Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

ok, so i get it, two degrees isnt a problem, unless you say it is, then it is, until i point out the ramifications of what you are saying, in which case you will deny it.

of course. you only advocate things until you are asked about them, then you advocate nothing except prudence and moderation, unless those principles are applied to something specific, in which case you always opposed them and cant be bothered to defend any specific policy.

for the record, i enjoy that you post links to back up your claims, then deny any agreement with the links YOU just posted.

 

dont defend your stance with links to articles you dont agree with.

was it not your fingers that typed out the link to the article?

let me know when you decide to support curing the illness that you believe is not imaginary.

 

NPR: Public's Absolute Lack of Interest in Totalist Responses to Global Warming is Proof We Are Scared Shitless of It. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

"Americans are rightly skeptical not of climate change per se, but of obviously politicized areas of science. We thankfully do not live in a world of lab-coat-wearing experts who dictate the Truth to us anymore. Any number of bogus scientific discoveries has cured us of such faith and so has decades of politicians lying to us about everything from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to the meaning of the word is to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the pressing need for the feds to run GM. This sort of doubt has added support to what Ron Bailey has called "policy nihilism," a very rational belief that policies designed to mitigate climate change will be far, far worse than simply dealing with changed climates."

- from article


correct.

 

You have to extrapolate the rate in order to have a concern. If you don't expect the rate to continue... there is no reason to care what the rate is. Example...Friday at this time it was 38°F in HOUTX. Four days later it's 74F. Holy moly that's a rate-of-change of 36° over 4 days. That's a huge rate! Compare that to GW's predicted r-o-c of 2° over 36,525 days. Are we concerned about this huge rate-of-change we just experienced? Nope... because we are reasonably assured it will not continue. I'm comfortable in saying it will not be 110F on Friday without even looking at the forecast...

It's reasonable to say the same about temperature rise of the previous decade. We've seen higher rates-of-change of decadal timescale -that didn't persist and reversed- in the preceeding century. Further, we've seen evidence over the last 7-8 yrs that the previous decade's rising rate is reversing. To think otherwise is to ignore what we are/have observed for something we believe.

Seriously? We can treat the atmosphere as a 2-dimensional space? So it would be a valid assumption to assume that if the temperature is 80F at the surface it is 80F at 10,000 ft, 20,000ft, 30,000ft? Ever been in an unpressurized aircraft > 5,000 ft?

WikiAnswers - Why is the temperature lower at higher altitudes
Environmental lapse rate....

Taking the AGW magnitudes of ±2°F the largest significant vertical (density) altitude would be ~500ft. To accurately model that geometric distance (poorly) would require a grid size half that... 250ft, requiring ~144 vertical cells to cover the ELR region. GW is not a two dimensional problem.

Ummm. did you even read what I wrote? I explained how water changing phase from liquid to vapor (evaporation) at the surface becomes clouds and changes vapor to liquid (condensation) at high altitudes. Or do you not believe the water cycle exists? If you don't understand that evaporating water absorbs latent heat, holds more heat per volume than air, that hot air/water vapor rises, condensing vapor releases latent heat, and that radiation to outerspace is happens at higher rates at higher altitudes ... I can't help you. It's basic thermo and not a point of contention.

If you don't believe that evaporation absorbs heat... go pour some rubbing alcohol on your finger. Hotter, or cooler? Air temperature rarely falls below the dew point. Because at that point condensing water turns into fog and releases enough heat to stabilize the air temperature.

If if all atmospheric heat from clouds isn't rejected to outer space... I can't imagine where all the heat goes. It can't come to the surface, because heat only flows from hot-to-cold.

It's beyond impossible. It's UN-possible :lol: Seriously, though... please explain to us how CO2 contribute heat without sunlight. What is the source of heat if not the sun?

What do you specifically want me to answer. That there are lot of meterologists that don't believe in AGW...

30 seconds with Google...
John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel)
Stanley Golenberg (NOAA Hurricane Research Divison)
Joe Bastardi *snicker* (Accuweather.com)
Senate Testimony "I dont' know single meterologist that believes in global warming"
James Spann:
Cleveland area meterologists disagree with climate change

...I'm not going to the end of the internet... besides my arugments don't depend on consensus.

Who has observed temperature changes caused by weather greater than the predicted 2° from global warming? Umm... nearly every one has experienced this. No I can't make a list...this post is long enough :lol: Or did I misunderstand your question?

Oh FFS. You want a study that says amount of heat transferred is proportional to temperature change? You're right I don't have a study... but considering it's been around since the 18th-century (1700s) there not much recent research ... I'll have to offer this instead...

Chemical Thermodynamics @ Univ. Arizona

Specifically this:
Heat and Heat Capacity

Or in easier terms from Wikipedia...

For simplicity I'm ignoring compressibility and humidity... but since ΔT for AGW would be 2°, ΔT for weather would be 10°, mc would be constant as they are both the same volume of the same substance (air)... the heat transfered (Q) by weather would be 10/2 or 5X more. Again no study... but people don't write studies of trivial concepts.

Exactly! Global. The temperature is not the same at the poles as the equator... and it's not because the ice is keeping it cold! :lol: Solar energy flux isn't the same at the poles as the equator. I don't understand how one could assume that temperature changes will be equally distributed? That's theory that conflicts with observation. Perhaps you could explain how more heat from the sun ends up at the polar regions than the equator? What is the heat transfer mechanism? IOW... how does it get there?

It's not a smokescreen. Tell us why it's wrong; instead of answering a question with a question.

But since we answering with questions...may I? What caused the ice in Greenland to melt in the mideval period? What brought it back? What caused the ice that the aleutions walked across from Asia to North America to go? What melted the Yosemite glaciers? I'm not the guy claiming to know what causes any of it. AGW evangelists are the ones with a claim.

All averaging does is gaurentee you're no more than half-wrong all the time. Weather displays a strong cyclical (sinusoidal) signal. The "average" of sin(x) is 0, but the sin(90) still =1 and sin(180) =-1. The peaks certainly do have quantifiable value, even if the average does not.

I cited you!... hoping you'd reconcile or clarify your conflicting positions about whether weather is part of climatology or not. Fair enough, though, I should have said "believers" in lieu of "climatologists".

 

Awww crap! Double post!

 

Gaia be praised! Speak the truth, Jibboo, even though the cult members don't even recognize the cult...

 

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero Watts Up With That?

this in interesting. Not sure how true it all is but the australia data does seem a little wonky