‘CRAZINESS’ in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign

And a fool has.

- - - Updated - - -

There, there, take two aspirin and get an education in the morning.

 

And how do you think the proposed reduction in greenhouse gasses transfers hugh amounts of money to the government?

 

How is it I wonder, that the earth does not completely freeze over at night? Why does it get well into the 70's during the day on mars but drops to -195 degrees at night? Why does the moon reach temperatures of 253 degrees in the daylight and -243 degrees in the dark? Why does Venus' temperature stay the same day or night? Why is Venus so much warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

How is it that electromagnetic radiation in the frequencies from 300 GHz to 400 THz are readily absorbed by CO[SUB]2[/SUB] yet ignored by N[SUB]2[/SUB]?

 

Well actually only the average moron appears to be getting sick of scientific fact!

 

Turns out that it isn't necessarily a lack of education that causes global warming deniers to sound so uneducated. Studies have been revealing that only those who regularly get their information from right wing sources deny global warming. Throw in a little evangelical style religion and you get a co(k-sure global warming denier. It gets kind of funny listening to one who barely graduated high school going on and on about how they know so much more than scientists.

 

The record is only 18 days old. It will most likely last only a year - like the past two records.

 

How can you possibly assume possession of a high school degree?

 

I received a warning from a moderator for referring to them as high school dropouts.

 

Interesting to quote RSS data since RSS is not an original source so unless you can find where the data and charts actually originate the link is useless as evidence.

http://www.whatisrss.com

On the other uand here is an actual reliable source of data

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature.

Shows the last three years have all been warmer than 1998.

 

And rightly so. Just because they have no education doesn't justify your using such pejorative terminology. Suggest you consider them educationally challenged.

 

I already did. Where do you think I got it from. Maybe you should try it yourself

- - - Updated - - -

I didnt blame you. Where dd that come from ?

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of yourself ?

- - - Updated - - -

Only AGW disciples refuse to face facts and true science

 

That record is based on the highly manipulated dataset that always changes making the past cooler and the present warming, the latest being the inclusion of the Karl et. al. paper. In that dataset it used to be warmer in the 30's but that has been changed. That dataset also does not measure the temperatures in the Arctic like the satellites can but they extrapolate based on the very few land based records.

 

I think your speaking of the wrong record opt are you claiming they have only been keeping record for 18 days ?

Chew on this

https://www.facebook.com/theodore.white1/posts/10153129121054872http://

 

I'm pointing out that there is no statistically significant difference between the global average temperature between the El Nino years of 1998 and 2016. The real world climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1 deg C. Global warming of ~ 3 deg C is net beneficial. We have over 200 years of net benefits and plenty of time to see and respond to global warming. Implementing energy policies which result in economic damage will limit our ability to respond. Plus energy technology will have evolved significantly as well in those 200 years. One hundred years ago ~ 3% of homes in the US had electric lights.

 

RSS is Remote Sensing Systems.

The data you reference has been manipulated by Karl et. al.

 

And just because we are having to explain the fundamentals of physics in relation to concepts such as diffusion and chemistry with concepts such as the C in CO2 stands for Carbon does not mean they are educationally challenged at all!!!

Lols!!

- - - Updated - - -

And then there is always conspiracy theory

I have yet to have ONE denialist explain how tens of thousands of scientists from every country in the world can all be in on the same conspiracy

- - - Updated - - -

We just hit a new low - facebook

 

They're not...Most don't believe in AGW.

 

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

First, not all scientists are climate scientists. Just because a scientist goes along with the crowd does not mean they understand all aspects of the science. There are only a few that can grasp all of the metrics and it is often someone not in the field of expertise that makes a breakthrough.

The land/ocean dataset has the least coverage, different coverages through time, the most adjustments often adjusting raw data based on other stations through homogenization and since the coverage is not complete they use up to a 1200 km (745 miles) radius to extrapolate temperatures in areas not covered, the whole Arctic for example. Every iteration and publication of that dataset has cooled the past and warmed present temperatures. You need to realize this is done by modeling it. Other venders of data like Berkeley Earth use some of that data from the NOAA and run it through their own model.

The largest coverage is satellite data. Both RSS and UAH are very close and do not show the warming the land/ocean data does. Radiosonde data (weather ballons) more closely reflect satellite data.

 

Thats the way attack the source since you cant attack the message.

 

You asked me "How long is this record and its only because like in 98 a massive El Nino struck"
Go google the answer and make an argument. I would not know why you ask me this question and why I should try and find this out.

 

ow are you confused You said its the hottest on record and I asked how long is this record. In other words how long have they been keeping record. I them pointed out that in 98 just like in 2016 it was hot because of a massive El Nino that year not because of global warming

 

Looking at just 2 years and never minding every other year is just bizar. If you only look at 2 years in like 20 years, than the planet could even be cooling down on average. You need to look at all the years. Not just 2 peeks, but also the lows and everything in between.

How on earth is switching to solar and wind power damaging an economy?
Sun and wind are for free, you know.

 

The intervening years were all less than 1998 and 2016. The claim was that 2016 is the hottest year measured by thermometers. That is not statistically true.

The equipment have a cost and the 24/7/365 power plants which have to be installed to meet the total grid demand also have a cost. The electricity rates cover the costs of both fuel and equipment with all overhead and maintenance required. The result is higher utility prices.

 

Dunnno. How about you look it up and make an argument.
I can give you a wild guess: 1850. And before that they probably made their best guess with C02 levels. Since that is linked to the temperature of the planet. And they got that C02 levels by drilling in the polar ice things. The deeper you go, the older the ice is. The C02 is locked in it.

And I think you're even incorrect about it.
Of the like 10 to 12 warmest years on record,.. all of them have been in this century, except 1998. And 1998 is not the 2nd warmest. That was 2015 followed by 2014. Dunno exactly when that El Nino was dropping by. But thats not 3 years in a row.