Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[ReinyDays]

Eh?

Confused again, little one? ... be patient, Papa Ding's answer might help you make sense of what the adults are saying ...

 

[Lastamender]

Can the OP answer these questions?
Now it’s time to ask hard questions. Prominent people should emulate Detective Colombo. Colombo brought the hardest criminal to tears by his relentless, seemingly innocent questions. Loudly and persistently demand that the Climate Cult answer questions. Don’t make claims. Ask questions (that the left cannot answer):

1. Can people claim to be scientists if they reject the Scientific Method? That is, a hypothesis capable of being tested, carefully designed experiments, repeating the experiment in different places under different conditions, over and over?
2. The Associated Press published a warning in 1989 from the United Nations climate science team that mankind had only 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, to stop irreversible global warming. So, is it already too late?
3. Are you saying that A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B? Is that science? You argue that CO2 increased in the atmosphere. Then you say that temperature increased. One thing happened, then another thing.
4. One study found that the Earth’s temperature has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Is global warming caused by not enough pirates? Or is it scientifically invalid to merely say two things happened without experiments proving that one caused the other?
5. Isn’t one of the purposes of scientific experiments to eliminate the possibility that something else is going on that we didn’t think of?
6. Are scientific papers without an experiment just opinion columns (op-eds)?
7. The hypothesis of climate change involves a worldwide – not local – increase in the planetary temperature caused by an increase in the atmosphere’s content of CO2. Is a planet-wide experiment required, capable of testing that hypothesis? Wasn’t the only experiment on CO2 in a container inside a laboratory?
8. The Earth’s surface is 196.9 million square miles. Is that right? So have we ever measured the temperature of 196.9 million square miles of Earth’s surface area?
9. To measure the temperature of the entire planet Earth would require statistically random sampling, correct? Have we ever taken a truly randomized sample of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area?
10. Because local temperatures change throughout the seasons, would measuring the temperature of planet Earth, mean taking all measurements on the same day of the year?
11. Would we need to take all measurements at the same local time of day?
12. A statistical random sample requires that the sample be randomized every single time, right? In statistics, can you re-use the same random sample more than once?
13. Do you agree that statistics requires that the size of a random sample depends upon the margin of error you require?
14. The claim is that the Earth warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 125 years. If it was faster near the end, let’s be generous and say we are trying to detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C, year over year. Right?
15. To detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C would require randomized samples of 80,000 to 400,000 locations out of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area, correct? The change expected must be larger than the margin of error.
16. Does the Earth’s climate exhibit cycles over time? Why is El Nino a repeating cycle, of unpredictable length?
17. How do you know if we are just measuring an up-swing or a down-swing around a naturally recurring climate cycle? Do we have to observe temperature over tens or hundreds of thousands of years to capture oscillations, maybe some we don’t know about yet? Was the ice age scare of the 1970s a downswing of the same oscillation that is now cycling back upward?
18. Is it true that we have no systematic temperature measurements of even one city earlier than 1850? That is, high-quality thermometers calibrated to a worldwide standard of consistency with reliable manufacturing requirements used to keep meticulous notes every single day, at the same regular local time of day.
19. Is there any value to temperature readings from different cities that are not comparable to each other, taken in the same way to the same standards of reliability?
20. Is it true that the Fahrenheit temperature scale was only invented in 1724 and the Celsius scale in 1742? Not in common use, just invented. How do you correlate proxy temperature readings from before the temperature scales were even invented with current data? How are proxies comparable to modern data?
21. Climate alarmists claim that they can read the temperature from the different sizes of annual tree rings. Isn’t tree growth responsive mainly to rainfall and sunlight (possibly shadows of competing trees) – not so much temperature?
22. The width of annual tree rings do not show daily temperature readings, do they?
23. Don’t trees decay to dust within a few dozen or hundred years?
24. Is it true that although machines to detect CO2 in the air (mainly from patients’ breath) were being worked on throughout the 1800s, that they only produced usable, reliable results starting from around 1900 to 1930?
25. Climate alarmists claim that they can measure air pockets trapped in deep layers of glacial ice to garner information about Earth’s past. When has this technique ever been validated? For example, a true, accurate measurement of the Earth’s atmosphere from 1 million years ago would need to be compared with an air pocket trapped in ice all that time.
26. Was professor Zbigniew Jaworowski’s testimony on March 19, 2004, correct before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the drilling process itself and the drill-machinery fluids contaminate the air pocket and change its composition during extraction? Was Jaworwski correct that under the intense pressures under layers of glacial ice, “More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice. One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates”? Jaworowski (now deceased) argued that when the sample is returned to surface pressure, the gas hydrates or clathrates unravel, changing the air sample even further.
27. Is it true that a survey of automated weather stations found that they violate requirements, such as weather stations at airports in the exhaust blast of jet airplanes taking off, next to industrial air conditioning units blasting out heat on commercial rooftops, next to brick buildings, in one case next to a barbecue pit of a fire department?
28. Before we tear our economy and society apart, should we commission an independent, unbiased audit of all the temperature stations being used (though not random) to claim there is climate change?
29. Should we actually measure the Earth’s temperature properly, using a random sample of at least 80,000 randomly-chosen locations, one day a year? Presumably mass-production, simplification and minimization of automated temperature gauges reporting back by satellite “phone” could produce low-cost units that would be financially possible to air drop, activate on the same day, retrieve the stored data over time, and then maybe recover during the following year.

A Climate Cult Guide for Cowardly Republicans

What can business leaders and Republicans do now after helping leftists wreck the U.S. economy and our standard…

redwave.press

Please let us know by number which question you are replying to. Thanks.

 

[ReinyDays]

Can the OP answer these questions?
Now it’s time to ask hard questions. Prominent people should emulate Detective Colombo. Colombo brought the hardest criminal to tears by his relentless, seemingly innocent questions. Loudly and persistently demand that the Climate Cult answer questions. Don’t make claims. Ask questions (that the left cannot answer):

1. Can people claim to be scientists if they reject the Scientific Method? That is, a hypothesis capable of being tested, carefully designed experiments, repeating the experiment in different places under different conditions, over and over?
2. The Associated Press published a warning in 1989 from the United Nations climate science team that mankind had only 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, to stop irreversible global warming. So, is it already too late?
3. Are you saying that A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B? Is that science? You argue that CO2 increased in the atmosphere. Then you say that temperature increased. One thing happened, then another thing.
4. One study found that the Earth’s temperature has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Is global warming caused by not enough pirates? Or is it scientifically invalid to merely say two things happened without experiments proving that one caused the other?
5. Isn’t one of the purposes of scientific experiments to eliminate the possibility that something else is going on that we didn’t think of?
6. Are scientific papers without an experiment just opinion columns (op-eds)?
7. The hypothesis of climate change involves a worldwide – not local – increase in the planetary temperature caused by an increase in the atmosphere’s content of CO2. Is a planet-wide experiment required, capable of testing that hypothesis? Wasn’t the only experiment on CO2 in a container inside a laboratory?
8. The Earth’s surface is 196.9 million square miles. Is that right? So have we ever measured the temperature of 196.9 million square miles of Earth’s surface area?
9. To measure the temperature of the entire planet Earth would require statistically random sampling, correct? Have we ever taken a truly randomized sample of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area?
10. Because local temperatures change throughout the seasons, would measuring the temperature of planet Earth, mean taking all measurements on the same day of the year?
11. Would we need to take all measurements at the same local time of day?
12. A statistical random sample requires that the sample be randomized every single time, right? In statistics, can you re-use the same random sample more than once?
13. Do you agree that statistics requires that the size of a random sample depends upon the margin of error you require?
14. The claim is that the Earth warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 125 years. If it was faster near the end, let’s be generous and say we are trying to detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C, year over year. Right?
15. To detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C would require randomized samples of 80,000 to 400,000 locations out of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area, correct? The change expected must be larger than the margin of error.
16. Does the Earth’s climate exhibit cycles over time? Why is El Nino a repeating cycle, of unpredictable length?
17. How do you know if we are just measuring an up-swing or a down-swing around a naturally recurring climate cycle? Do we have to observe temperature over tens or hundreds of thousands of years to capture oscillations, maybe some we don’t know about yet? Was the ice age scare of the 1970s a downswing of the same oscillation that is now cycling back upward?
18. Is it true that we have no systematic temperature measurements of even one city earlier than 1850? That is, high-quality thermometers calibrated to a worldwide standard of consistency with reliable manufacturing requirements used to keep meticulous notes every single day, at the same regular local time of day.
19. Is there any value to temperature readings from different cities that are not comparable to each other, taken in the same way to the same standards of reliability?
20. Is it true that the Fahrenheit temperature scale was only invented in 1724 and the Celsius scale in 1742? Not in common use, just invented. How do you correlate proxy temperature readings from before the temperature scales were even invented with current data? How are proxies comparable to modern data?
21. Climate alarmists claim that they can read the temperature from the different sizes of annual tree rings. Isn’t tree growth responsive mainly to rainfall and sunlight (possibly shadows of competing trees) – not so much temperature?
22. The width of annual tree rings do not show daily temperature readings, do they?
23. Don’t trees decay to dust within a few dozen or hundred years?
24. Is it true that although machines to detect CO2 in the air (mainly from patients’ breath) were being worked on throughout the 1800s, that they only produced usable, reliable results starting from around 1900 to 1930?
25. Climate alarmists claim that they can measure air pockets trapped in deep layers of glacial ice to garner information about Earth’s past. When has this technique ever been validated? For example, a true, accurate measurement of the Earth’s atmosphere from 1 million years ago would need to be compared with an air pocket trapped in ice all that time.
26. Was professor Zbigniew Jaworowski’s testimony on March 19, 2004, correct before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the drilling process itself and the drill-machinery fluids contaminate the air pocket and change its composition during extraction? Was Jaworwski correct that under the intense pressures under layers of glacial ice, “More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice. One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates”? Jaworowski (now deceased) argued that when the sample is returned to surface pressure, the gas hydrates or clathrates unravel, changing the air sample even further.
27. Is it true that a survey of automated weather stations found that they violate requirements, such as weather stations at airports in the exhaust blast of jet airplanes taking off, next to industrial air conditioning units blasting out heat on commercial rooftops, next to brick buildings, in one case next to a barbecue pit of a fire department?
28. Before we tear our economy and society apart, should we commission an independent, unbiased audit of all the temperature stations being used (though not random) to claim there is climate change?
29. Should we actually measure the Earth’s temperature properly, using a random sample of at least 80,000 randomly-chosen locations, one day a year? Presumably mass-production, simplification and minimization of automated temperature gauges reporting back by satellite “phone” could produce low-cost units that would be financially possible to air drop, activate on the same day, retrieve the stored data over time, and then maybe recover during the following year.

A Climate Cult Guide for Cowardly Republicans

What can business leaders and Republicans do now after helping leftists wreck the U.S. economy and our standard…

redwave.press

Please let us know by number which question you are replying to. Thanks.

Trolling much? ... the link in #2 is dead ... I'm assuming you just copy/pasted this and aren't really capable of discussion ... beware when you use an ad hominem attack, you admit you're wrong ...

#1 is partially true ... we also need a confrontational debate ... correct scientific method would have us divide the scientific community in half, both sides pursuing opposite conclusions ... thus the failure of "107.5% consensus" ... and usually our hypnoses are generated by our theoretical framework ... we must first have the Big Bang Theory before we experiment on the rate of expansion ...

#26 ... can you post the chemical equations that are in question? ... on the surface, this violates conservation laws ... and we take these laws pretty damn serious around here ...

 

[Lastamender]

Trolling much? ... the link in #2 is dead ... I'm assuming you just copy/pasted this and aren't really capable of discussion ... beware when you use an ad hominem attack, you admit you're wrong ...

#1 is partially true ... we also need a confrontational debate ... correct scientific method would have us divide the scientific community in half, both sides pursuing opposite conclusions ... thus the failure of "107.5% consensus" ... and usually our hypnoses are generated by our theoretical framework ... we must first have the Big Bang Theory before we experiment on the rate of expansion ...

#26 ... can you post the chemical equations that are in question? ... on the surface, this violates conservation laws ... and we take these laws pretty damn serious around here ...

I am not claiming that I am an expert. I asked the OP if he could answer the questions.

 

[ReinyDays]

I am not claiming that I am an expert. I asked the OP if he could answer the questions.

I don't think anyone can answer those questions ... except maybe experts ... I'll take a shot at #26 if you can come up with the equations ... nitrogen, oxygen and especially CO2 are stable, in ice, over ten's of million of years ... I'm honestly interested in what could be going on ...

 

[Lastamender]

I don't think anyone can answer those questions ... except maybe experts ... I'll take a shot at #26 if you can come up with the equations ... nitrogen, oxygen and especially CO2 are stable, in ice, over ten's of million of years ... I'm honestly interested in what could be going on ...

Experts challenge climate change because it is not really science.

 

[Crick]

Can the OP answer these questions?
Now it’s time to ask hard questions. Prominent people should emulate Detective Colombo. Colombo brought the hardest criminal to tears by his relentless, seemingly innocent questions. Loudly and persistently demand that the Climate Cult answer questions. Don’t make claims. Ask questions (that the left cannot answer):

I am the OP of this thread.

These are not hard questions. They are almost all stupid questions and they are obviously rhetorical and intended to create doubt about the integrity of several aspects of mainstream science. At that they fail, completely.

All of the text in your post come from the linked article but are not in quotes. That could give the impression that you're attempting to suggest you are their author when you are not. Just sayin'

1. Can people claim to be scientists if they reject the Scientific Method? That is, a hypothesis capable of being tested, carefully designed experiments, repeating the experiment in different places under different conditions, over and over?

Scientist is a noun, not a title: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

2. The Associated Press published a warning in 1989 from the United Nations climate science team that mankind had only 10 years, from 1989 to 1999, to stop irreversible global warming. So, is it already too late?

It might be.

3a. Are you saying that A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B? Is that science?

No and no.

3b. You argue that CO2 increased in the atmosphere. Then you say that temperature increased. One thing happened, then another thing.

Increased CO2 causes increased temperatures because CO2 absorbs IR radiation. No other factors had sufficient forcing to have caused the observed warming.

4. One study found that the Earth’s temperature has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Is global warming caused by not enough pirates? Or is it scientifically invalid to merely say two things happened without experiments proving that one caused the other?

Many experiments have been conducted that show the increased CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.

5. Isn’t one of the purposes of scientific experiments to eliminate the possibility that something else is going on that we didn’t think of?

The purpose of scientific experimentation is to test an hypothesis.

6. Are scientific papers without an experiment just opinion columns (op-eds)?

Is mathematics a science?

7. The hypothesis of climate change involves a worldwide – not local – increase in the planetary temperature caused by an increase in the atmosphere’s content of CO2. Is a planet-wide experiment required, capable of testing that hypothesis? Wasn’t the only experiment on CO2 in a container inside a laboratory?

Data (temperature, CO2 levels, windspeed, humidity, pressure, etc) are taken at thousands of locations around the planet. Experiments on back-radiation from atmospheric CO2 have been conducted in situ for years.

8. The Earth’s surface is 196.9 million square miles. Is that right? So have we ever measured the temperature of 196.9 million square miles of Earth’s surface area?

You fail to define your terms. Even if we were talking about the temperature of a birthday cake, we could not measure the temperature of every atom of frosting ( ; - ) ). Scientists DO take the temperature of the entire surface of the planet, through thousands of weather stations and millions of data points provided by the many satellites measuring such things.

9. To measure the temperature of the entire planet Earth would require statistically random sampling, correct? Have we ever taken a truly randomized sample of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area?

The temperature of the planet can be measured in many different ways with varying amounts of accuracy. The data from weather stations and satellites is not perfect but is more than adequate for this purpose.

10. Because local temperatures change throughout the seasons, would measuring the temperature of planet Earth, mean taking all measurements on the same day of the year?

Temperature measurements are taken MORE than once a day at thousands of locations across the planet.

11. Would we need to take all measurements at the same local time of day?

No but most are.

12. A statistical random sample requires that the sample be randomized every single time, right? In statistics, can you re-use the same random sample more than once?

Wrong and yes.

13. Do you agree that statistics requires that the size of a random sample depends upon the margin of error you require?

No. The the number of random samples determines the margin of error you will produce.

14a. The claim is that the Earth warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 125 years.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical observation

14b. If it was faster near the end, let’s be generous and say we are trying to detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C, year over year. Right?

No. All that is required is an accurate determination of the temperature 125 years ago and the temperature today.

15. To detect annual changes of 0.025 degrees C would require randomized samples of 80,000 to 400,000 locations out of the Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area, correct?

No.

16. The change expected must be larger than the margin of error.

The change from 125 years ago is much larger than the margin of error.

17a. Does the Earth’s climate exhibit cycles over time?

Some. But AGW is not cyclical

17b. Why is El Nino a repeating cycle, of unpredictable length?

ENSO is a bistable system driven by external factors.

18. How do you know if we are just measuring an up-swing or a down-swing around a naturally recurring climate cycle? Do we have to observe temperature over tens or hundreds of thousands of years to capture oscillations, maybe some we don’t know about yet? Was the ice age scare of the 1970s a downswing of the same oscillation that is now cycling back upward?

Your author is making the same mistake as many AGW deniers here do. Oscillations do not occur idiopathically (ie, without cause). Change requires causation. The only forcing factor with sufficient impetus to have caused the observed warming is greenhouse warming acting on the increased level of GHGs that human use of fossil fuels has produced.

19. Is it true that we have no systematic temperature measurements of even one city earlier than 1850? That is, high-quality thermometers calibrated to a worldwide standard of consistency with reliable manufacturing requirements used to keep meticulous notes every single day, at the same regular local time of day.

I don't know. But I am quite certain that climate scientists calculating historical temperature trends know and take appropriate actions and make appropriate choices to guarantee the maximum quality of their data.

20. Is there any value to temperature readings from different cities that are not comparable to each other, taken in the same way to the same standards of reliability?

Of course there is.

21. Is it true that the Fahrenheit temperature scale was only invented in 1724 and the Celsius scale in 1742? Not in common use, just invented. How do you correlate proxy temperature readings from before the temperature scales were even invented with current data? How are proxies comparable to modern data?

Your author is a fucking idiot.

22. Climate alarmists claim that they can read the temperature from the different sizes of annual tree rings. Isn’t tree growth responsive mainly to rainfall and sunlight (possibly shadows of competing trees) – not so much temperature?

The science of dendrochronology (making proxy measurements from tree rings) is a well established science.

23. The width of annual tree rings do not show daily temperature readings, do they?

Since you only get one ring per year, I suspect not.

24. Don’t trees decay to dust within a few dozen or hundred years?

Some do. And such trees are obviously not used for dendrochronology, are they.

25. Is it true that although machines to detect CO2 in the air (mainly from patients’ breath) were being worked on throughout the 1800s, that they only produced usable, reliable results starting from around 1900 to 1930?

I've no idea. The Keeling curve was started in 1958.

26a. Climate alarmists claim that they can measure air pockets trapped in deep layers of glacial ice to garner information about Earth’s past.

I don't know what a "climate alarmist" is but I do not know that your use of the term ends any pretention you had of being objective or interested in the truth. It would be scientists who DO analyze small bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that would make such statements.

26b. When has this technique ever been validated?

Almost continuously since it's invention in the early 20th century. Ice core analysis - both of air bubbles, dissolved chemicals and entrapped particulates - grew to maturity during the International Geophysical Year (1957).

26c. For example, a true, accurate measurement of the Earth’s atmosphere from 1 million years ago would need to be compared with an air pocket trapped in ice all that time.

The deepest (ergo oldest) ice cores are those taken at Dome C in Antarctica by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic (EPICA) and go back 800,000 years. The analytical methods used can be validated in the lab with lab-created samples.

27a. Was professor Zbigniew Jaworowski’s testimony on March 19, 2004, correct before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the drilling process itself and the drill-machinery fluids contaminate the air pocket and change its composition during extraction?

That is a question that should be asked of other experts in the field. That you are asking it of the public once again shows us that you are not seeking the truth but seeking to denigrate the scientific integrity of those conducting such research.

27b. Was Jaworwski correct that under the intense pressures under layers of glacial ice, “More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.

Again, a question for the experts that you intend only to create unfounded doubt. I suspect that this question as well as the first are very basic issues to those in the field.

27C. One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates”? Jaworowski (now deceased) argued that when the sample is returned to surface pressure, the gas hydrates or clathrates unravel, changing the air sample even further.

Do you still beat your wife? Just asking. Right?

28. Is it true that a survey of automated weather stations found that they violate requirements, such as weather stations at airports in the exhaust blast of jet airplanes taking off, next to industrial air conditioning units blasting out heat on commercial rooftops, next to brick buildings, in one case next to a barbecue pit of a fire department?

The UHI effect has been heavily studied, both by several government agencies (ex NOAA, EPA, NWS) and by independent researchers. The results have been taken into account in both station placement and data treatment. There is no demonstrable UHI affecting current temperature data from the US Climate Reference Network

29. Before we tear our economy and society apart, should we commission an independent, unbiased audit of all the temperature stations being used (though not random) to claim there is climate change?

Multiple, independent, unbiased audits have already been conducted. There is absolutely no question as to the accuracy and reliability of the temperature record.

30a. Should we actually measure the Earth’s temperature properly, using a random sample of at least 80,000 randomly-chosen locations, one day a year?

It would not hurt to add more weather stations to the various networks worldwide, but they will not make any significant changes to temperature trends and will most assuredly not suggest that previous data are in error. And taking only one measurement per year is pure idiocy.

30b. Presumably mass-production, simplification and minimization of automated temperature gauges reporting back by satellite “phone” could produce low-cost units that would be financially possible to air drop, activate on the same day, retrieve the stored data over time, and then maybe recover during the following year.

I can think of several issues with this suggestion but since the author has no actual interest in collecting more data or learning anything, there is no need to respond.

 

[ReinyDays]

Lies, damned lies and Chick ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Experts challenge climate change because it is not really science.

You said you weren't an expert ... and I can guaranty the OP is no damn expert ... my own expertise is in carpentry and the building trades in general ... I took a few sciency classes some years ago ...

Experts are challenging climate change on it's scientific merits ... therefore, it is science ... falsifying climate change is as easy as just waiting, and seeing if climate changes ... duh ... are you just reading the National Enquirer or something? ...

Well, you got the vomit you wanted from the OP ... enjoy ...

 

[Lastamender]

You said you weren't an expert ... and I can guaranty the OP is no damn expert ... my own expertise is in carpentry and the building trades in general ... I took a few sciency classes some years ago ...

Experts are challenging climate change on it's scientific merits ... therefore, it is science ... falsifying climate change is as easy as just waiting, and seeing if climate changes ... duh ... are you just reading the National Enquirer or something? ...

Well, you got the vomit you wanted from the OP ... enjoy ...

Climate change for me is what it really is. Mind games to redistribute wealth and grow government and their control of the masses.

 

[Lastamender]

I am the OP of this thread.

These are not hard questions. They are almost all stupid questions and they are obviously rhetorical and intended to create doubt about the integrity of several aspects of mainstream science. At that they fail, completely.

All of the text in your post come from the linked article but are not in quotes. That could give the impression that you're attempting to suggest you are their author when you are not. Just sayin'


Scientist is a noun, not a title: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

It might be.

No and no.

Increased CO2 causes increased temperatures because CO2 absorbs IR radiation. No other factors had sufficient forcing to have caused the observed warming.

Many experiments have been conducted that show the increased CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.

The purpose of scientific experimentation is to test an hypothesis.

Is mathematics a science?

Data (temperature, CO2 levels, windspeed, humidity, pressure, etc) are taken at thousands of locations around the planet. Experiments on back-radiation from atmospheric CO2 have been conducted in situ for years.

You fail to define your terms. Even if we were talking about the temperature of a birthday cake, we could not measure the temperature of every atom of frosting ( ; - ) ). Scientists DO take the temperature of the entire surface of the planet, through thousands of weather stations and millions of data points provided by the many satellites measuring such things.

The temperature of the planet can be measured in many different ways with varying amounts of accuracy. The data from weather stations and satellites is not perfect but is more than adequate for this purpose.

Temperature measurements are taken MORE than once a day at thousands of locations across the planet.

No but most are.

Wrong and yes.

No. The the number of random samples determines the margin of error you will produce.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical observation

No. All that is required is an accurate determination of the temperature 125 years ago and the temperature today.

No.

The change from 125 years ago is much larger than the margin of error.

Some. But AGW is not cyclical

ENSO is a bistable system driven by external factors.

Your author is making the same mistake as many AGW deniers here do. Oscillations do not occur idiopathically (ie, without cause). Change requires causation. The only forcing factor with sufficient impetus to have caused the observed warming is greenhouse warming acting on the increased level of GHGs that human use of fossil fuels has produced.

I don't know. But I am quite certain that climate scientists calculating historical temperature trends know and take appropriate actions and make appropriate choices to guarantee the maximum quality of their data.

Of course there is.

Your author is a fucking idiot.

The science of dendrochronology (making proxy measurements from tree rings) is a well established science.

Since you only get one ring per year, I suspect not.

Some do. And such trees are obviously not used for dendrochronology, are they.

I've no idea. The Keeling curve was started in 1958.

I don't know what a "climate alarmist" is but I do not know that your use of the term ends any pretention you had of being objective or interested in the truth. It would be scientists who DO analyze small bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that would make such statements.

Almost continuously since it's invention in the early 20th century. Ice core analysis - both of air bubbles, dissolved chemicals and entrapped particulates - grew to maturity during the International Geophysical Year (1957).

The deepest (ergo oldest) ice cores are those taken at Dome C in Antarctica by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic (EPICA) and go back 800,000 years. The analytical methods used can be validated in the lab with lab-created samples.

That is a question that should be asked of other experts in the field. That you are asking it of the public once again shows us that you are not seeking the truth but seeking to denigrate the scientific integrity of those conducting such research.

Again, a question for the experts that you intend only to create unfounded doubt. I suspect that this question as well as the first are very basic issues to those in the field.

Do you still beat your wife? Just asking. Right?

The UHI effect has been heavily studied, both by several government agencies (ex NOAA, EPA, NWS) and by independent researchers. The results have been taken into account in both station placement and data treatment. There is no demonstrable UHI affecting current temperature data from the US Climate Reference Network

Multiple, independent, unbiased audits have already been conducted. There is absolutely no question as to the accuracy and reliability of the temperature record.

It would not hurt to add more weather stations to the various networks worldwide, but they will not make any significant changes to temperature trends and will most assuredly not suggest that previous data are in error. And taking only one measurement per year is pure idiocy.

I can think of several issues with this suggestion but since the author has no actual interest in collecting more data or learning anything, there is no need to respond.

You are a trusting soul. Thanks for your answers.

 

[ReinyDays]

Climate change for me is what it really is. Mind games to redistribute wealth and grow government and their control of the masses.

Same as Islamophobia ... government should be afraid of her citizens, not the other way around ... both sides are guilty ... why do we keep sending thieves to Washington DC? ...

 

[Crick]

You said you weren't an expert ... and I can guaranty the OP is no damn expert ... my own expertise is in carpentry and the building trades in general ... I took a few sciency classes some years ago ...

Experts are challenging climate change on it's scientific merits ... therefore, it is science ...

What experts are challenging AGW on its scientific merits?

falsifying climate change is as easy as just waiting, and seeing if climate changes ...

Are you actually attempting to claim that global warming is not taking place or that the warming observed is just some random event?

duh ... are you just reading the National Enquirer or something? ...

Well, you got the vomit you wanted from the OP ... enjoy ...

I hope he does. I suspect, however, he will not have the stamina to fully respond.

 

[Crick]

Climate change for me is what it really is. Mind games to redistribute wealth and grow government and their control of the masses.

Do you believe that these data are in some way false?

2021 Continued Earth’s Warming Trend

The past eight years have been the warmest in the global record.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[Lastamender]

Do you believe that these data are in some way false?

View attachment 705758

2021 Continued Earth’s Warming Trend

The past eight years have been the warmest in the global record.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

I believe the sun and the moon influence our weather more than we ever could. The universe does not sit still.

 

[Crick]

Same as Islamophobia ... government should be afraid of her citizens, not the other way around ... both sides are guilty ... why do we keep sending thieves to Washington DC? ...

I bet you believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make certain that the citizenry has the power to bring government to heel if they should act in some undesirable manner. Can you explain, then, why the Constitution clearly spells out the crimes of sedition and treason, providing severe penalties for both without identifying ANY circumstances under which an attack on the government or aid to her enemies would be justified?

 

[Crick]

I believe the sun and the moon influence our weather more than we ever could. The universe does not sit still.

You did not answer the question. Do you believe the data displayed in post #174 are in some way false?

 

[Lastamender]

You did not answer the question. Do you believe those data are in some way false?

I say that is all they are doing. I do not think it proves anything but the temperature at the time it was taken.

When did records start exactly?

 

[Crick]

I say that is all they are doing.

Who is "they" and what is it that they are all doing? I suspect you mean the named institutions telling falsehoods, but you have not made that at all clear.

I do not think it proves anything but the temperature at the time it was taken.

It is data. It doesn't PROVE anything. It is for us to take in and learn.

When did records start exactly?

To what records do you refer? Each datum (bar) that graph displays represent the calculated average temperatures for the entire globe over the course of a single year. The production of each datum relies on hundreds if not thousands of "records". The first thermometer was invented in 1612 by Santorio Santorio but precision thermometry didn't begin until 1714 when Daniel Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer. Determining global temperatures prior to widespread use of thermometers requires the use of proxies of which there are many.

 

[Lastamender]

Who is "they" and what is it that they are all doing? I suspect you mean the named institutions telling falsehoods, but you have not made that at all clear.



It is data. It doesn't PROVE anything. It is for us to take in and learn.


To what records do you refer? Each datum (bar) that graph displays represent the calculated average temperatures for the entire globe over the course of a single year. The production of each datum relies on hundreds if not thousands of "records". The first thermometer was invented in 1612 by Santorio Santorio but precision thermometry didn't begin until 1714 when Daniel Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer. Determining global temperatures prior to widespread use of thermometers requires the use of proxies of which there are many.

They are the people paid to push this crap.