(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.

One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

(08-23-2015, 11:35 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.

One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

I guess you are talking about the silly notion that temps aren't really rising based on allegations that some of the thermometers used are next to black top or heated buildings and whatever.
Never mind that they were only a small fraction of the total.
Are you denying that the earth is warming?

(08-23-2015, 11:56 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:35 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.

One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

I guess you are talking about the silly notion that temps aren't really rising based on allegations that some of the thermometers used are next to black top or heated buildings and whatever.
Never mind that they were only a small fraction of the total.
Are you denying that the earth is warming?

The earth is warming. Not as fast as "they" want you to believe, and certainly not because of CO2. The warming of the entire solar system is part of a cycle. Some regions of the earth will change dramatically. As always, Man will have to adapt or die.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Definitely not at current levels, and not even at 1000ppm. Radiative economics is far more complex than one variable. 

FWIW, I was referencing the argo data used to "explain the pause". Heat islands have become unreliable to prove warming. The ocean heat sink is now the battle cry. Problem is, the ocean isnt cooperating.

(08-23-2015, 12:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:56 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:35 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

I guess you are talking about the silly notion that temps aren't really rising based on allegations that some of the thermometers used are next to black top or heated buildings and whatever.
Never mind that they were only a small fraction of the total.
Are you denying that the earth is warming?

The earth is warming. Not as fast as "they" want you to believe, and certainly not because of CO2. The warming of the entire solar system is part of a cycle. Some regions of the earth will change dramatically. As always, Man will have to adapt or die.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Definitely not at current levels, and not even at 1000ppm. Radiative economics is far more complex than one variable. 

FWIW, I was referencing the argo data used to "explain the pause". Heat islands have become unreliable to prove warming. The ocean heat sink is now the battle cry. Problem is, the ocean isnt cooperating.

You are just repeating the same old  right wing denial. That Climate change is just a cycle. Whatever. Your theory is fringe stuff believed because you and other WANT to believe.

(08-23-2015, 12:54 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:56 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:35 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote: I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

I guess you are talking about the silly notion that temps aren't really rising based on allegations that some of the thermometers used are next to black top or heated buildings and whatever.
Never mind that they were only a small fraction of the total.
Are you denying that the earth is warming?

The earth is warming. Not as fast as "they" want you to believe, and certainly not because of CO2. The warming of the entire solar system is part of a cycle. Some regions of the earth will change dramatically. As always, Man will have to adapt or die.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Definitely not at current levels, and not even at 1000ppm. Radiative economics is far more complex than one variable. 

FWIW, I was referencing the argo data used to "explain the pause". Heat islands have become unreliable to prove warming. The ocean heat sink is now the battle cry. Problem is, the ocean isnt cooperating.

You are just repeating the same old  right wing denial. That Climate change is just a cycle. Whatever. Your theory is fringe stuff believed because you and other WANT to believe.

Denial of what? The burden is on those making the assertion to prove their case, they have not. Your emotional dismissal of my point of view based on politics betrays your position. I study many fields scientific inquiry. I base my knowledge on knowing, not thinking.

(08-23-2015, 01:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:54 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:56 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:35 AM)tvguy Wrote: I guess you are talking about the silly notion that temps aren't really rising based on allegations that some of the thermometers used are next to black top or heated buildings and whatever.
Never mind that they were only a small fraction of the total.
Are you denying that the earth is warming?

The earth is warming. Not as fast as "they" want you to believe, and certainly not because of CO2. The warming of the entire solar system is part of a cycle. Some regions of the earth will change dramatically. As always, Man will have to adapt or die.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Definitely not at current levels, and not even at 1000ppm. Radiative economics is far more complex than one variable. 

FWIW, I was referencing the argo data used to "explain the pause". Heat islands have become unreliable to prove warming. The ocean heat sink is now the battle cry. Problem is, the ocean isnt cooperating.

You are just repeating the same old  right wing denial. That Climate change is just a cycle. Whatever. Your theory is fringe stuff believed because you and other WANT to believe.

Denial of what? The burden is on those making the assertion to prove their case, they have not. Your emotional dismissal of my point of view based on politics betrays your position. I study many fields scientific inquiry. I base my knowledge on knowing, not thinking.

So according to you they thousands of educated experts in fields that relate to climate change don't know as much as you. OK then, that's what I thought and that's pretty much how you come off and every subject you've spoken of today.

(08-23-2015, 01:47 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:54 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:56 AM)solomon Wrote: The earth is warming. Not as fast as "they" want you to believe, and certainly not because of CO2. The warming of the entire solar system is part of a cycle. Some regions of the earth will change dramatically. As always, Man will have to adapt or die.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Definitely not at current levels, and not even at 1000ppm. Radiative economics is far more complex than one variable. 

FWIW, I was referencing the argo data used to "explain the pause". Heat islands have become unreliable to prove warming. The ocean heat sink is now the battle cry. Problem is, the ocean isnt cooperating.

You are just repeating the same old  right wing denial. That Climate change is just a cycle. Whatever. Your theory is fringe stuff believed because you and other WANT to believe.

Denial of what? The burden is on those making the assertion to prove their case, they have not. Your emotional dismissal of my point of view based on politics betrays your position. I study many fields scientific inquiry. I base my knowledge on knowing, not thinking.

So according to you they thousands of educated experts in fields that relate to climate change don't know as much as you. OK then, that's what I thought and that's pretty much how you come off and every subject you've spoken of today.

Appeals to authority are weak aguments, if at all. Unless you believe those in power are infallible. 

(08-23-2015, 02:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:47 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:54 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:06 PM)tvguy Wrote: You are just repeating the same old  right wing denial. That Climate change is just a cycle. Whatever. Your theory is fringe stuff believed because you and other WANT to believe.

Denial of what? The burden is on those making the assertion to prove their case, they have not. Your emotional dismissal of my point of view based on politics betrays your position. I study many fields scientific inquiry. I base my knowledge on knowing, not thinking.

So according to you they thousands of educated experts in fields that relate to climate change don't know as much as you. OK then, that's what I thought and that's pretty much how you come off and every subject you've spoken of today.

Appeals to authority are weak aguments, if at all. Unless you believe those in power are infallible. 

You disappoint me. Of course "those in power are fallible". And scientists around the globe don't all agree on ANYTHING, certainly not global warming. But the VAST MAJORITY of those scientists who's discipline is directly related to this issue agree that the polar ice caps are melting and that sea levels will rise, causing real social and economic problems. And most think that the carbon sinks we have always depended on are "full" or failing. Further, most agree it is the action of mankind that is largely responsible for this by burning carbon based fuels. Those are facts generally accepted by those most qualified to express and publish views. 

My choice is to reject dogma and look to rational truths. I don't appeal to authorities, but to rational scientific investigation. I don't see these as "weak arguments". 

And yet, I think in may ways we are on the same page here, but are confusing the issue with things outside the science, allowing political and social attitudes to muddy the waters. 

(08-23-2015, 02:51 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 02:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:47 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 12:54 PM)solomon Wrote: Denial of what? The burden is on those making the assertion to prove their case, they have not. Your emotional dismissal of my point of view based on politics betrays your position. I study many fields scientific inquiry. I base my knowledge on knowing, not thinking.

So according to you they thousands of educated experts in fields that relate to climate change don't know as much as you. OK then, that's what I thought and that's pretty much how you come off and every subject you've spoken of today.

Appeals to authority are weak aguments, if at all. Unless you believe those in power are infallible. 

You disappoint me. Of course "those in power are fallible". And scientists around the globe don't all agree on ANYTHING, certainly not global warming. But the VAST MAJORITY of those scientists who's discipline is directly related to this issue agree that the polar ice caps are melting and that sea levels will rise, causing real social and economic problems. And most think that the carbon sinks we have always depended on are "full" or failing. Further, most agree it is the action of mankind that is largely responsible for this by burning carbon based fuels. Those are facts generally accepted by those most qualified to express and publish views. 

My choice is to reject dogma and look to rational truths. I don't appeal to authorities, but to rational scientific investigation. I don't see these as "weak arguments". 

And yet, I think in may ways we are on the same page here, but are confusing the issue with things outside the science, allowing political and social attitudes to muddy the waters. 

Science doesnt deal in facts, only data, there are no scientific truths. Dont take my word for it, find out for yourself. 

You are free to believe whatever you want, I am not here to change minds. It takes many hours of study to be personally informed on any subject. I have, and continue, to study our environment. My understanding is mine alone and cannot be shared, just as with you and everyone else. I discuss topics with others simply to stimulate growth, both yours and mine. 

(08-23-2015, 03:08 PM)tvguy Wrote: "Soloman...Science doesnt deal in facts, only data, there are no scientific truths"

That's just absurd and so are you. Science absolutely deals with facts.


 science


 
 noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

(08-23-2015, 03:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 02:51 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 02:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:47 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:43 PM)tvguy Wrote: So according to you they thousands of educated experts in fields that relate to climate change don't know as much as you. OK then, that's what I thought and that's pretty much how you come off and every subject you've spoken of today.

Appeals to authority are weak aguments, if at all. Unless you believe those in power are infallible. 

You disappoint me. Of course "those in power are fallible". And scientists around the globe don't all agree on ANYTHING, certainly not global warming. But the VAST MAJORITY of those scientists who's discipline is directly related to this issue agree that the polar ice caps are melting and that sea levels will rise, causing real social and economic problems. And most think that the carbon sinks we have always depended on are "full" or failing. Further, most agree it is the action of mankind that is largely responsible for this by burning carbon based fuels. Those are facts generally accepted by those most qualified to express and publish views. 

My choice is to reject dogma and look to rational truths. I don't appeal to authorities, but to rational scientific investigation. I don't see these as "weak arguments". 

And yet, I think in may ways we are on the same page here, but are confusing the issue with things outside the science, allowing political and social attitudes to muddy the waters. 

Science doesnt deal in facts, only data, there are no scientific truths. Dont take my word for it, find out for yourself. 

You are free to believe whatever you want, I am not here to change minds. It takes many hours of study to be personally informed on any subject. I have, and continue, to study our environment. My understanding is mine alone and cannot be shared, just as with you and everyone else. I discuss topics with others simply to stimulate growth, both yours and mine. 

And those comments make me less interested in following you prose here. 
Science does deal in facts and they are complied from data. There are scientific truths. In music, middle C is not recognized for it's sound but because of it's mathematical position. 

The rest is reason enough to consider dismissing your posts here. You may be a special person with a brilliant mind. Or, you may not be. That you suggest that "My understanding is mine alone and cannot be shared" is suspect. 

Sad. I was looking forward to the interaction this space provides. Now...not so much. 

(08-23-2015, 03:10 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 03:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 02:51 PM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 02:06 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 01:47 PM)solomon Wrote: Appeals to authority are weak aguments, if at all. Unless you believe those in power are infallible. 

You disappoint me. Of course "those in power are fallible". And scientists around the globe don't all agree on ANYTHING, certainly not global warming. But the VAST MAJORITY of those scientists who's discipline is directly related to this issue agree that the polar ice caps are melting and that sea levels will rise, causing real social and economic problems. And most think that the carbon sinks we have always depended on are "full" or failing. Further, most agree it is the action of mankind that is largely responsible for this by burning carbon based fuels. Those are facts generally accepted by those most qualified to express and publish views. 

My choice is to reject dogma and look to rational truths. I don't appeal to authorities, but to rational scientific investigation. I don't see these as "weak arguments". 

And yet, I think in may ways we are on the same page here, but are confusing the issue with things outside the science, allowing political and social attitudes to muddy the waters. 

Science doesnt deal in facts, only data, there are no scientific truths. Dont take my word for it, find out for yourself. 

You are free to believe whatever you want, I am not here to change minds. It takes many hours of study to be personally informed on any subject. I have, and continue, to study our environment. My understanding is mine alone and cannot be shared, just as with you and everyone else. I discuss topics with others simply to stimulate growth, both yours and mine. 

And those comments make me less interested in following you prose here. 
Science does deal in facts and they are complied from data. There are scientific truths. In music, middle C is not recognized for it's sound but because of it's mathematical position. 

The rest is reason enough to consider dismissing your posts here. You may be a special person with a brilliant mind. Or, you may not be. That you suggest that "My understanding is mine alone and cannot be shared" is suspect. 

Sad. I was looking forward to the interaction this space provides. Now...not so much. 

 
Welcome Wonky. You finally caught up to the rest of us.

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.

One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

(08-23-2015, 08:10 PM)chuck white Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.

One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make. 

I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.

can you provide more details, like how much are they adjusting and why?

Quote:“We’re predicting this El Niño could be among the strongest El Niños in the historical record,” said Mike Halpert, the deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a teleconference with reporters. This year’s El Niño is already the second strongest for this time of year in more than 60 years of record-keeping,

Quote:Fresh on the heels of a blast of unseasonably chilly summer weather this past week, yet another shot of cool air is now plunging into parts of the central United States. Several record lows have already been set, and the cooler, drier air is spreading east.

Quote:Daily record lows for Aug. 23, 2015, were also set in the following locations on Sunday morning:

• Bozeman, Montana: 32 degrees (old record 33 degrees)
  
• Lewistown, Montana: 33 degrees (ties record of 33 degrees)
  
• Cheyenne, Wyoming: 38 degrees (old record 40 degrees)
  
• Scottsbluff, Nebraska: 39 degrees (old record 41 degrees)
  
• Sidney, Nebraska: 35 degrees (old record 37 degrees)
  
• Pocatello, Idaho: 36 degrees (ties record of 36 degrees)
  

Quote:As of today, it has been a record 118 months since the last major hurricane struck the continental United States, according to records kept by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, which list all hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland going back to 1851