So, You still say the science is settled?

[LyraM45 0]

lawrocket

***

Quote

Well, a TV weatherman (who is NOT a climate scientist) backed up by 9,000 PhDs (but in what? Maybe history, literature or womens' studies) is clearly a definitive source.

Naaa, but you can believe a physics professor.

People who don't know what climate science is about tend to think that the Ph.D. Is important. Like unless you've got a ph.D. In climate science you've got no business commenting.

That's like saying that climate models aren't done by computer engineers, so shouldn't be regarded. James Hansen was an astrophysicist.

Think meteorologists don't know about mathematics? Chemistry? Atmospheric physics? Computer modeling? Clouds? Remote sensing? Instrument siting?

I suggest they do. And I think that meteorology is vital to climatology.

And who is it who is the arbiter of who is qualified or not to comment?

I am not huge on jumping in on the climate debate. I try to stay out of it and I'm pretty open to both sides. But I can tell you about my meteorology degree-- it's definitely a physics/chemistry/math degree. If only somebody had warned me as a bright eyed bushy tailed 18 year old going for a met degree because they wanted to learn about clouds and why all this cool shit happens around us

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[rushmc 23]

kallend

*********http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/26/Report-US-Having-Coolest-Year-On-Record

So, this article references CO2 levels. Which I do not, and have never disputed (hence my baiting comment to you because you know this)
But the rest of the article is interesting too

You in addition to you and Brenthutch, Breitbart ALSO can't tell the difference between the USA and the world as a whole.

Ah. I think it was you that brought up th CA drought?

Yes, it is a nice example of the difference between weather and climate. Maybe you could learn something from it.

So, in your mind, a drought in CA is climate
But temps for the year in the US are weather


Got it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Just doing some reading about the start of this AWG debate
The originator of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not mentioned much
Seems he changed his mind about the effects and said he was wrong regarding his 1957 report

Roger Revelle is this man if anyone cares to look into it for themselves

I am sure the alarmists will demonize him here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

************http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/26/Report-US-Having-Coolest-Year-On-Record

So, this article references CO2 levels. Which I do not, and have never disputed (hence my baiting comment to you because you know this)
But the rest of the article is interesting too

You in addition to you and Brenthutch, Breitbart ALSO can't tell the difference between the USA and the world as a whole.

Ah. I think it was you that brought up th CA drought?

Yes, it is a nice example of the difference between weather and climate. Maybe you could learn something from it.

So, in your mind, a drought in CA is climate
But temps for the year in the US are weather


Got it

A condition that lasts for years is not just "weather".

A condition that affects just the USA is not "global".

I realize that you are not in a position to understand this.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***************http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/26/Report-US-Having-Coolest-Year-On-Record

So, this article references CO2 levels. Which I do not, and have never disputed (hence my baiting comment to you because you know this)
But the rest of the article is interesting too

You in addition to you and Brenthutch, Breitbart ALSO can't tell the difference between the USA and the world as a whole.

Ah. I think it was you that brought up th CA drought?

Yes, it is a nice example of the difference between weather and climate. Maybe you could learn something from it.

So, in your mind, a drought in CA is climate
But temps for the year in the US are weather


Got it

A condition that lasts for years is not just "weather".

A condition that affects just the USA is not "global".



I am glad you posted this
but
You do know that climate scientists do say that there are 30 to 40 year WEATHER cycles

You do know that there have been localized droughts here in the us since weather records have been taken
You do know that we have had droughts here in the US (that lasted years) longe before mans CO2 input had begun

One thing I do know
When YOU do post about your beliefs, you rarely ever post them again



Thanks John
Been a good morning

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

I was wrong

someimes, you WILL post your beliefs again



Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

***weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

I was wrong



Some things never change.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

I was wrong



Some things never change.



I get it John

A multi year drought (in your estimation) is climate


This is good stuff



Priceless John
keep em coming

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

rushmc

*********weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

I was wrong



Some things never change.



I get it John

A multi year drought (in your estimation) is climate


This is good stuff



Priceless John
keep em coming

When compared with the precipitation records for the entire recorded history of California, it is a pretty good indicator.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

************weath·er
ˈweT͟Hər/
noun

The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

A multi-year drought is NOT weather.

I was wrong



Some things never change.



I get it John

A multi year drought (in your estimation) is climate


This is good stuff



Priceless John
keep em coming

When compared with the precipitation records for the entire recorded history of California, it is a pretty good indicator.



Multi year droughts are recorded all over the planet
Many long before CO2 was even considered

And now YOU claim this is a man made issue??

Keep posting

Please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/02/california-megadrought/14446195/

As of Aug. 28, 100% of the state of California was considered to be in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than 58% is in "exceptional" drought, the worst level. Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reports.

So you are claiming that the worst prolonged drought in western north America for 850 years is just "weather".

Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Just weather, defined as condition of the atmosphere local to a time and place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/02/california-megadrought/14446195/

As of Aug. 28, 100% of the state of California was considered to be in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than 58% is in "exceptional" drought, the worst level. Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reports.

So you are claiming that the worst prolonged drought in western north America for 850 years is just "weather".

Got it.

Hey John
I fully understant your position as you post it here and all I can say is thank you

Keep posting

We also see that a states hottest year is climate (to you anyway , per YOUR post), but the US having one of its coolest years on record is weather

Got that too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,112]

>Just doing some reading about the start of this AWG debate
>The originator of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not mentioned much
>Seems he changed his mind about the effects and said he was wrong regarding
>his 1957 report

"The originator of CO2 being a greenhouse gas" was Svante Arrhenius. From Wikipedia:

==========
Greenhouse effect

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
============

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Just doing some reading about the start of this AWG debate
>The originator of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is not mentioned much
>Seems he changed his mind about the effects and said he was wrong regarding
>his 1957 report

"The originator of CO2 being a greenhouse gas" was Svante Arrhenius. From Wikipedia:

==========
Greenhouse effect

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
============

the paper that started the AWG bs was written by the person I referenced
10 years later he stated he was wrong and the CO2 have very little impact as a greenhouse gas

Looking at his position on CO2 today and the temp records we have been seeing for the last 18 plus years, I would say he got it right in the end

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

10 years later he stated he was wrong and the CO2 have very little impact as a greenhouse gas

Source?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,112]

>the paper that started the AWG bs was written by the person I referenced

Svante Arrhenius published his paper on CO2 as a greenhouse gas in 1896, and discussed the warming of the Earth's climate brought about by burning coal. Roger Revelle was born in 1909.

>10 years later he stated he was wrong and the CO2 have very little impact as a
>greenhouse gas

No, he didn't. Fred Singer, a paid denier, added his name to a climate change denial paper, published after Reveille died.

Here's what Reveille's teaching partner had to say about Singer's unethical actions:

====================
This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.
======================

Here's what his family had to say about that:
=========
Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. [...] Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look before you leap," but he never said "sit on your hands."
===========

However I will admit that adding someone's name to your paper and publishing it after they died is a great tactic. They can't really object, can they?

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***************http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/26/Report-US-Having-Coolest-Year-On-Record

So, this article references CO2 levels. Which I do not, and have never disputed (hence my baiting comment to you because you know this)
But the rest of the article is interesting too

You in addition to you and Brenthutch, Breitbart ALSO can't tell the difference between the USA and the world as a whole.

Ah. I think it was you that brought up th CA drought?

Yes, it is a nice example of the difference between weather and climate. Maybe you could learn something from it.

So, in your mind, a drought in CA is climate
But temps for the year in the US are weather


Got it

A condition that lasts for years is not just "weather".

A condition that affects just the USA is not "global".

I realize that you are not in a position to understand this.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

You gonna rebuke Barbara Boxer and the Huffington Post for this utter piece of tripe?
[Url]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6043706[/url]

Straight-up alarmism. The hardcore politician that exemplifies why deniers exist. If there was any degree of political sensibility then it would not be an issue. But this is what is at stake.

If science had anything to do with the justification for the shit people like Boxer pulling, like a tax on carbon. Meanwhile, the science is settled that the effect of it over at least the next couple of centuries will be jack and shit. Where are the 97% who would speak out against this crap? Nowhere. Think the new GISS chief Gavin would say, "I don't want funding for climate studies if it comes from these bullshit justifications?" I'd think he wouldn't say that. At all.

It's not an effort to make the environment any better. It's an effort to destroy one sector of industry, help out a competitor, and have government as the middleman taking money from everyone and dishing it out to others.

And it's an effort to further make politics an adjunct for science.

Why do I fall closer on the denier side? Because people like Boxer have been running climate policy. Of course, anyone who disagrees with armageddon predictions is considered a denier/heretic/contrarian/misinformer..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,594]

If science had anything to do with the justification for the shit people like Boxer pulling, like a tax on carbon, what?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,147]

lawrocket

You gonna rebuke Barbara Boxer and the Huffington Post for this utter piece of tripe?


..

Where did Sen. Boxer receive her degree in climate science, meteorology, physics or chemistry?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***
You gonna rebuke Barbara Boxer and the Huffington Post for this utter piece of tripe?


..

Where did Sen. Boxer receive her degree in climate science, meteorology, physics or chemistry?

she is as qualified as you think yourself to be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Ah yes I read that too. The items about what Revelles family said then

Good cherry picking on your part
Since you looked that up would you care to add the parts about the liable law suit and the last paper Mr Revelle was involved in?

Or not........

Edited to add
Not claiming anything
I am only saying there is more to the story than you post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

In case anyone is interested

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=94-P13-00008&segmentID=1

The back and forth in this link kind of goes along with what lawrocket states here often


It appears Reveille continued to look at the topic but was very wary of the alarmists of the day

But of course Al Gore agrees with you
That should help

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

You are always looking for experts

Quote

Climate change is happening – but not because of human activity, Daniel Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California Santa Barbara has said. Moreover, the focus on man-made global warming is detracting attention from real environmental disasters to nature’s detriment, he has argued.

Writing on the National Parks Traveler, a website dedicated to America’s national parks, Botkin challenges the conclusions reached by the Union of Concerned Scientists in their paper National Landmarks at Risk, How Rising Seas, Floods, and Wildfires Are Threatening the United States’ Most Cherished Historic Sites, not least because they’ve taken the standard reports from the IPCC and others, “treating them as accurate and true,” and then used those results to look at the possible outcome for various national parks.

“The point of the report, its opening theme and its major conclusion, is that these historic places are in trouble and it’s our fault, we have been the bad guys interfering with nature and therefore damaging places we value,” Botkin says, before methodically knocking down each assertion as demonstrably false.

Climate models linking human CO2 output to rising temperatures are unreliable, he writes. “Conclusion: our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not appear to be increasing Earth’s temperature. Whatever is happening to Earth’s climate does not seem to be our fault.”

However, he does acknowledge that climate change is happening. Taking sea level as an example, he says: “the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age, starting about 14,000 years ago as the continental and mountain glaciers have melted and sea water has expanded with the overall warming. The average rate has been about a foot or two a century”.

The question he poses is: what to do about it? Rather than spending time arguing over the causes of climate change, Botkin advocates simply rolling up our sleeves and dealing with the outcome, harking back to Frederick Law Olmstead, who in the mid 1800s, created the Back Bay Fens on Boston’s shoreline as a way to manage both ocean floods, deal with waste water for the city, and create a recreational area for city dwellers.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln