CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Boston1]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have been following the debate for about 15 years now. VERY CLOSELY. Reading papers, discussing with competent colleagues and posting my views on this very board..

AND one might ask -- what is YOUR total investment? And why did you dismiss my post as "denial"? Seems like we need to get down to some facts..

1) The power of CO2 to heat the GreenHouse is well-known from basic physics and chemical properties. This is DIFFERENT from the Super-Powers attributed to CO2 and other emissions by the GW theory. I believe that the DATA we see now confirms the basic science on CO2 -- but at the same time VOIDS the hysterical projections of a doomed planet caught in an irreversible run-away TYPE of global warming. The basic physics WITHOUT THE FEAR and the hype says that each doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give about 1degC of warming. For perspective, the first doubling since the industrial age is not even OVER --- we are at 400ppm and we started at 280ppm.. Will be 2030 or 40 before we reach the first doubling. The rise we've SEEN -- in totally compatible with the 1degC estimate PLUS some natural variation.. The NEXT doubling to 1120ppm would never occur until way after 2100 and is not worth shouting at each other about..

Corrolary to 1) To believe in ALL the tenets of GW -- you have to believe that we live on a junker of planet that would commit planetcide by heating BY ITSELF --- after we reach a magic 2degC threshold. NOT FOUNDED by the relatively cataclysmic history of Ice Ages, and hot epochs that this planet has already survived.

2) The claims that the present 0.5degC of warming seen in YOUR lifetime are unprecendated --- are actually unfounded by science. Trying to ascertain GLOBAL historical proxy records from millennia ago are thwarted by lack of time resolution in the ice cores, mud bug shells, and tree rings to be found lying around on the planet,. These historical studies are good at find "expected mean values" -- but terrible at comparing to the 1/100deg accurate instrumentation readings of the common age. BUT YET --- some activist scientists have made the claim that the :"hockey sticks" PROVE the current little warming blip is "unprecendented" which is a leap that some of the more HONEST hockey stickers have disputed themselves.

3) Why does your socio-political movement rely on castigating "deniers", scream about settled science, and want to end this debate BEFORE IT STARTS??? Because their projections and models have all but failed or are in the process of failing from predictions made just 15 years ago. 38% of Climate Scientists polled in the ONE MEANINGFUL poll of the field, BY Climate gurus themselves -- identified climate science "as a fairly immature field of endevour". (von Storch circa 2008) Even WITH all the hype, propaganda that has been poured on the fire.

So MAYBE -- WE can get past the denier name calling and discuss what the ACTUAL theorems state and why they are failing and what the evidence REALLY IS ---- ya think???

 

[Boston1]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

So do you know what an isotope is and do you understand how mass isotopic spectrometry works

 

[Boston1]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

 

[Muhammed]

Yikes. Again with the standard denial.

Has anyone here actually studied climate science ?

Yes.

But obviously none are you.

 

[Boston1]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

 

[Wilbur Right]

Let's begin with my questions.

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

LMAO.

Let's just ignore those ignorant questions. They are not answerable.

What is being discussed is the rate of change and what is causing that change. Not optimal temperatures. Or costs.

What are the costs of doing nothing IF the global warming deniers are wrong. Come on Todd what is the cost to mitigate global warming if your kind is wrong and man made warming is happening?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's begin with my questions.

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

LMAO.

Let's just ignore those ignorant questions. They are not answerable.

What is being discussed is the rate of change and what is causing that change. Not optimal temperatures. Or costs.

What are the costs of doing nothing IF the global warming deniers are wrong. Come on Todd what is the cost to mitigate global warming if your kind is wrong and man made warming is happening?

Let's just ignore those ignorant questions. They are not answerable.

You can't tell me what the current "average global temperature" is? Then how do you know it's getting warmer?

You can't tell me what is the perfect "average global temperature"? Then how do you know it's too warm?

What are the costs of doing nothing IF the global warming deniers are wrong.

What is the cost of doing something if the warmers are wrong?

 

[Holos]

What is being discussed is the rate of change and what is causing that change. Not optimal temperatures. Or costs.

In order for us to proceed in this discussion, agreeing on its fundamental focus as you have mentioned, first we have to also agree on what were the techniques used as supplement to the standard scientific method (including initial references, equipment, facilities and complete active staff) beginning from biographical summaries, research interest, hypothesis construction, research procedure, determination of research completion by hypothesis verification, peer reviews, institutional reports on safety regulations subscribed to, model of measurement, procedure of measurement, institutional or private investments for the entirety of the determined measuring scope necessary for project application, goal for project application, and current totality of agencies in associative maintainence of those measurements so that they are validly standardized.

This is all assuming the science of it has really already been established as the OP seemed to be proposing with their introdution to the thread.

Only after all of us agree that the steps for those rates of changes to be measured are indeed legitimate can we actually go to the next step and finally also agree through an entirely new set of procedures about what actually causes such a change, always by engaging in discussion and verifying with other interested committed parties that our personal individual perspectives are both equally contribuent and beneficially genuine to other parties not immediately involved.

 

[Vigilante]

We all going to jail.....

 

[Boston1]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

I'm trying to clean up MY mess from last night. Seems like nobody could get on. And I was using this reply to this thread to try different ways of accessing USMB. Everything seems to be better this morning..

Sorry about the duplicate posts..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system

Define your terms here.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Since "climate science" has devolved into spending trillions on "green energy", we have to discuss economics.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

Calling people deniers and ignorance of economics makes you a liberal.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp

Do you think the planet is too warm?

and why you think the climate system should be static ?

A static system is the liberal stance. It's why they've changed the name of their fear to "Climate Change"

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics

The idea that your windmill investment should break-even and then pay off is voodoo?
It's things like that that show me you are a liberal.

in place of hard science

AGW is a hard science? That's hilarious.

 

[Boston1]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

I'm trying to clean up MY mess from last night. Seems like nobody could get on. And I was using this reply to this thread to try different ways of accessing USMB. Everything seems to be better this morning..

Sorry about the duplicate posts..

No worries, gave me a chance to get some work done instead of goofing around on the compute

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system

Define your terms here.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Since "climate science" has devolved into spending trillions on "green energy", we have to discuss economics.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

Calling people deniers and ignorance of economics makes you a liberal.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp

Do you think the planet is too warm?

and why you think the climate system should be static ?

A static system is the liberal stance. It's why they've changed the name of their fear to "Climate Change"

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics

The idea that your windmill investment should break-even and then pay off is voodoo?
It's things like that that show me you are a liberal.

in place of hard science

AGW is a hard science? That's hilarious.

Your funny,

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Calling people deniers and swimming in cash makes me both well aware of the current state of republican thinking and economics. Try zero debt and opening another business and get back to me on that economic thing ;--)

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Can you define climate ? And can you be a little more specific about what too warm represents to you, as your terminology is highly subjective.

How can a static climate be a liberal stance when it's the deniers who are asking the question about what the temperature is supposed to be ? Are you sure this is a liberal stance ? And if so then what temp did they tell you it was supposed to be ?

Thus far its been like pulling teeth to determine that at least one of you understands that virtually all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

So anyone want to take a stab at who a guy named Arrhenius was ? What his predictions might have been ? When he made those predictions ?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Did you notice the gray "error bars": in your graph? The uncertainty of the measurements in the 18th/19th century are about as large as the "data".. How good do you think GLOBAL temperature coverage WAS in 1785?

 

[Boston1]

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.

In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Did you notice the gray "error bars": in your graph? The uncertainty of the measurements in the 18th/19th century are about as large as the "data".. How good do you think GLOBAL temperature coverage WAS in 1785?

Of course I did. But the statistical likelihood remains. And the berkley study used a weighted average of something like 1.4 billion data points. Also most of these analysis are done on a P-1 standard deviation, which in this case as I recall was set at 95%+ Could have been 98% I don't remember.

Which means that the likelihood of error diminishes substantially as we move away from the mean. Fully 2/3 of that grey area is outside of a liklihood of deviation greater than 5% and likely less, I'd have to go look it up.

In the other 1/3 resides a 95% confidence that also increases proportionally as we approach the mean.

Your argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once we understand just what that grey area actually represents.

Given the resolution of the graph presented, the statistical significance of the grey area is negligible at best.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Coral Bleaching Hits The Great Barrier Reef After Australia Temperatures Break Records

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-human-carbon-unprecedented-million-years.html


The Denier Cult is to be ignored. They cannot accept reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure whats up but the site seems to be having difficulties.

I'll try again later

I'm trying to clean up MY mess from last night. Seems like nobody could get on. And I was using this reply to this thread to try different ways of accessing USMB. Everything seems to be better this morning..

Sorry about the duplicate posts..

No worries, gave me a chance to get some work done instead of goofing around on the compute

I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.

The opposite of a denier.

I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.

Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?

I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.

If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?

The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.

Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.

I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.

Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.

but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.

Its not like any of this is new science.

why you would randomly label me a liberal.

It's obvious from your posts.

I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.

Economics is ideological? Seriously?

I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.

Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?

Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.

I do understand how science made that determination.

I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

RIIIIIIIGHT

Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.

The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.

If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.

Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system

Define your terms here.

Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.

Since "climate science" has devolved into spending trillions on "green energy", we have to discuss economics.

Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?

Calling people deniers and ignorance of economics makes you a liberal.

maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp

Do you think the planet is too warm?

and why you think the climate system should be static ?

A static system is the liberal stance. It's why they've changed the name of their fear to "Climate Change"

Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics

The idea that your windmill investment should break-even and then pay off is voodoo?
It's things like that that show me you are a liberal.

in place of hard science

AGW is a hard science? That's hilarious.

Your funny,

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Calling people deniers and swimming in cash makes me both well aware of the current state of republican thinking and economics. Try zero debt and opening another business and get back to me on that economic thing ;--)

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Can you define climate ? And can you be a little more specific about what too warm represents to you, as your terminology is highly subjective.

How can a static climate be a liberal stance when it's the deniers who are asking the question about what the temperature is supposed to be ? Are you sure this is a liberal stance ? And if so then what temp did they tell you it was supposed to be ?

Thus far its been like pulling teeth to determine that at least one of you understands that virtually all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

So anyone want to take a stab at who a guy named Arrhenius was ? What his predictions might have been ? When he made those predictions ?

Politics devolves into spending trillions, every time, every issue. Whats your point ?

If you were just whining about science, nobody would care who believed and who denied.
When your whining turns into, "We have to spend trillions on green energy, or we're doomed", then it's about more than the warmers and their science shortcuts.

This simple reality is voodoo economics has no bearing on a study in hard science.

Your comment about "a three tiered, fiat currency financial system" sounded more like voodoo than anything I posted.

Is the climate too warm ? Do you mean at night ? during the day ? in winter ? in summer ? at the poles ? equator ?

Any or all that make the warmers wet their beds.
How can a static climate be a liberal stance

Liberals are against "climate change", they must be for a static climate.