Extreme weather events that show AGW

[martybegan]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

 

[martybegan]

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Silly ass, there was no consensus on how gravity worked. Nor on what happened to mass and time at near light speeds.

Consensus doesn't make theories absolute fact.

 

[Crepitus]

P

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

 

[martybegan]

P

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

 

[Crepitus]

P

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

And I'll put my disbelief that anyone what really has a master's ma chemical engineering can be a climate denier up against anything you say

 

[martybegan]

P

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

And I'll put my disbelief that anyone what really has a master's ma chemical engineering can be a climate denier up against anything you say

It's not disbelief that humans can affect climate, it's distrust of those proposing socialistic governmental control as the only solution, and it's distrust over the extent of the changes and the dogmatic belief structure of the AGW people.

AGW isn't science, it's a religion.

And I noticed you didn't respond with your "cuck studies" degree in rebuttal.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

You are a funny guy!

You post fallacies, ignorance and lies.

Fallacy: Consensus

Ignorance: The few short term IPCC prediction/Projections have utterly failed.

Lies: There are THOUSANDS of published research that doesn't support the AGW narrative.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

Another stupid statement, since there are many educated people who publish papers that doesn't support the AGW narrative.

The Oregon Petition alone destroys your idiotic claim.

 

[Sunsettommy]

But there was consensus, so by your statement above Einstein should have been ignored because he added to or changed Newton's findings.

Lol, nice straw man. I said no such thing.

If you wanna have a real discussion then discuss. If you wanna try to pin some stupid "gotcha" on me then bugger off.

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Your ignorance is vivid here since you never did see the roster of people who participated in the IPCC reports, they were indeed engineers, economists, Botanists, geologists, mathematcians and so on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

April 9, 2018

34F in Westchester, NY, very few tulips or crocuses up, no forsythia at all

Yeah, global Warming

 

[Crick]

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Then tell us dupe, why is it so fucking cold, huh?why is it still snowing in many parts of the country?

What do you mean, cold? After all, it was 70 here yesterday. LOL

So it's warm weather where you are, that proves global warm and don't pay attention to the fact that it's snowing in April in other parts of the country. Thanks for being an example of how the scam artists work.

No, it's an example of the thought processes of the ignorant. Show a kindergardener two water glasses each holding the same amount of water but one short and fat and one tall and thin. The child will consistently tell you that the taller glass holds more water. I am reminded of this every time I hear these classic denier arguments, every one of which is either a complete failure of simple logic or of basic science or of the evidence in hand. The the world as a whole is getting warmer does not prevent one region from being colder than another or from the annual cycle of those temperatures retaining some variability.

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND THAT INCREASE IS ACCELERATING.

So, fuck your snow.

 

[Old Rocks]

P

LOL What a dumb ass you are. If you want to know what the amount of horsepower is required to propel a 2 ton car through the quarter mile in under 10 seconds, do you take into account the mass gain from the gain in speed? You do not, it is miniscule, you use Newton's equations. In most mechanical equations, Newton's equations are completely adequate.

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

And I'll put my disbelief that anyone what really has a master's ma chemical engineering can be a climate denier up against anything you say

It's not disbelief that humans can affect climate, it's distrust of those proposing socialistic governmental control as the only solution, and it's distrust over the extent of the changes and the dogmatic belief structure of the AGW people.

AGW isn't science, it's a religion.

And I noticed you didn't respond with your "cuck studies" degree in rebuttal.

In other words, you entire objection is based on your absurd political ideology and has nothing at all to do with science. Thank you for making that clear.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

Another stupid statement, since there are many educated people who publish papers that doesn't support the AGW narrative.

The Oregon Petition alone destroys your idiotic claim.

The Oregon Petition? That lying piece of nonsense from the cult down in the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. LOL

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”

The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”
(It’s actually Arthur Robinson’s farm in very rural Oregon)



The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) advertises itself as “a non-profit research institute”. Global Warming Deniers frequently promote the “Oregon Petition” which is one of the OISM’s products. In reality, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a farm in very rural Oregon some 6 linear miles southeast of Cave Junction, Oregon. (Population ~1,425 http://www.city-data.com/city/Cave-Junction-Oregon.html )

Its founder/owner, Arthur B Robinson, promotes the “Robinson Curriculum” - a “Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else” home-school system.
RobinsonUsers4Christ : Discipling Our Children for God's Glory
(Group appears to have become defunct in the last few years.).


Isn’t it amazing how the Internet can be used to transform a farm into the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”? (There may have been a tax advantage in registering the farm as “a non-profit research institute”.)
“The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf

The following pictures show where the farm (Oops: the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”) is located.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


Case Study: The Oregon Petition
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

So, what we have here is clearly a fraud. And many of the names on that 'petition' clearly have no scientific standing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

April 15, 2018

Heat came on this morning. 40F.

I knew I should have left the SUV running last night .

How much CO2 must we add to the atmosphere to have a normal spring

 

[skookerasbil]

April 15, 2018

Heat came on this morning. 40F.

I knew I should have left the SUV running last night .

How much CO2 must we add to the atmosphere to have a normal spring

Its getting stoopid at this point. Ball crunching cold in southern New York today. People are just so pissed here....

 

[jc456]

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

Not a chance. Hard sciences beat your soft socialism hands down. I'll go with people who are hard science people over the soft ones like you.

As a practicing meteorologist with a Masters in applied Atmospheric Physics I can see why you got duped by the nutter.

I'll wait for you to show us your hard science that proves man is the only cause and how the earths systems will go out of balance and death spiral into boiling off the earths atmosphere. Paleo records show CO2 well above 7000ppm and no runaway earth...

Now show us your replicatable science and methods to prove your assertions.

Straw man alert! No one said man is the only cause.

Of what?

 

[PredFan]

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Then tell us dupe, why is it so fucking cold, huh?why is it still snowing in many parts of the country?

What do you mean, cold? After all, it was 70 here yesterday. LOL

So it's warm weather where you are, that proves global warm and don't pay attention to the fact that it's snowing in April in other parts of the country. Thanks for being an example of how the scam artists work.

No, it's an example of the thought processes of the ignorant. Show a kindergardener two water glasses each holding the same amount of water but one short and fat and one tall and thin. The child will consistently tell you that the taller glass holds more water. I am reminded of this every time I hear these classic denier arguments, every one of which is either a complete failure of simple logic or of basic science or of the evidence in hand. The the world as a whole is getting warmer does not prevent one region from being colder than another or from the annual cycle of those temperatures retaining some variability.

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND THAT INCREASE IS ACCELERATING.

So, fuck your snow.

Learn to read asshole. It was Old Rocks that was doing that, not me. The scam artists like you say "It's weather not climate" only when it's cold. When it's hot somewhere suddenly weather becomes climate as long as it supports the scam. No one is listening anymore.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Then tell us dupe, why is it so fucking cold, huh?why is it still snowing in many parts of the country?

What do you mean, cold? After all, it was 70 here yesterday. LOL

So it's warm weather where you are, that proves global warm and don't pay attention to the fact that it's snowing in April in other parts of the country. Thanks for being an example of how the scam artists work.

No, it's an example of the thought processes of the ignorant. Show a kindergardener two water glasses each holding the same amount of water but one short and fat and one tall and thin. The child will consistently tell you that the taller glass holds more water. I am reminded of this every time I hear these classic denier arguments, every one of which is either a complete failure of simple logic or of basic science or of the evidence in hand. The the world as a whole is getting warmer does not prevent one region from being colder than another or from the annual cycle of those temperatures retaining some variability.

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND THAT INCREASE IS ACCELERATING.

So, fuck your snow.

Learn to read asshole. It was Old Rocks that was doing that, not me. The scam artists like you say "It's weather not climate" only when it's cold. When it's hot somewhere suddenly weather becomes climate as long as it supports the scam. No one is listening anymore.

The local temp on any given day, either warm or cold, is not the climate, it's the weather. Global average temp over years/decades is a climate statistic.

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

 

[martybegan]

P

You go into details for something that was just given as an example. I am pointing out the obvious hurbis of twats like you when you claim the "science is settled"

The science is never settled.

Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

And I'll put my disbelief that anyone what really has a master's ma chemical engineering can be a climate denier up against anything you say

It's not disbelief that humans can affect climate, it's distrust of those proposing socialistic governmental control as the only solution, and it's distrust over the extent of the changes and the dogmatic belief structure of the AGW people.

AGW isn't science, it's a religion.

And I noticed you didn't respond with your "cuck studies" degree in rebuttal.

In other words, you entire objection is based on your absurd political ideology and has nothing at all to do with science. Thank you for making that clear.

My objection stems from my own experience with models and statistical studies with regards to water and wastewater treatment. Add the exponential increases in complexity with regards to our atmosphere, and the typical AGW nut's devotion to socialistic remedies to the situation call it a healthy skepticism.

 

[Crepitus]

P
Pretty sure you wouldn't recognize "science" if it sat on your face.

I'll put my Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering up against whatever basket weaving degree you have any day of the week.

And I'll put my disbelief that anyone what really has a master's ma chemical engineering can be a climate denier up against anything you say

It's not disbelief that humans can affect climate, it's distrust of those proposing socialistic governmental control as the only solution, and it's distrust over the extent of the changes and the dogmatic belief structure of the AGW people.

AGW isn't science, it's a religion.

And I noticed you didn't respond with your "cuck studies" degree in rebuttal.

In other words, you entire objection is based on your absurd political ideology and has nothing at all to do with science. Thank you for making that clear.

My objection stems from my own experience with models and statistical studies with regards to water and wastewater treatment. Add the exponential increases in complexity with regards to our atmosphere, and the typical AGW nut's devotion to socialistic remedies to the situation call it a healthy skepticism.

So because you suck at models they do to?