@metal-brain saidOf course I haven't read all of them. You would need to speak with experts in the field. But we have discussed many of them on this forum already. Several that you have posted have no raw data or statistics and the graphs don't even appear to support the conclusions (i.e. Dr. Roy Spencer's unpublished gibberish).
Reading scientific articles does not show a consensus. Did you read all of them?
I posted several peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, including some that used multiple metrics and data sources to draw very specific conclusions. I can't remember why you dismissed them outright without reading them. The most astonishing part is trusting an unpublished scientific online blog as a source without question, but intensely scrutinizing peer-reviewed literature and dismissing it for dubious reasons. Weird.
@wildgrass saidE-mails are not a credible poll when there is no follow up polling. Spam is routinely filtered out of e-mails and alarmists could easily call up climate scientists and tell them to check their spam folder and alter the poll results.
Of course I haven't read all of them. You would need to speak with experts in the field. But we have discussed many of them on this forum already. Several that you have posted have no raw data or statistics and the graphs don't even appear to support the conclusions (i.e. Dr. Roy Spencer's unpublished gibberish).
I posted several peer-reviewed articles in scientific jou ...[text shortened]... n, but intensely scrutinizing peer-reviewed literature and dismissing it for dubious reasons. Weird.
A multi billion dollar problem is being alleged and no funding for a decent poll? Hardly. I'm sure a decent poll has been done and the results were suppressed when the results did not support alarmist claims. That is the only good explanation as to why all polls are flawed that make it into publication.
@sonhouse saidA lab is not the atmosphere. There is no proof CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. Nothing you say will change that.
It has been done in labs a thousand times over. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is no amount of nay saying by you or anyone else that will change that. Earth is just a big lab. What happens in the lab happens on the planet. I am not forgetting about other GH gasses like methane, which is some 20 times more effective a GH gas.
If you think there is data refuting the lab ...[text shortened]... not Trumps right hand man, but you already know he already has one just like you and Trump himself.
"Corals are dying because of increase ocean temperatures AND increase in acidity of the oceans."
There is no evidence of that. In fact, the warmer the ocean gets the less CO2 it can hold. Remind us all of what causes ocean PH to lower.
Cyanide fishing is killing coral reefs, not global warming.
@wildgrass saidWhy are climate scientists never allowed to debate on the corporate news media? They are the experts that politicians base their opinions on.
.... and yet you talk about taxes all the time. Who do you think decides the tax laws?
Why are debates being deliberately omitted from the news media? Surely you do not support suppressing information, do you? That is what totalitarian governments do. Do you really condone such an information war?
@metal-brain saidWhy are you talking about polling all of the sudden? The literature speaks for itself. Why don't you do a poll?
E-mails are not a credible poll when there is no follow up polling. Spam is routinely filtered out of e-mails and alarmists could easily call up climate scientists and tell them to check their spam folder and alter the poll results.
A multi billion dollar problem is being alleged and no funding for a decent poll? Hardly. I'm sure a decent poll has been done and the resul ...[text shortened]... ims. That is the only good explanation as to why all polls are flawed that make it into publication.
@wildgrass saidWhat literature? You say the word "literature" as if it is the bible or something, not that there is only one bible.
Why are you talking about polling all of the sudden? The literature speaks for itself. Why don't you do a poll?
Are going to give me money to do a poll? If I did it by e-mails would you accept the results? Have you ever considered that people do their own polls more than you think? Perhaps climate scientists wish they had a dime for every poll request they get emailed and ignore on a regular basis. Have you ever thought about that?
Still trust emailed polls with no follow up? I'm okay with them if there is follow up polling for those that ignored another pesky emailed poll, but no follow up is complete BS. Do alarmists have a problem with the postal service? Is there a big postal conspiracy?
@metal-brain saidI didn't say literature as if it is the bible. It is literature. Peer-reviewed scientific publications, with data and sources and professional reputations to uphold, are published daily on this topic. If a climate skeptic had a real dataset and compelling experimental evidence they would publish it in a real journal, not an internet blog post.
What literature? You say the word "literature" as if it is the bible or something, not that there is only one bible.
@wildgrass said"If a climate skeptic had a real dataset and compelling experimental evidence they would publish it in a real journal"
I didn't say literature as if it is the bible. It is literature. Peer-reviewed scientific publications, with data and sources and professional reputations to uphold, are published daily on this topic. If a climate skeptic had a real dataset and compelling experimental evidence they would publish it in a real journal, not an internet blog post.
They have. Your choice of literature is selective. You need to resist "group think". Literature will do you no good if you avoid reading anything you disagree with.
@metal-brain saidI'm waiting for the citation..... Happy New Year.
"If a climate skeptic had a real dataset and compelling experimental evidence they would publish it in a real journal"
They have. Your choice of literature is selective. You need to resist "group think". Literature will do you no good if you avoid reading anything you disagree with.
@wildgrass saidHappy new year.
I'm waiting for the citation..... Happy New Year.
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
https://www.worldcat.org/title/climate-change-a-natural-hazard/oclc/56817993
@metal-brain saidAll of those are assertions, not evidence. Where's the data?
Happy new year.
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
https://www.worldcat.org/title/climate-change-a-natural-hazard/oclc/56817993
There is no "assumption of a stable climate". That is fake news propagated by truther blogs. Show the science, not the speculation.
edit: the "conclusions" of the non peer-reviewed Singer report is a master class in hedging his bets. Earlier the report states that warming is not happening but if warming is happening (which it might not be) then the warming extent is less than reported (admitting that it is happening) but if it is human-caused then the climate models are ignoring the negative feedbacks (admitting that human caused warming is happening) and finally, if for whatever reason humans are accelerating climate change due to ghg emissions then it's actually good for us. Sheeeeeeesh.
@wildgrass saidYou asked for literature. This is typical of you. Nothing you post has any data, but I have to post it even if you don't ask for it. Then when I do post it you attack the source in an attempt to deny the data altogether. Then when I provide the source you ignore it and change the subject to avoid embarrassment. This is why I always insist you provide proof using sea level rise and not temp data from different sources and accuracy.
All of those are assertions, not evidence. Where's the data?
There is no "assumption of a stable climate". That is fake news propagated by truther blogs. Show the science, not the speculation.
edit: the "conclusions" of the non peer-reviewed Singer report is a master class in hedging his bets. Earlier the report states that warming is not happening but if warming is ...[text shortened]... ns are accelerating climate change due to ghg emissions then it's actually good for us. Sheeeeeeesh.
This all started because you claimed proof was in the literature. Provide your own so I can hold you to your own unreasonable standard. When you get a bad taste of your own medicine maybe you will realize how dogmatic and unreasonable you really are.
"There is no "assumption of a stable climate". That is fake news propagated by truther blogs. Show the science, not the speculation."
What assumption? Do you have a quote? I can't read your mind.
Find a sea level graph that is long term. Explain why sea level rise of "x" amount between one year and another is significant. Don't waste my time with climate model based studies. Guesses are not science. Don't waste my time with consensus claims as you have done so many times before. If you cannot make a case with sea level rise you never will.
01 Jan 19
@metal-brain saidThe William Kininmonth book summary states that the IPCC models operate under the "assumption of a stable climate". But that is incorrect. A book claiming to have a "more complete description" of climate change is falsifying the IPCC report in order to reach that conclusion. Indeed, "natural-only" forcing models show global warming, albeit at a lower rate. You can find that here:
You asked for literature. This is typical of you. Nothing you post has any data, but I have to post it even if you don't ask for it. Then when I do post it you attack the source in an attempt to deny the data altogether. Then when I provide the source you ignore it and change the subject to avoid embarrassment. This is why I always insist you provide proof using sea level ...[text shortened]... as you have done so many times before. If you cannot make a case with sea level rise you never will.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Then when I do post it you attack the source in an attempt to deny the data altogether.
I did no such thing (in this instance) but I can. Their Ted Kaczynski billboard is famous. In this instance the data attacks itself.
@wildgrass said"The William Kininmonth book summary states that the IPCC models operate under the "assumption of a stable climate". But that is incorrect."
The William Kininmonth book summary states that the IPCC models operate under the "assumption of a stable climate". But that is incorrect. A book claiming to have a "more complete description" of climate change is falsifying the IPCC report in order to reach that conclusion. Indeed, "natural-only" forcing models show global warming, albeit at a lower rate. You can find that ...[text shortened]... tance) but I can. Their Ted Kaczynski billboard is famous. In this instance the data attacks itself.
No, it doesn't. Where are you getting your information?
Find a sea level graph that is long term. Explain why sea level rise of "x" amount between one year and another is significant.
05 Jan 19
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.worldcat.org/title/climate-change-a-natural-hazard/oclc/56817993
"The William Kininmonth book summary states that the IPCC models operate under the "assumption of a stable climate". But that is incorrect."
No, it doesn't. Where are you getting your information?
Find a sea level graph that is long term. Explain why sea level rise of "x" amount between one year and another is significant.
..... the simple model of the climate system represented by the IPCC is inadequate.... The assumption of a stable climate system ignores natural variability and the occurrence of ice ages and lesser climate fluctuations of the past. The assumption of a climate system forced primarily by the radiation effects of greenhouse gases is a limited perspective of the complex climate system.