starting to study the frigging sun?   You work in the ocean.. how much do you know about the expanding ocean floor and el nino and la nina?  

Not much.. because.. because no one does.. we do know that it radicaly changes climate tho... maybe we should take some of the co2 modelers off their fat butts and get em into looking at that.

The "deniers" have always said that the numbers don't add up.. that natural causes have to be the lions share of any climate change with man not capable of more than about a 1% or so part in any change.   1% of one degree or so in 100 years... all else being equal.  that would mean that nature co operated and stayed dormant.   the models are based on all warming in the last 100 years being only because of co2 rise.... not 25-50% of it being the sun or the rest being shifts in the planet of one kind or another.

They have assigned a weight to co2 that it can't have.

meanwhile... it has been a very mild winter here with less than normal rain and the temps for this summer have been some of the mildest on record.

lazs