"I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming"

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>No, this is not true

Then post a link to the dataset that shows no warming over the past three decades.three decades??? you just stated that water boiled on the planet in past and that there is no normal. You post this as it is something different that what has happened in the past and man is the cause. Can you confirm?


>you are the one who like to tag names on people . . . .you tell me

?? You posted your definition of an alarmist above. Were you lying? Or did you change your mind in four posts?

> then how do you know for sure what is happening now is not just another varition in
>cliamate caused by nature?

Because increasing AGW gases leads to more retained heat. This is confirmed science. Retaining heat increases temperatures. Again, confirmed science. The temperature is increasing at a rate commensurate with the retained heat. Both science and observation. Hence, it is not just another "varition in cliamate caused by nature."

this is the story line that is now in question

but it is NOT the only factor
Which has been posted by me in many links by scientists
and the fact that just how much CO2 effect really is is in debate with some right now
Again
We know there have been higher temps and CO2 levels in the past
There is no way you can state with any certiantly that what is happening today is of any real significance Period!

"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 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

My term alarmist are for those who would state that we need to change and change fast or man kind will suffer

Then you and I agree on that term now. Though I have to say I find it a little odd your definition changed within a couple of posts. What happened?

***Bill is an alarmist because he calls me a denier

And the definition changed again for you....

With Bill it is a game
his game

"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 18]

billvon

RushMC a few hours ago: "believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist "

The author believes that man does have an influence. He agrees with the "well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter."

RushMC: "I do not think the author is an alarmist."

I don't think you understand your own posts.

You cherry pick the post
he also states that he thinks other factors are in play and that the net effect will have little impact on man

"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 2,471]

>he also states that he thinks other factors are in play and that the net effect will
>have little impact on man

Right. And overall I agree with him, depending on how you define "little." Mankind will certainly survive.

But to you, that makes him an alarmist. Unless, again, you have abandoned that definition and have moved on to another one.

That, by the way, is what makes it nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you - because your positions change from day to day, sometimes from hour to hour. Indeed, you contradict yourself far more than you contradict anyone here.

"I am a type 3 denier."

"Don't call me a denier! It's insulting."

"Look at this study! See, no change in the lower atmosphere. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING! I've been saying this all along, stupid alarmists."

"Look at this new study. See, CO2 isn't the primary driver of the temperature rises. Yeah, temperatures are rising, I've been saying that all along - but WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Idiot alarmists."

"Look at this article. See, this guy says that the climate is warming and we're causing it, but nothing bad will happen. I've been saying that all along - IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON MAN! Dumb alarmists."

"Someone who calls me a denier is an alarmist."
"No, believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist."
"No, alarmists are those who would state that we need to change and change fast or man kind will suffer."

The one and only common thread is you deny climate change. That is the only thing that remains consistent in your posts - and thus the only thing anyone can reliably discuss with you.

[billvon 2,471]

>>>No, this is not true
>>Then post a link to the dataset that shows no warming over the past three decades.
>three decades?

Yes. You made the statement; now back it up.

>There is no way you can state with any certiantly that what is happening today is of
>any real significance Period!

We can say (with 97% certainty) that the planet is warming and it is primarily our doing. This fact may be of little significance to someone who lives in Denver. It may be of great significance to someone who lives in New Delhi.

[kallend 1,679]

rushmc

Another thing!

I can come up with NEW studies rather regularly
Studies based on data
Like this one

In the interests of accuracy, you come up with blog articles and op-ed pieces that spin scientific studies in order to mislead either through ignorance or by deliberate deception.

...

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

[Coreeece 2]

Just wanted to congratulate billvon and rushmc on their upcoming 10 year anniversary of global warming debate....you've enamored us all with your steadfast passion, and not much has changed - here's to 10 more years!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Coreeece

Just wanted to congratulate billvon and rushmc on their upcoming 10 year anniversary of global warming debate....you've enamored us all with your steadfast passion, and not much has changed - here's to 10 more years!

[rushmc 18]

kallend

Here's nice, PEER REVIEWED, study by reputable climate scientists, and not filtered through any opinion piece.

www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2617.epdf?referrer_access_token=9d2OGvG6QQFh_Wyj63tcJNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiqNJsr0khJzfLkhisC13QcS45BnWyX1giYD8vtOz3-32cIQvSr5zhZ8TEbWqeucyo_dVT-x0IRyT6svDejhNybbZaY4wbtX9J_QiHuCjvKSU3gSV5RvMVQgKOoJA2nrFlamiTf_TrNX3ca6LkdpDEYyz88IQFa4qFj2Da2qYRmp2cY6m08HfljGgF6Hxt6X26RcHV96ei4KBTAhoe5OBd

Quote

“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” Frederick Seitz, WSJ – June 12, 1996 on IPCC AR-2, 1995, printed May 1996.

"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 2,471]

Quote

"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” Frederick Seitz, WSJ

Frederick Seitz? Ah yes. He's the guy who the tobacco companies paid to dispute the science on cigarettes. "We just don't know if cigarettes cause cancer. I know someone who lived to 100 smoking two packs a day. No one knows exactly what causes cancer, anyway. THE SCIENCE ISN'T SETTLED!" Tobacco sales recovered a bit. He got paid millions for that.

Looks like he fooled you, too.

[rushmc 18]

Someone is getting fooled
and it is not me

Quote

Britain’s Global Warming Policy Forum succinctly concludes: “This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with those produced by the UK Met Office and NASA,” as well as by other exhaustive data monitoring reports over the past four decades.

The vitally important bottom line is simple.

The central issue in this ongoing debate is not whether Planet Earth is warming. The issue is: How much is it warming? How much of the warming and other climate changes are due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases – and how much are due to the same powerful natural forces that have driven climate and weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history? And will any changes be short-term or long-term … and good, bad, neutral or catastrophic?

At this time, there is no scientific evidence – based on actual observations and measurements of temperatures and weather events – that humans are altering the climate to a significant or dangerous degree. Computer models, political statements and hypothetical cataclysms cannot and must not substitute for that absence of actual evidence, especially when the consequences would be so dire for so many. In fact, even the “record high” global average temperature of 2014 was concocted and a margin of error.

"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 2,471]

>Someone is getting fooled and it is not me

So you think there is no such thing as manmade climate change, and cigarettes do not cause cancer?

[cvfd1399 0]

billvon

>Someone is getting fooled and it is not me

So you think there is no such thing as manmade climate change, and cigarettes do not cause cancer?

Its amazing how people try to correlate things.

[billvon 2,471]

>Its amazing how people try to correlate things.

He quoted Seitz, a man who has made his living denying that cigarettes cause cancer and that CO2 causes warming - and who has been well paid for both. Perhaps you do not see a correlation there, in which case we will add you to the list of people he has fooled.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Its amazing how people try to correlate things.

He quoted Seitz, a man who has made his living denying that cigarettes cause cancer and that CO2 causes warming - and who has been well paid for both. Perhaps you do not see a correlation there, in which case we will add you to the list of people he has fooled.

Yes, I was a water filtration salesman, and dabbled in construction too.

Which one correlates to either?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,471]

>Yes, I was a water filtration salesman, and dabbled in construction too.

If you were known worldwide as a fraud who took money for highway construction projects - but delivered lousy roads with no drainage - then people would (rightly) not trust you when you said "but now I build local roads, and that's completely different!"

[kallend 1,679]

www.iflscience.com/environment/current-global-temperature-are-breaking-records

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Yes, I was a water filtration salesman, and dabbled in construction too.

If you were known worldwide as a fraud who took money for highway construction projects - but delivered lousy roads with no drainage - then people would (rightly) not trust you when you said "but now I build local roads, and that's completely different!"

But for some reason, when people told us a decade ago that hurricanes would increase in number and power and damage and that global temperatures would continue to increase without abatement and that parts of Manhattan would be underwater right now and snow would be nonexistent by now in the Northeast we just applaud them because the precautionary principle says that science tells us to end fossil fuels.

I put myself in a middle position because both sides have been so remarkably wrong.

Of course now, in the ultimate silliness, we have a single study out there regarding global temperatures which contradicts every study out there I. The last 17 years. And the consensus has jumped on the 1% study as proof despite what every other study has to say.

It's just remarkable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

www.iflscience.com/environment/current-global-temperature-are-breaking-records

A couple of points:

(1). Yep. The pause has ended. Kinda like I always said it would.

(2) Front. The article: " Abraham suggests that the recent record-breaking temperatures put global warming critics in a difficult position—the evidence is simply not on their side."

Just as I predicted, we are going to see a return to using the language of "global warming" as the temperatures begin to pick up again. And we are going to see more panicked assessments.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 189]

billvon

>Its amazing how people try to correlate things.

He quoted Seitz, a man who has made his living denying that cigarettes cause cancer and that CO2 causes warming - and who has been well paid for both. Perhaps you do not see a correlation there, in which case we will add you to the list of people he has fooled.

I am impressed that someone with your technical credentials would be so casual when discussing stochastic phenomena. For one who deals with lumped parameter systems it is understandable, but not when communication theory is one's livelihood.

In performing a heat balance on a system, one can have any number of factors, most of which can be safely ignored (significance <<1%). The models used to evaluate the dynamics related to the more significant factors can vary greatly in one regime or another, and "goodness of fit" is a fine art.

Thus, when anyone treats a thermal system on a Single Input-Single Output basis, I am comfortable in calling bullshit. The input of choice may be a very significant factor, but to imply that it dominates under any and all circumstances is demonstrably nonsense (in this case for sure).

As to whether cigarettes 'cause' cancer? They sure as hell are a major factor, but there will always be outliers where someone who never heard of a cigarette dies of lung cancer or someone who smoked since they were three lives to 100.

Remember, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. That is, however, the way to bet."


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

I agree to a large extent. But I also find myself far more concerned with the <<1% relationships. In these GCMs there are thousands of these <<1% relationships that are run through millions of iterations.

I've long held the belief and understanding that all things being equal, increase in CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. I am fairly convinced that in a chaotic system with thousands of variables and relationships between all of them that all things are not equal.

It's the non equal parts that we have to figure out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.