# Global warming



## mishka (Jan 7, 2017)

http://linkis.com/www.climatedepot.com/MuI25


----------



## benski (Jan 7, 2017)

That might be the least trustworthy looking website I have ever seen.


----------



## Quietman (Jan 7, 2017)

As I always say, consider the source!!   There is so much crap on the web that at first glance looks like it's reliable, but is just spamming, stinking, steaming, crap! Fox news is just barely above that, this site is much lower.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 7, 2017)

Is planet warming? Slightly, but records only go back so far. It appears the 1930s were as warm or warmer than today before data tampering.

It also appears that warming has been limited to levels far below IPCC and other popularized climate models. Whereupon a clique of scientists once believed global warming would be a runaway "hockey stick" phenomenon, it now appears to be mediated either by 1) geologic feedback mechanisms or 2) simply false climate models.

It is known that global warming is more of a political issue, primarily pushed by the UN and others in favor of a global sustainable development framework; one that centralizes power and decision making by means of scientific technocracy and also redistributes wealth among nations through CO2 taxes, uneven implementation of environmental regulations, development guidelines and the like.

Personally I'm not worried about it. As far as Climate Depot goes, they're funded by oil companies. I don't think that's necessarily a 100% bad thing as they do seem to push out information regarding the large number of scientists that dissent from the popularized anthropogenic global warming theory that otherwise wouldn't be entertained in the liberal media.

Global warming theory has become dogma for many people mostly dependent on politics. I recognize that when people say "the science is settled", "the debate is over", and skeptical people and dissenting scientists are "deniers", that these folks are rushing to pull the wool over the masses to accomplish an agenda.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2017)

Pretty much agree with you Tuna regarding the politics side of it.

I do think the science is settled that air/water pollution is bad for the world regardless of what the effect is on temperature/climate.  I've got no problem with an agenda to make things cleaner, even if the economics of such isn't palatable in the short term.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 7, 2017)

Oh I'm down with cleaning up air and water pollution.

Unfortunately I think many environmental "activist" organizations like Greenpeace are now getting their funding from the global warming politics side of things. It seems the entire environmental movement which I came to know and love in the 90s has been hijacked with this obsession on global warming.

Which, I can understand, if I thought the world was legitimately going to end I'd want to fight it too. And I believe they've played on people's fears and good intentions to shuttle regular environmentalists into the global warming camp. When the Earth is about to melt down and destroy all life -- obviously everything else can wait. Unfortunately *actual* environmental issues (and I say that as a serious skeptic regarding the seriousness of climate change) have gone to the wayside.

I'm an independent who voted Obama once, Jill Stein in 2012, and Trump in 2016. Not really a partisan I call it like I see it. I'm happy with an agenda to make things cleaner. But reducing CO2 doesn't do that. CO2 is not a pollutant. So why tax CO2? Plant some trees.

I believe the agenda is a lot more about global wealth redistribution, grants for the in group of researchers who tow the line, more power and influence for the UN.

Ultimately I'd like to see the USA become energy independent and I think this needs to happen whether or not we have a form of magical clean energy that can replace oil and coal. Nuclear worries me as well for different reasons. Consider myself an environmentalist still but not under false pretenses.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2017)

Aren't pretty much all political agendas born on money grabs?  Fear is the easiest way to motivate people.  Those fighting the flip side of the global warming argument with environmentalist are equally as motivated by money, perhaps even more so.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 8, 2017)

Sure but ultimately the truth isn't a subjective matter determined by money. Someone is right, the other is wrong, or no one is right, regardless.

My personal leaning is always to oppose political and social movements and err on the side of caution when a matter is in question. Let's make sure we've crossed those T's before we implement an agenda which affects the welfare of people in real ways. Let's make sure the agenda isn't based on an ideological preference, but results-driven and also agreeable to all parties involved.

If I believed a fire was truly spreading across the world at breakneck pace I might be inclined to throw caution to the wayside. But I don't.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2017)

I can dig that, but I also don't think welfare of people is static.  As an example, hundreds of thousands of people who worked for Kodak and Polaroid had their welfare turned upside down in a hurry due to obsolescence of those technologies.  Individual people have a responsibility (to themselves and society) to be as forward thinking towards future opportunities as the governments that steer policy.  If your job is going to be replaced by a robot, train yourself to build that robot.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 8, 2017)

Do no harm!  Environmentally and economically.


----------



## benski (Jan 8, 2017)

It's sad that global warming is denied despite the lack of exports and money to support it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2017)

I believe the scientific consensus that mankind is contributing to global warming.  But I don't believe for a second that our models are nearly as accurate as the advocates would have you believe.  I also believe that humans are very good at solving their way out of problems.  (Food production, for example.). 

For me, I'm all for reducing our reliance on oil - even for just political reasons. I can't stand it when global warming doomsayers also fight modern nuclear plants.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2017)

benski said:


> Then again Brexit is even dumber.


We have a no political discussion rule here.  This thread has skirted it, but your post is clearly over the line.  

I would just point out that the markets don't share in your opinion.  And this is coming from an EU citizen who has a lot to lose with Brexit as far as potential residence locations are concerned for myself and, more importantly, my children.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 8, 2017)

The earth has clearly been warming, but I have no idea if mankind is contributing to it or not.

Given how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years, I believe the "I'm not sure" answer is clearly more logical than an arrogant, "yes", or uninformed, "no", answer.  

The irony, however, is that if they're correct and its' man's fault, there's virtually nothing that can done about it anyway.  Not unless you can perhaps somehow force every human being on planet earth to become a vegetarian.   Most other "solutions" are akin to pissing in the ocean in an attempt to lower its' salinity, and that's IMO where the aforementioned "money grabs" in this subject tend to rear their heads - in the proposed "solutions" to "save" the earth.


----------



## Los (Jan 8, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> I can't stand it when global warming doomsayers also fight modern nuclear plants.



+1,000,000


----------



## NYDB (Jan 9, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> We have a no political discussion rule here.  This thread has skirted it, but your post is clearly over the line.
> 
> I would just point out that the markets don't share in your opinion.  And this is coming from an EU citizen who has a lot to lose with Brexit as far as potential residence locations are concerned for myself and, more importantly, my children.



I think its more accurate to say 'some' markets don't share his opinion.  Equities are up a bit, but the pound is down 20% against the dollar and 12% against the Euro since the Vote.   Clearly holding the pound has been a big loser since the vote.


----------



## Rogman (Jan 9, 2017)

The threat is real. The science is solid. The disinformation has been effective.


----------



## Los (Jan 9, 2017)

Rogman said:


> The threat is real. The science is solid. The disinformation has been effective.



Yep. Another +1,000,000.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 9, 2017)

Rogman said:


> The science is solid.



Care to elaborate?

To make the opposite case I would start with 95-98% of IPCC computer models outpacing reality in terms of surface/satellite warming. Could also point to NOAA's historical temperature data adjustments resulting in an exaggerated warming trend -- whether or not this was the intent. And then a quick read up on ClimateGate will give some insight into the internal politics of climate science and silencing/blacklisting of dissenting views, which appear to be for more numerous than John Kerry or Al Gore would like us to believe.

All in all, we're talking 0.8 degrees celcius warming since 1850 -- and no warming in the last 20 years. Doesn't strike me as much of a threat.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 9, 2017)

NY DirtBag said:


> but the pound is down 20% against the dollar and 12% against the Euro since the Vote.   Clearly holding the pound has been a big loser since the vote.


You are assuming that a lower pound is bad for everybody.  That is simply not true.  There are always both winners and losers when currency fluctuates.


----------



## Los (Jan 9, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> To make the opposite case I would start with 95-98% of IPCC computer models outpacing reality in terms of surface/satellite warming. Could also point to NOAA's historical temperature data adjustments resulting in an exaggerated warming trend -- whether or not this was the intent. And then a quick read up on ClimateGate will give some insight into the internal politics of climate science and silencing/blacklisting of dissenting views, which appear to be for more numerous than John Kerry or Al Gore would like us to believe.
> 
> All in all, we're talking 0.8 degrees celcius warming since 1850 -- and no warming in the last 20 years. Doesn't strike me as much of a threat.



Al Gore's mid-2000s crusade was the absolute worst thing that ever happened with respect to addressing the very real threat of global warming. He is a polarizing politician (and a douchebag in my personal opinion), and he turned global warming into a left/right issue. 

In addition, there are indeed alarmists (some with a political agenda, some without), whose predictions have failed to materialize for one reason or another and as a result have understandably sowed the seeds of doubt. 

There's also the issue of the mainstream media's lack of credibility. They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted. The fact that they're fully on board the global warming wagon further sows the seeds of doubt (and understandably so). 

I'll also admit it's true there are leftists who want to use the need to address global warming as a way to backdoor more government and global government. I won't deny that. But that's just one more reason why conservatives need to take off their ideological glasses, acknowledge the threat, and help to craft a bipartisan plan of attack. 

But the issue has become too polarized, so I have no hope that collective action will ever happen. The only slim hope lies with the market-driven development of a carbon sequestration technology. But even if that technology is fully developed there will still be political questions regarding how, where, and when it should be used. And the fact is that most people HATE winter and want a warmer planet. SO, basically, skiers are screwed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2017)

Fun fact: there is a 135 page long thread discussing global warming on Killingtonzone where quite literally no one has changed their beliefs.  We've gone down this road how many times on AZ with the same results?

 I liken the subject to religion at this point in today's culture. There are no "discussions" just folks wanting to hear themselves talk.  Folks believe what they do and only accept facts that support their stance. 

But by all means. Have at it.....

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wtcobb (Jan 9, 2017)




----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 9, 2017)

Good response Los. Although did not address my point that warming has been minor over 150 years and seems to have paused for the last 20 anyway. So where is the urgency?

You acknowledge that the alarmists have been discredited by their own alarmist predictions not coming to pass, yet you seem to be still alarmed by the prospect of global warming.

Appreciate you response and not trying to badger you, but curious why you remain alarmed.


----------



## Los (Jan 9, 2017)

wtcobb said:


>



hahahaha    thanks for the reality check


----------



## Los (Jan 9, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Good response Los. Although did not address my point that warming has been minor over 150 years and seems to have paused for the last 20 anyway. So where is the urgency?
> 
> You acknowledge that the alarmists have been discredited by their own alarmist predictions not coming to pass, yet you seem to be still alarmed by the prospect of global warming.
> 
> Appreciate you response and not trying to badger you, but curious why you remain alarmed.



Thanks Tuna. I'll send you a PM. Just trying to heed deadhead's observation....


----------



## Jully (Jan 9, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Fun fact: there is a 135 page long thread discussing global warming on Killingtonzone where quite literally no one has changed their beliefs.  We've gone down this road how many times on AZ with the same results?
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



+1 ...


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> I liken the subject to religion at this point in today's culture. There are no "discussions" just folks wanting to hear themselves talk.  Folks believe what they do and only accept facts that support their stance.



The problem is that people like you and a few others like to debate about this despite solely lacking any formal training critical to understanding the science behind it.

Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate, the decoupled nature of climate models and the real earth, and the role of natural variability in modulating the climate. Climate models CANNOT (and I will repeat it - they CANNOT) perfectly track the earth temperature.  The roughly steady-state atmospheric temperatures between 2000-2012 CANNOT be represented by ANY climate model expect by luck (i.e. resulting from roughly in-phase cooling resulting from natural variability).

It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore.  It should be about science and only science.  But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists.   That's fine.   You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> The problem is that people like you and a few others like to debate about this despite solely lacking any formal training critical to understanding the science behind it.
> 
> Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate, the decoupled nature of climate models and the real earth, and the role of natural variability in modulating the climate. Climate models CANNOT (and I will repeat it - they CANNOT) perfectly track the earth temperature.  The roughly steady-state atmospheric temperatures between 2000-2012 CANNOT be represented by ANY climate model expect by luck (i.e. resulting from roughly in-phase cooling resulting from natural variability).
> 
> It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore.  It should be about science and only science.  But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists.   That's fine.   You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government.


Woah buddy

Suggestion: before you start labeling someone "people like you", you might want to get your fact straight about those you are labeling first.

Go ahead and search this forums history from start to finish or anywhere else on the internet and you will not find a single comment by me suggesting I disagree with the science behind global warming concerns.  You are way off the mark regarding your interpretation of my beliefs.

My point was quite simple. People are fully divided on this subject and tend to cherry pick only the data to support their particular point of view.  It's for that reason that I don't like these debates and don't contribute what I know or believe.



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Woah buddy
> 
> Suggestion: before you start labeling someone "people like you", you might want to get your fact straight about those you are labeling first.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.   May be I read too much in your post no 5.  Blame it on the frickin rainfall of Wednesday and Thursday followed by yet another freeze-up.  Makes me mad as hell.


----------



## dlague (Jan 9, 2017)

Surprised that this thread has been allowed to go this far!

If you want to follow global warming more and talk or text like minds then go to Protect Our Winters.  Or visit Greenpeace!

As a thread in AZ it always ends up bad and someone will get kicked off.  Personally, no one really knows the climate history of this earth and what past trends were like when we were not around.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

dlague said:


> If you want to follow global warming more and talk or text like minds then go to Protect Our Winters.  Or visit Greenpeace!



Really ?  Advocacy groups are never the best source of information.



dlague said:


> Personally, no one really knows the climate history of this earth and what past trends were like when we were not around.



Wrong.  While there are still lots of unknowns, we know a great deal about climates of the past at many different temporal scales. There are even scientific journals dedicated to this exact topic.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Really ?  Advocacy groups are never the best source of information.


That's like referring someone to Greenpeace to learn about the science behind GMOs.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Stating that climate models are dramatically wrong (e.g. Tuna and Gomez) simply underline their lack of understanding of the physics of the climate



In this case it's just comparing model predictions with the reality which then takes place. I may be a simple minded plebeian but graph-lookin' and chart-seein' always came easy to me.

I assume you are eminently qualified on the topic of climate science?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> *It's only religion to people like you, BG, Tuna and idiots like Al Gore. ** It should be about science and only science.  But people like you don't want to listen to the scientists. *  That's fine.  * You're probably very happy with your 'anti-science' new government*.



Oh puhlleeeze.... get off your self-righteous, omnipotent, global warming, high-horse.  

I have multiple degrees in science and yet you bang on the keyboard here acting as if you're the only person here capable of _"understanding"_ science.  

(SEE: my previous post in this thread regarding the "arrogant" Global Warming viewpoint).


----------



## Puck it (Jan 9, 2017)

Didn't Al say we should be underwater by now?


----------



## dlague (Jan 9, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> That's like referring someone to Greenpeace to learn about the science behind GMOs.


I do not follow either!  Was toying around telling those who want to have a more productive conversation and feel good to talk to them - kind of a kumbaya of sorts.  

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

Puck it said:


> Didn't Al say we should be underwater by now?



Al is an idiot with respect to global warming.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh puhlleeeze.... get off your self-righteous, omnipotent, global warming, high-horse.
> 
> I have multiple degrees in science and yet you bang on the keyboard here acting as if you're the only person here capable of _"understanding"_ science.
> 
> (SEE: my previous post in this thread regarding the "arrogant" Global Warming viewpoint).



Congratulations on your multiple science degrees.  They are clearly not related to climate science or climate modelling.   

If calling you out on a topic you clearly don't understand (climate modelling) makes me arrogant, than so be it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Al is an idiot with respect to global warming.


But at least his carbon footprint is low... oh... wait...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Congratulations on your multiple science degrees.  *They are clearly not related to climate science or climate modelling. *



Neither are yours (and lucky for you given it's the "16th Century philosophy" or "Theater arts" degree of the science world).



fbrissette said:


> If calling you out on a topic *you clearly don't understand* (climate modelling) makes me arrogant, than so be it.



Nope, no arrogance there.  

And given how almost inconceivably poorly those climate models have performed, one wonders how much the climate modelers "clearly" understand.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> But *at least his carbon footprint is low... oh... wait..*.



My favorite Al Gore greatest hit was when he sold his "environmentally conscious" TV network to one of the largest petroleum interests on planet earth.    

My belly ached for days from laughing so hard!


----------



## benski (Jan 9, 2017)

2 things. 

1. Climate is long term. In terms of climate a decade is a small unit of measure. 

2. the 10 warmest years on record have all been within the last 20. so the earth is warming.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> I assume you are eminently qualified on the topic of climate science?



My name has been put on the '_97% of scientists who believe in climate change_' list.  I've done research and published dozens of paper in journals such as: Climatic Change and International Journal of Climatology.  I'm not a climate scientist/modeller (my field is hydrology/hydrometeorology) but I've worked with climate scientists, climate modellers and climate model outputs for the past 20 years.  What's your qualification ?

With the rainfall forecasts, I woke up on the wrong foot and decided to call bullshit on your bullshit.   Clearly that was a mistake and I'll go back to my '_don't react to that BS_' mode.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 9, 2017)

You can definitely see the mood on this forum change when the weather goes bad.  See all of last winter, for example.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> And given how almost inconceivably poorly those climate models have performed...



It's with blanket statements like these that you keep on discrediting yourself.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> With the rainfall forecasts, I woke up on the wrong foot and decided to call bullshit on your bullshit.   Clearly that was a mistake and I'll go back to my '_don't react to that BS_' mode.



I think Jay Peak should hold up ok with their 191" snowfall total by January 9.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> I think Jay Peak should hold up ok with their 191" snowfall total by January 9.



Jay Peak totals are on the optimistic side.  There is however a solid 4-5 feet on the ground at higher altitudes that would translate to anywhere between 10 to 14 feet of snow.  They are actually not that far off for upper elevations.   There is half of that at the base (1800 feet) and almost nothing at Montgomery Center (200 feet).

I'm not worried about losing snow.   The freeze-up will however ruin everything till the next snowfall.  Backcountry conditions are incredible right now, especially considering it's early January.  I'm not of fan of icy slopes at tunaspeed.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> It's with blanket statements like these that you keep on discrediting yourself.



Funny thing about science - if you're infrequently, occasionally, frequently, or often, wrong, you just may want to check your theory (or at least not be so dogmatically certain about it).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> *My name has been put on the '97% of scientists who believe in climate change' list.  *



Is your name on any other bogus lists of dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable mathematical calculation?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2f7c91977c6c


----------



## dlague (Jan 9, 2017)

benski said:


> 2 things.
> 
> 1. Climate is long term. In terms of climate a decade is a small unit of measure.
> 
> 2. the 10 warmest years on record have all been within the last 20. so the earth is warming.


Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Is your name on any other bogus lists of dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable mathematical calculation?
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2f7c91977c6c



Woah now. That article that you just linked is very far from supporting the claim you just made. There are numerous surveys that have gone out that have found that 97%, 4 of them in the graph produced in that Forbes article.

Whatever survey fbrissette signed was not of "dubious origin" or unverifiable calculation... that's ridiculous. It was a survey, and has likely been published with transparent methodology and might even be cited in that Forbes piece. 

The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes. Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes. However there is still a story (though not as catchy) and more importantly, in the published literature with a modicum of respect (as in any journal with an impact score higher than like 0.1) there have been an exceedingly small number (I have not done a full blown systematic review so I cannot say for certain that it is 0) of studies done that cast any doubt onto the basic climate change assertions. 

Now the common rebuke of that is that the entire community is corrupt and they will never publish something in those journals that contradicts their claim. However, the same exact argument can be levied against those denying climate change. There also happens to be a lot more to gain for those denying it, as in oil companies, and a *lot* more money involved. So you're left with trusting your own ability to interpret arguments and studies. I personally have never seen anything even remotely resembling a study, published in a journal or not, that comes close to discrediting the primary assertions of climate change and when the topic is widely accepted and not debated in most other developed countries, the ability to defend the null hypothesis gets harder and harder.

The scientific community, however, has widely failed in communicating this though due to reasons already mentioned by you and others (arrogance, Gore, etc). Now, just like this thread, the debate in the U.S. has degraded to nothing but name calling.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Funny thing about science - if you're infrequently, occasionally, frequently, or often, wrong, you just may want to check your theory (or at least not be so dogmatically certain about it).



Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs?  What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?

(Assuming you know that a climate model is essentially the same frickin thing as a weather model minus the assimilation process)


----------



## Jully (Jan 9, 2017)

dlague said:


> Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Yes. Even more relevant, during the Eocene (> 30 million years ago) global temperatures were much much hotter. There are no ice core records that old, but there are records of diatoms from the bottom of the ocean floor that can give an accurate temperature approximation of the temperature of the ocean floor (that matches both today's records and ice core records for periods of overlap). 

These diatoms show a seafloor temperature of > 10C during the Eocene and a matching atmospheric CO2 approximation of > 1000ppm. For reference we currently have a seafloor temperature ~ 2C depending on which ocean you look at.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

dlague said:


> Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Your confusing Mikankovitch cycles with anthropogenic forcing.  This is a dumb argument as these are two different well understood things.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

Jully said:


> *The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes.* Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes.



The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst.  That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%.  So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.

But as with all things Global Warming, we must "stretch the truth" and lie about it to bolster our case.  Curiously by the way, in science we dont "stretch the truth" and lie about things to bolster our case.


----------



## Jully (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst.  *That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%*.  So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.



Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

Thanks Jully for a fair analysis of this terrible article.

Is that the best you can come up with BG?  An pseudo scientific analysis in Forbes from a retired oil industry guy ?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 9, 2017)

No way 97% but it doesn't really matter. The fact is science is once you claim "science is settled", it's not science anymore.

American Meteorolical Society survey on global warming
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=24574

More than 1000 Scientists Dissent over IPCC global warming claims
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-t...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> *Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs?  What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?*



Because even though computer models are _"wrong often"_, as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.   

 That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years).   Crazy I know.  It's almost like I'm extrapolating that increased error magnitude might potentially grow with the variable of increased time.



Jully said:


> Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.



There are many sources that could be linked to to shred that 97% propaganda, it's not merely Forbes, but did you read the entire article?   It also pointed out how flimsy the claim is, often based on assumptions inferred as an agreement at best.  It's a silly claim, and yes, when something cannot be proven, but is stated (repeatedly) as a fact anyway, that is not mathematically sound.   And simply as an aside, on its' face, I think common sense should tell you that 97% of scientists do not believe in man-made global warming.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because even though computer models are _"wrong often"_, as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.
> 
> That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years).



You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does.   It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such.  Weather forecasting is in fact significantly more complicated than predicting the climate.


----------



## LasersInTheTaiga (Jan 9, 2017)

I was totally hoping this would be a discussion about the Global Warming Glade at Cannon. I appear to be wrong.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 9, 2017)

Russians causing trouble again...............:-D


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Russians causing trouble again...............:-D


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does.   It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such.



Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.



There is nothing wrong in discussing climate and weather models together, just as there is nothing wrong to discuss weather and climate side by side. 

Your expectation that climate models should have been able to represent the last 20 years of atmospheric temperature (or any 20-year period for that matter) testifies to your ignorance of climate models and what they can and cannot do, hence the idea to discuss both of them together.   You simply seem to believe that the former is an extrapolation of the latter which is simply not the case.  

Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about _'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years'_ you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum.  That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.

Signing off..  We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess.  It's been that long since the last debate.   Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 10, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about _'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years'_ you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum.  That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.
> 
> Signing off..  We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess.  It's been that long since the last debate.   Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.



Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks. Attached is a recent AMS paper on "The art and science of climate model tuning". IMO, an interesting read on why climate models have failed in several ways to predict the pause. 

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~hourdin/PUBLIS/Tuning2016.pdf


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 10, 2017)

jack97 said:


> Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks.



ad hominem attacks??? Really? As if BenedictGomez's posts are all that civil and and polite  I'd call them more like mocking and right down belligerent. But given the amount of nonsense that he posted over the years pushing climate change denial, I do have to give BenedictGomez some credit for saying that he now believes that earth is getting warmer. That's almost progressive of him
Let's give it another few years, perhaps the anthropogenic reasons will start making sense to him too. Not like I really give a rat's behind...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 10, 2017)

Bumpsis said:


> That's almost progressive of him



Sounds like fightin' words to me!


----------



## Rogman (Jan 10, 2017)

It is pretty easy to convince people that global warming/climate change isn’t a real threat. We are not wired to process the kind of danger it poses: long term and slow acting. It is the type of issue we can easily put off until “tomorrow”. However, the bill will come due.

At core, the problem is simple: the amount of heat absorbed from the sun (as well as the latent heat of the earth), exceeds that which is radiated out. The net result is that the earth’s temperature rises. This, in and of itself does not pose a threat. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. There have been times in the distant past when the earth was much warmer, and when it was much cooler as well. What makes this different?

The answer is two fold: One, we live here now, and have to deal with the effects. That by itself wouldn’t present a problem: historically humans are nomadic, we could simply move further north to where the climate was more temperate, and abandon those areas that have become inhospitably warm. The second problem is the rate of change. Half the population of the earth lives in coastal zones, and many commercial centers are likely to be inundated by the end of the century. Currently arable farmland will become unworkable. We are talking about a radical shift in both our areas of commerce and our areas of food production.

If this were to occur over a thousand years or so, the economic disruption would be manageable. Cities have risen and fallen through history, and will continue to do so. It is already inevitable that New York City will be underwater. The question, is no longer whether, but when. We have been reduced to arguing over whether it is 50 years, 200, or 500 years. That the sea level will rise 20 feet or more if the current conditions persist is a given. Unfortunately, we are at 400 ppm in C02, and rising. Conditions won’t persist, they will get worse.

The great fear is that there are tipping points, events that will cause run away warming. Arctic methane release is one such example: as the arctic warms, frozen methane hydrates “melt” and add to the greenhouse effect, triggering additional releases. There is a lot of it in arctic and seafloor areas. It was a methane hydrates that ultimately caused the BP blowout in the Gulf.

Glaciers, as they melt lubricate themselves and slide quicker thus accelerating their melting. When an iceberg calves it does not raise the sea level, however, it may be assisting in holding back the ice behind it. There is one in Antarctica the size of Delaware that is happening right now. From the glaciers of Greenland, so much fresh water surface water is running off and accumulating on the ocean surface, it may be having an effect on the Atlantic Meridional overturning current; the Gulf Stream is part of that. There is a long term concern that the Gulf Stream will slow down. While a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario is unlikely, the potential effects are gaining a lot of press: colder winters in Europe, and sea level rise along the eastern seaboard as the Gulf Stream “backs up”.  

Right now, much of the excess C02 and warmth is winding up in the oceans. Two problems result. Adding C02 increases the acidification of the water (it is already having an adverse impact on shellfish). Also, warmer water expands, thus even though some of the excess heat is being “stored” at depth, it expands the water, raising sea levels.

It is routinely stated that the models are widely inaccurate and have completely missed the mark on predicting what will happen. Obviously, no model is precise, and they can’t give an exact prediction what will happen. Chaos theory ensures that. What is typically done is over many runs, a range of initial conditions are used, and estimates of future conditions (e.g. how much C02 will actually be added to the atmosphere) this yields a range of results; some apocalyptic, others more benign. The actual results have been somewhere in the middle. How do we know the models are accurate? How do we “validate” these models? It is fairly simple to take past data, say, up to and including 20 years ago, and see where it puts us now. Is what is predicted in the “future” (i.e. now) match what we are actually seeing? According to the IPCC, the answer is yes, and the prediction range has, if anything, been conservative.

When you hear about the “pause”, you are being misled. There was no pause. A quick glance at a global temperature graph including current data reveals that. Any reference to "the pause", always begins with 1997. When you hear about how there are “other” causes of warming, whether it is sunspots, natural cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino, whatever, you are being misled. The effects of other forces have been repeatedly been shown to be negligible relative to green house emissions. When you are told the models are “no good”, and have failed to predict current conditions, you are being misled. It is easy to cherry pick data and use it as proof that there is no warming, or that we are not the cause. When you are told that “climate gate” proves that scientists are deliberately trying to deceive the public, you are being misled. It was investigated many times, the email authors were vindicated every time. It was over tree rings, for God’s sake. When you are told that scientists have hopped on the climate change money train to ensure funding, you are being misled. There is far more money in denialism, and every scientist would love to be at the center of proving that climate change is a global fraud. That isn’t going to happen. No conspiracy, just many scientific threads all leading in the same direction.

Scientists have historically not been involved in advocacy: they do their research, and publish their results, and let others figure out the public policy implications. Until early in this century there was a fairly broad based consensus that agreed that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed. However, money got involved. The Exxon/Mobil’s of the world were well aware of the threat that this posed to their business model: much of their assets are in existing oil and gas reserves. If it became recognized that these assets had to remain in the ground in order to minimize the increase in C02, their share values would tank. So they have deliberately engaged in an effective campaign of disinformation, while at the same time publicly making comments at odds with their own private policies.

It is essential to know who is funding your information sources. Much of what is out there is wrong. I write this knowing full well it will convince no one. I figure I owe it to my grandchildren.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 10, 2017)

Intolerance to other opinions such as "the debate is other" and "its not a matter of if but when" is not science.Period.Our scientific discovories are always evolving and adjusting our previously held "this is the absolute answer" attitude.Do I have the answers?No,but when people use these shut down tactics they lose all credibility.Science is never absolute.Especially and almost always when politics get in the middle of it.Jeez,keep your minds open and lose the intolerance.All that does is polarize the topic at hand.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 10, 2017)

I think it's not fully forthcoming to state that there are entrenched, monied interests involved in attempting to minimize the issue of climate change in the minds of the public without recognizing the inverse.

Let me count the ways the global pseudo-government known as the UN benefits from implementing these kinds of agendas..

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld


----------



## CoolMike (Jan 10, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> I think it's not fully forthcoming to state that there are entrenched, monied interests involved in attempting to minimize the issue of climate change in the minds of the public without recognizing the inverse.
> 
> Let me count the ways the global pseudo-government known as the UN benefits from implementing these kinds of agendas..
> 
> https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld



There literally is no realistic 'inverse'.

This is the problem I have with so many climate change deniers is that they are willing to believe that there is some secret cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power somehow by pushing the world towards a cleaner more sustainable future while not acknowledging the incredibly obvious and transparent financial benefit that fossil fuel generating countries and companies have reaped from denying climate change.  The financial motivation for denying climate change is orders of magnitude higher than any imagined motivating factors for pushing for climate change.

Occam really needs a shave.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> *Your expectation that climate models should have been able to represent the last 20 years of atmospheric temperature (or any 20-year period for that matter) testifies to your ignorance of climate models and what they can and cannot do,* hence the idea to discuss both of them together.



So how long do the computerized climate models get to be wrong before one decides that perhaps the science isn't quite so infallible; is it longer than one human lifetime?  Because that sure would be wonderfully convenient.

HINT:  That was a rhetorical question



jack97 said:


> Just like old times...*. same ad hominem attacks.*



You know what else is far more akin to a religion than a science?  Becoming emotionally upset by a topic.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2017)

Bumpsis said:


> But given the amount of nonsense that he posted over the years pushing climate change denial,* I do have to give BenedictGomez some credit for saying that he now believes that earth is getting warmer. *That's almost progressive of him



Given that I've never said the earth hasn't been in a warming period, it's obvious that either you've never actually read my posts on this issue over the years, or you have me confused with someone else.

I do enjoy your use of the word, "denial" though, I love it when people who believe in man-made Global Warming use that word.




SIKSKIER said:


> Intolerance to other opinions such as* "the debate is other" *and "its not a matter of if but when"* is not science. Period.*.



This (so very obviously this).    

I've never seen any other branch of science so emphatically concerned with not solely presenting it's data and findings, but with shutting down and silencing all opposing voices.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2017)

CoolMike said:


> Occam really needs a shave.



You seriously cannot think of ways in which various leaders have used Climate Change to both increase power as well as money?  

I really don't think you're trying very hard.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 10, 2017)

CoolMike said:


> This is the problem I have with so many climate change deniers is that they are willing to believe that there is some secret cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power somehow by pushing the world towards a cleaner more sustainable future while not acknowledging the incredibly obvious and transparent financial benefit that fossil fuel generating countries and companies have reaped from denying climate change.  The financial motivation for denying climate change is orders of magnitude higher than any imagined motivating factors for pushing for climate change.



I have acknowledged the financial motivation for climate change education and even propaganda designed to minimize the topic in the minds of the public.

Yet you want to mock the idea that "cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power" exists in the United Nations?

These two truths do exist and neither one affects the actual truth of the matter, which is independent of either side's propaganda or motivations and can only be discovered by the layperson -- perhaps -- through a clear lens of objectivity.

I don't claim to possess that lens but at least I'm willing to recognize that.


----------



## Rogman (Jan 10, 2017)

There are certainly members of the loony left with their own agenda, however, suggesting that there is a global conspiracy by scientists might make you member of the looney right. Certainly anytime you are making predictions about the future, there are a wide range of possible outcomes. The worst are apocalyptic, make headlines, and cause many to roll their eyes, including responsible scientists. However, in any kind of analysis, one looks at the probability of something occurring and how adverse the outcome is. Driving drunk is "frowned upon" despite the odds of your killing or injuring yourself or someone else actually being fairly low. Since the odds are low, why worry about it? Obviously, because the worst case outcome is so horrendous. Those that argue against doing anything substantive about climate change, put all of us at risk, offering up that "well, nothing bad has happened yet". It's a bet that the majority of the scientists are wrong.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 10, 2017)

I suppose pointing to one of numerous examples of people in academia and science would also put me in the loony right.

Dr. Judith Curry retires from Georgia Tech

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

...

The cost of taking action should also be a variable when considering probability and adverse effects.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 10, 2017)

SIKSKIER said:


> Our scientific discovories are always evolving and adjusting our previously held "this is the absolute answer" attitude.


The context matters quite a bit.  Take evolution, for example.  We are routinely increasing our knowledge in the field, but nobody can argue that the overall theory is without merit.  So I guess it really depends on what level you are looking at.


----------



## dlague (Jan 10, 2017)

Global warming = Big business.  A utility I worked for was scrubbing coal ash from stacks at 95% and were told that was not good enough.  That was 1.7 million per scrubber on 5 stacks.  Now they are going to spend another 17 million for gain another 2.5 percent.  Guess who pays for it - you guessed it the customer.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jan 10, 2017)

dlague said:


> Global warming = Big business.  Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Denying global warming also = big business. Correct?


----------



## Jully (Jan 10, 2017)

dlague said:


> Global warming = Big business.  A utility I worked for was scrubbing coal ash from stacks at 95% and were told that was not good enough.  That was 1.7 million per scrubber on 5 stacks.  Now they are going to spend another 17 million for gain another 2.5 percent.  Guess who pays for it - you guessed it the customer.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



That's more acid rain and VOC prevention. "Clean coal" from a CO2 perspective is not currently implemented in the U.S. and to Edd's point, all green tech is pennies compared to the fossil fuel industry. Its not even a comparison. That's not to say theres money in green and clean tech, but we're talking totally different scales.


----------



## Jully (Jan 10, 2017)

Double post.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 10, 2017)

Jully said:


> "Clean coal" from a CO2 perspective is not currently implemented in the U.S.



CO2 is not a pollutant so it's not a matter of cleanliness.


----------



## dlague (Jan 10, 2017)

Jully said:


> That's more acid rain and VOC prevention. "Clean coal" from a CO2 perspective is not currently implemented in the U.S. and to Edd's point, all green tech is pennies compared to the fossil fuel industry. Its not even a comparison. That's not to say theres money in green and clean tech, but we're talking totally different scales.



Colorado Springs Utilities can burn coal cleaner than they can burn natural gas.  Scrubbing coal stacks is pretty prevalent over all but does nothing for CO2.  As far as CO2, many of the existing power plants that are coal fired are scheduled to be replaced with massive solar farms and other alternatives, but the cool plant in the Springs will be online until 2035 before it gets retired.  The larger strategy has been focused on retirement to reducing CO2.  A lot of the issue is also how CO2 emissions are reported to the UN which is based on a yearly concern rather than a lifetime model


----------



## Jully (Jan 10, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> CO2 is not a pollutant so it's not a matter of cleanliness.



Not commenting on the phrase. That's just what its called...


----------



## Jully (Jan 10, 2017)

dlague said:


> Colorado Springs Utilities can burn coal cleaner than they can burn natural gas.  Scrubbing coal stacks is pretty prevalent over all but does nothing for CO2.  As far as CO2, many of the existing power plants that are coal fired are scheduled to be replaced with massive solar farms and other alternatives, but the cool plant in the Springs will be online until 2035 before it gets retired.  The larger strategy has been focused on retirement to reducing CO2.  A lot of the issue is also how CO2 emissions are reported to the UN which is based on a yearly concern rather than a lifetime model



Absolutely. Every energy type has its advantages and drawbacks. Theres some pretty impressive coal technology out there for sure. 

Reporting to the U.N. or anywhere in general is definitely an issue as well.


----------



## dlague (Jan 10, 2017)

Jully said:


> Absolutely. Every energy type has its advantages and drawbacks. Theres some pretty impressive coal technology out there for sure.
> 
> Reporting to the U.N. or anywhere in general is definitely an issue as well.


And corporations that use coal are meeting requirements due reporting requirements that are on a life time and not per year by reporting annual figures.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Los (Jan 11, 2017)

Tuna - I said I'd pm you but never did. Having looked back through the posts, I'll just say "+1" to Rogman's post (+1 more or less...)...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 11, 2017)

Los said:


> Tuna - I said I'd pm you but never did. Having looked back through the posts, I'll just say "+1" to Rogman's post (+1 more or less...)...



works for me :beer:


----------



## Tin (Jan 11, 2017)

Funny to see both sides when in reality the best researchers on both sides agree "we really don't know what the hell is going on". How we approach that unknown in either a "safe than sorry" or "continue as planned" method is then turned into "We are all going to die!" or "Hippy Liberals!". 

Being skeptical of science *in moderation* is key.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 11, 2017)

When does plain common sense take precedence when details make people bicker?  The earth is like a fish bowl. It's finite in size and resources.  When the fish reproduce to the point it's clogged with fish - do you think the fish bowl environment is affected?  Of course. You need a bigger filter and probably other aquatic fixes I don't know about. So to deny that the human population growth (coupled with the resources that seem to be in greater consumption with modern life) has no affect on the climate is stupid. To what extent?  Who knows. We were covered in 2 miles of ice 10000 years ago - the earth swings without us humans messing with it. So what if scientists don't know the whole truth. I'd rather gamble they know stuff I don't and proceed with measures that help the earth. What is the harm?  Really...  Industries and economics change continually - bummer if someone loses a job over it - but that's life with progress.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 11, 2017)

there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......

The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line.  If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is  small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing. 

The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 11, 2017)

jack97 said:


> there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......
> 
> The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line.  If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is  small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.
> 
> The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.


you should always post source for this data. Just because they will say it is fake or from a funder of dubious motives

another thing was back in the 70's geologists thought we would run out of oil by now. Just sayin. Science is not always what it seems.


----------



## LONGBOARDR (Jan 11, 2017)

jack97 said:


> there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......
> 
> The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line.  If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is  small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.
> 
> ...


----------



## jack97 (Jan 11, 2017)

LONGBOARDR said:


> jack97 said:
> 
> 
> > there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......
> ...


----------



## dlague (Jan 11, 2017)

Puck it said:


> you should always post source for this data. Just because they will say it is fake or from a funder of dubious motives
> 
> another thing was back in the 70's geologists thought we would run out of oil by now. Just sayin. Science is not always what it seems.


They also thought that we would way warmer too.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jan 11, 2017)

SkiFanE's fishbowl comparison seems apt. Seems a bit self destructive to decide to take zero precautions when we have indicators that something is wrong. 

My personal opinion, nothing of substance will be done until a massive catastrophe occurs. Humans are lazy; they must be smacked in the face so that they pay attention.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 11, 2017)

Edd said:


> SkiFanE's fishbowl comparison seems apt. Seems a bit self destructive to decide to take zero precautions when we have indicators that something is wrong.
> 
> My personal opinion, nothing of substance will be done until a massive catastrophe occurs. Humans are lazy; they must be smacked in the face so that they pay attention.


Truth. Traffic lights don't go up until a kid on a bike gets hit by a car.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## LONGBOARDR (Jan 12, 2017)

jack97 said:


> LONGBOARDR said:
> 
> 
> > Plot 1b was taken from an updated data set from the Global Carbon Project, below shows the growth rate. Causality for a physical process applies even when considering a linear operation such as rate of growth. Meaning if humans are causing the CO2 growth, we should have some of the fossil fuel rate of growth in the CO2 emission data set.
> ...


----------



## witch hobble (Jan 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Traffic lights don't go up until a kid on a bike gets hit by a car.


So much stoke in this thread.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 12, 2017)

Edd said:


> SkiFanE's fishbowl comparison seems apt. Seems a bit self destructive to decide to take zero precautions when we have indicators that something is wrong.
> 
> My personal opinion, nothing of substance will be done until a massive catastrophe occurs. Humans are lazy; they must be smacked in the face so that they pay attention.


Yup, when Trump needs to take a water limo from his Fifth Ave perch, maybe he'll have second thoughts about the hoax perpetuated by Chines and lying scientists.


----------



## dlague (Jan 12, 2017)

SkiFanE said:


> Yup, when Trump needs to take a water limo from his Fifth Ave perch, maybe he'll have second thoughts about the hoax perpetuated by Chines and lying scientists.


The reality, Trump in his lifetime will never see that.  Neither will anyone here.  That is part of the problem I guess.  If the clues are real, not saying they are not, then they are not visible enough where personal sacrifice is involved.  

I am a neutral party in this cat fight.  We think we know enough about our planet but we really do not.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 12, 2017)

dlague said:


> The reality, Trump in his lifetime will never see that.*  Neither will anyone here.  That is part of the problem I guess. * If the clues are real, not saying they are not, then they are not visible enough where personal sacrifice is involved.



It's definitely part of the problem.  I'm tired of being told I'm going to die from Global Warming next Tuesday (at approximately 10am).  

FWIW, the irony is every time you get a "respected" source making these hyperbolic alarmist claims, it actually hurts the cause of the people who passionately believe in man-created Global Warming, and that's it a big problem.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 12, 2017)

I watch the science channel all the time.I dont know how many "How the universe works" programs I've watched along with many similar shows on that and other networks with shows like NOVA.Love them and cant get enough.Its facinating seeing how much you dont know.My point is,if you watch and learn from these shows you find out there is a million times more things in our solar system that can and do effect whats happening here on Earth.I suggest anyone with an opinion watch these and make up your own mind on what the probability is that its mainly us changing the climate.I think its a huge stretch.


----------



## wtcobb (Jan 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Traffic lights don't go up until a kid on a bike gets hit by a car.



Can we hit this thread with a car?


----------



## kartski (Jan 12, 2017)

SIKSKIER said:


> I watch the science channel all the time.I dont know how many "How the universe works" programs I've watched along with many similar shows on that and other networks with shows like NOVA.Love them and cant get enough.Its facinating seeing how you dont know.My point is,if you watch and learn from these shows you find out there is a million times more things in our solar system that can and do effect whats happening here on Earth.I suggest anyone with an opinion watch these and make up your own mind on what the probability is that its mainly us changing the climate.I think its a huge stretch.



I can't say too much about the Science Channel, I only get Broadcasts and Internet TV. I heard the History Channel doesn't have a lot of History. TV has Sponsors and the Sponsors have influence on content. If Global Warming has been a big deal since the 90's, nobody has clued in Network News. They don't cover it. Hear any questions in the Presidential Debates? I did use to watch Nova for Science but they mostly seem to cover Nature stuff now. Notice at the start of Nova that they are brought to you by contributions by the Charles and Melinda Koch Foundation? I'll read stuff on the Internet, I also follow Link to see if they really support the Post and if someone can't provide Links, they have all the authority of a Drunk at the bar. They might be right, but I would bet one way or the other.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 12, 2017)

kartski said:


> If Global Warming has been a big deal since the 90's, nobody has clued in Network News. They don't cover it. *Hear any questions in the Presidential Debates?*



You don't remember Bernie Sanders claiming it's the biggest threat to America's national security (not an Onion story by the way, he really said that)?


----------



## Jully (Jan 12, 2017)

wtcobb said:


> Can we hit this thread with a car?



Please


----------



## jack97 (Jan 12, 2017)

SkiFanE said:


> Yup, when Trump needs to take a water limo from his Fifth Ave perch, maybe he'll have second thoughts about the hoax perpetuated by Chines and lying scientists.




The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.


----------



## benski (Jan 12, 2017)

jack97 said:


> The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.



So sea levels rose over 1.5 feet.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 12, 2017)

benski said:


> So sea levels rose over 1.5 feet.



The graph also suggests exactly no impact from human activity.


----------



## moresnow (Jan 12, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> You don't remember Bernie Sanders claiming it's the biggest threat to America's national security (not an Onion story by the way, he really said that)?


To be fair, he didn't just make it up.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612812


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 12, 2017)

moresnow said:


> To be fair, he didn't just make it up.
> 
> https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612812



Well, 2 things on that:

1)  He said Global Warming is the #1 most serious security threat America faces.  Not nuclear weapons, not ISIS, not China, not other terrorism, not cyberwarfare, not Russia, not 101 other fairly obvious things.

2)  It's a completely moronic statement, dopey "Congressional request" DOD statement or not.  And it's not even serious, it's meant as an excuse to ferret funding away from Defense (which has a large budget and the Obama administration hates), to Climate Change matters (which the Obama administration supports).


----------



## dlague (Jan 12, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well, 2 things on that:
> 
> 1)  He said Global Warming is the #1 most serious security threat America faces.  Not nuclear weapons, not ISIS, not China, not other terrorism, not cyberwarfare, not Russia, not 101 other fairly obvious things.
> 
> 2)  It's a completely moronic statement, dopey "Congressional request" DOD statement or not.  And it's not even serious, it's meant as an excuse to ferret funding away from Defense (which has a large budget and the Obama administration hates), to Climate Change matters (which the Obama administration supports).


Well we do not have to worry about the Obama part of the story!

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Jan 12, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well, 2 things on that:
> 
> 1)  He said Global Warming is the #1 most serious security threat America faces.  Not nuclear weapons, not ISIS, not China, not other terrorism, not cyberwarfare, not Russia, not 101 other fairly obvious things.
> 
> 2)  It's a completely moronic statement, dopey "Congressional request" DOD statement or not.  And it's not even serious, it's meant as an excuse to ferret funding away from Defense (which has a large budget and the Obama administration hates), to Climate Change matters (which the Obama administration supports).




Its based on the fact that global warming could cause large natural disasters, and doubts that will be deadly terrorism or nukes. He probably doubts any of todays leaders will actually Nuke another country.


----------



## LONGBOARDR (Jan 12, 2017)

jack97 said:


> The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.



Good evening,
Key word for the data presented is inertia.
We would all surely agree that an increase in CO2 at around year 2000 will not translate in an immediate increase in air temperature.
There is a significant lag time and a prominent change in the slope of the line you are looking for is not going to happen
Next there is the lag in the two mechanisms that cause sea level rise, ice melt and thermal expansion of ocean water. 
More inertia and lag on even a longer time scale.
The part of sea level rise that freaks a lot of scientists is that even if CO2 and other forcing agents were to stabilize the rise will continue for quite awhile.  physics at work.

BTW I agree that there are lots of people exploiting climate change for their own purposes, political, economic etc.
Nowadays scientists are told we have to communicate better, unfortunately it is often  through filters that have their own agenda.
Time to sharpen my edges for the fresh ice this weekend and keg the new batch of beer.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 12, 2017)

benski said:


> *He probably doubts any of todays leaders will actually Nuke another country.*



And similar illogical pacifists like Neville Chamberlain were in "doubt" that Adolph Hitler would actually invade sovereign European countries.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 12, 2017)

wtcobb said:


> Can we hit this thread with a car?





Jully said:


> Please



You sure you guys want that?

Clearly this Global Warming thread is different from those prior. Folks are doing a wonderful job of persuading others towards their way of thinking no?


----------



## Jully (Jan 12, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> You sure you guys want that?
> 
> Clearly this Global Warming thread is different from those prior. Folks are doing a wonderful job of persuading others towards their way of thinking no?



I agree it's quite cool to see. I just worry it'll blow up. I don't actually want that right now though, you're right.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 12, 2017)

Jully said:


> I agree it's quite cool to see. I just worry it'll blow up. I don't actually want that right now though, you're right.



I was being facetious.  I don't see anyone switching teams.  Same as always.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 13, 2017)

LONGBOARDR said:


> Key word for the data presented is inertia.
> We would all surely agree that an increase in CO2 at around year 2000 will not translate in an immediate increase in air temperature.
> There is a significant lag time and a prominent change in the slope of the line you are looking for is not going to happen
> Next there is the lag in the two mechanisms that cause sea level rise, ice melt and thermal expansion of ocean water.
> ...



Fake science


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 13, 2017)

Hope they're wrong 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...wK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jan 13, 2017)

http://climatechangedispatch.com/wh...-global-warming-and-became-a-climate-skeptic/

After reading this article I spent time reading the comments which include dissenting views.Well behaved and constructive by both sides.This is how you have a discussion,listen to both and state your viewpoint.Not the usual garbage of "the discussion is over".Positions like that get an immediate dismisal of any of their argument.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 13, 2017)

http://kuer.org/post/new-support-group-focuses-climate-grief


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 13, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> http://kuer.org/post/new-support-group-focuses-climate-grief



Why didn't I think of this?   I need to come up with a brilliant plan to extract cash from snowflakes.


----------



## kartski (Jan 13, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> You don't remember Bernie Sanders claiming it's the biggest threat to America's national security (not an Onion story by the way, he really said that)?



I don't recalled him being asked the question, he was aloud to make statements. Sponsors have no control over a statement. Don't recall a question since the You tube debate the cycle before with Mr Snowman.


----------



## Abubob (Jan 13, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Hope they're wrong
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...wK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed



Ha! Got a kick out of this quote:



> small island nations that are especially vulnerable to rising seas had proposed that the agreement should limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees



Like the U.S. or the "first world nations" can set how warm things can get.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 13, 2017)

Abubob said:


> Ha! Got a kick out of this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the U.S. or the "first world nations" can set how warm things can get.



Ya it scares me that some humans think they can "fix" climate change.


----------



## Not Sure (Jan 13, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Ya it scares me that some humans think they can "fix" climate change.



Pretty easy fix , just declare a "Climate Change free zone"


----------



## jack97 (Jan 14, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Hope they're wrong
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...wK/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Funny, I think this from the same media group. If it's true we're heading for an ice age.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 14, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Pretty easy fix , just declare a "Climate Change free zone"



Like a climate safe space?

Sure.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 12, 2017)

Rogman said:


> *When you hear about the “pause”, you are being misled. There was no pause.*.............. *When you are told that “climate gate” proves that scientists are deliberately trying to deceive the public, you are being misled. *



Riggggggghhhhhhtttttt............ Whelp...... someone is definitely being "misled" alright, but it's not the people who question the validity of man-made Global Warming, it's you. 

  These "climate scientist's" frauds should be punished with criminal investigations.


*
February 5, 2017 - How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.... NOAA report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.*



> A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html


----------



## benski (Feb 12, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Riggggggghhhhhhtttttt............ Whelp...... someone is definitely being "misled" alright, but it's not the people who question the validity of man-made Global Warming, it's you.
> 
> These "climate scientist's" frauds should be punished with criminal investigations.
> 
> ...



What do you think the motive for manipulating climate date would be other than to get us to take climate change seriously.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 12, 2017)

benski said:


> What do you think the motive for manipulating climate date would be other than to get us to take climate change seriously.



$$$$$$

&

Power


----------



## benski (Feb 12, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> $$$$$$
> 
> &
> 
> Power



Where is this money coming from? And who's power?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 12, 2017)

benski said:


> Where is this money coming from? And who's power?



Government (& NGOs)

& 

Government (& NGOs)


----------



## benski (Feb 13, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Government (& NGOs)
> 
> &
> 
> Government (& NGOs)



Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.


----------



## skimagic (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.




Exactly! So the worldwide deception has been going on since the 1980's?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.


----------



## wtcobb (Feb 13, 2017)

If the Daily Mail wrote it, it must be true*


----------



## benski (Feb 13, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


>



I see you have given up.


----------



## kartski (Feb 13, 2017)

As long as you're not using it as a cite for a Wikipedia Entry.                                http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._a_welcome_rebuke_to_terrible_journalism.html


----------



## wtcobb (Feb 13, 2017)

kartski said:


> As long as you're not using it as a cite for a Wikipedia Entry.                                http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t..._a_welcome_rebuke_to_terrible_journalism.html



... and cross-reference with National Enquirer. :lol:


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> Why would they deceive the public against big money and the publics best interest.



I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway, but I have spent enough time around academics to know that big money and the public good are not particularly high on their list of priorities.  If they really care about the future of the human race, maybe they should start falsifying data to promote research into interstellar travel.


----------



## Abubob (Feb 13, 2017)

My biggest problem with the climate change debate is the debate itself. So many sources stating contradictory evidence to the cause that are impossible to verify make it nigh on impossible to make an impartial decision.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 13, 2017)

No surprise to me that coverage of NOAA's adjustment is split on (political) party line. Media coverage in recent years have been reporting to extreme ends of the spectrum. 

BTW, for those who want to dig in some more, NOAA's paper written by Karl et al was to show with "proper" adjustments, the temperature pause does not exist. However the MET office (UK climate group) begs to differ, their records shows the pause is still there and are looking for natural causes. More telling is that some US media outlets do not even report that other climate/meteorological agencies outside of the US have differences of opinion. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/variations-rate-global-warming


----------



## benski (Feb 13, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway, but I have spent enough time around academics to know that big money and the public good are not particularly high on their list of priorities.  If they really care about the future of the human race, maybe they should start falsifying data to promote research into interstellar travel.



Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.



Usually when researchers falsify data they are looking for a promotion or recognition from their peers.  I presume in a lot of instances that they really believe that their conclusions are true so there's no real harm in fudging data to support them.  Other times there might be pressure from bosses to get the results they want.  Very rarely do people lie and cheat to from wholly altruistic motives.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> Point is without a profit/power motive its why would one try to deceive the public.


 
Climate research has become big business, for 2014 US tax payers spent over 37 billion dollars in this field. NOAA could and has played a big role in this endeavor. 

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary


----------



## JimG. (Feb 13, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway



Eventually yes but humans will be long gone before then, probably the result of a massive meteor or comet strike. A good sized meteor passed by Earth closer than the moon a few weeks ago.

Silly humans, many of us think we are going to be here forever.


----------



## benski (Feb 13, 2017)

jack97 said:


> Climate research has become big business, for 2014 US tax payers spent over 37 billion dollars in this field. NOAA could and has played a big role in this endeavor.
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary


So 2 billion is for climate research. So what. you think the government is saying we will only give you money if you fallow our narrative. Again who is loosing money/power over climate change. NOAA is not going away becouse of climate change. Do you think this is just some porkbarrel spending by the government. And what about all the tenured climate scientists.


----------



## Edd (Feb 13, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> I can't get myself too worked up about global warming when the planet will be consumed by the sun eventually anyway



That's like saying I can't be bothered to pay the bill that's due on Friday because I'll be dead in 70 years.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 13, 2017)

Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.

Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 13, 2017)

benski said:


> So 2 billion is for climate research. So what. you think the government is saying we will only give you money if you fallow our narrative. Again who is loosing money/power over climate change. NOAA is not going away becouse of climate change. Do you think this is just some porkbarrel spending by the government. And what about all the tenured climate scientists.



 NOAA is a NGO, its budget for 2016 is 5.7 billion. The bigger business that the previous administration was aiming for was the Paris agreement. The estimated cost over the life of the agreement is ~ trillion for US taxpayer, roughly 46 to 176 billion per year. 

And yes, climate change is not going away.... it been going on way before we became the dominant species on this planet.  

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060042242


----------



## Rogman (Feb 13, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Riggggggghhhhhhtttttt............ Whelp...... someone is definitely being "misled" alright, but it's not the people who question the validity of man-made Global Warming, it's you.
> 
> These "climate scientist's" frauds should be punished with criminal investigations.
> 
> ...


You actually cited the Daily Mail as a source?


----------



## jack97 (Feb 13, 2017)

Rowsdower said:


> Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.
> 
> Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.



   AGW doesn't even pass the most basic scientific observations.....


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 13, 2017)

Rowsdower said:


> Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends.
> 
> Conspiracy theories about how the scientific community operates cease to be serious discussion if the theorists can't come up with anything better.



Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.

How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 13, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol:


Well, to deny human effect on climate is a bit surprising to read from you given you've been pretty big into the whole chemtrail thing.  Those positions conflict a little bit

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 13, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Winter is still winter and summer is still summer. Sometimes it rains more than others. Sometimes you get tornados and hurricanes. Humans don't have much effect on this.
> 
> How's that for a conspiracy theory :lol:



It's an observation, but not quite an explanation yet. If I were on your thesis committee I'd ask _why_ you know humans aren't having an impact, and then I'd ask for evidence to support that position.


----------



## benski (Feb 13, 2017)

jack97 said:


> NOAA is a NGO, its budget for 2016 is 5.7 billion. The bigger business that the previous administration was aiming for was the Paris agreement. The estimated cost over the life of the agreement is ~ trillion for US taxpayer, roughly 46 to 176 billion per year.
> 
> And yes, climate change is not going away.... it been going on way before we became the dominant species on this planet.



1. The NOAA is owned by the federal government and is part of the Department of Commerce. :flag:

2. The cost of the Paris climate agreement will likely come from reduced economic growth, though this is a guess since the agreement only set goals and the federal government can change its policies at any point under the agreement as long as it reaches the goals. 

3. The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 14, 2017)

benski said:


> 3. The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.




   That is surface temps and if you want to throw in the ocean temps which was Karl et al's paper. The problem with these temps are that they are prone errors; sampling (spatially and temporally), quantization and with surface temps the measurement is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. 

It's very telling that the troposphere temps which mitigates the above errors still shows very little warming and has plateaued for the last 18 to 20 years. With the rise of fossil fuel emissions, the troposphere temps has remains flat which shows the lack of causality.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 14, 2017)

Rowsdower said:


> If I were on your thesis committee I'd ask _why_ you know humans aren't having an impact, and then I'd ask for evidence to support that position.



 Here's a list of non AGW papers about 1300 since 2014, not sure how many are PhD thesis nor authors getting the paper count high for tenure and society fellows.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 14, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, to deny human effect on climate is a bit surprising to read from you given you've been pretty big into the whole chemtrail thing.  Those positions conflict a little bit



You're right. Just as you're being dishonest by characterizing a conversation about cloud seeding and weather modification as "chemtrails", I'm being dishonest in saying I don't think humans have any effect on climate.

I believe aviation may be one of the more significant human causes of change in the climate, and suspect that we will not be able to obtain baseline climate readings unless aviation were to cease.

Luckily for me there's some scientists who agree with this in a mainstream magazine so maybe I can escape being mischaracterized this time around.

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus
    Ulrike Burkhardt	& Bernd Kärcher

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 14, 2017)

So let's assume the Radiative forcing from contrail cirrus science is correct and as the authors say, it's the largest factor in climate change from aviation. That means more than all the carbon emissions burned up in jet fuel. And I mean carbon as in soot, not CO2. But the CO2 footprint is huge as well.

So we can try to move planes over to biofuels and work on other ways to get the CO2 down, that's what most climate scientists would want, right? But we still have contrail clouding warming the planet. So we're not addressing the primary cause of warming from aircraft.

This is the kind of chasing the rabbit down the wrong hole I see a lot of with so-called mainstream climate science. CO2 is always the big bad molecule, or at least it's dumbed down for public consumption as such. I oppose any policy imposed designed to regulate CO2 in any way because CO2 is a distraction; something easy to quantify and sloppily compare to past amounts and point to and say "look, we've got too much". Easy to convert into a universal taxation and redistribution scheme too.

So until I see some widespread recognition that, look, we as a people fly too much and it's clouding up the sky enough to raise the temperatures a degree or two -- and this could be stopped if we really needed it to be (but we probably don't) -- I'm not buying the majority of climate based fear mongering.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Feb 14, 2017)

I sort of disagree with contrails warming the atmoshere.I can certainly see full cloud cover holding heat from escaping ground levels but I could see where the scattered cover of contrails actually do the opposite by letting heat escape while at the same time shading the ground from the sun.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

Anyone who is "confused" as to how money or power could possibly be extracted from pushing a man-made global warming agenda clearly hasnt spent the 3.2 seconds necessary to figure that out.  This is a first for me; even pro AGM subscribers admit this obvious reality.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

Rowsdower said:


> Just so everyone understands how science works: if you don't agree with the current theory on climate change, you need to offer a better one that more accurately explains all the observed data collected to date. Right now our best explanation is anthropogenic climate change. If you don't like that, you're free to offer up a better theory that explains the observed warming trends



Just so everyone understands how Federal financing works: if you don't agree with the current favored theory on climate change, you better pluck your funding off the mystical magic money tree.  Right now the preponderance of such funding is government sponsored.  If you dont like that, you're free to pound sand, because your alternative hypothesis to man-man Global Warming that you'd like to study aint gonna' get funded.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 14, 2017)

The only data there is to really know for sure is on the 3 days after 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded.

http://news.psu.edu/story/222587/20...ntrails-alter-average-daily-temperature-range
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

So what's conclusive is that during this time there was a 2 degrees F increase in temperature range... lower lows and higher highs. So does this equal overall warming or cooling? That's the question the scientists in the first article I posted sought to answer and they concluded overall warming.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong but it's not hard to imagine the high, thin cloud cover frequently caused and/or increased by aircraft having a significant effect worth giving equal consideration to other claimed causes of climate change.


----------



## machski (Feb 14, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> So let's assume the Radiative forcing from contrail cirrus science is correct and as the authors say, it's the largest factor in climate change from aviation. That means more than all the carbon emissions burned up in jet fuel. And I mean carbon as in soot, not CO2. But the CO2 footprint is huge as well.
> 
> So we can try to move planes over to biofuels and work on other ways to get the CO2 down, that's what most climate scientists would want, right? But we still have contrail clouding warming the planet. So we're not addressing the primary cause of warming from aircraft.
> 
> ...


What crack pot science is this?  I fly up high on an almost daily basis, some days you contrail, some days you don't.  The amount of soot emitted from modern Turbofan engines is minute and actually has nothing to do with contrailing.  That is a factor of atmospheric humidity and temperature that day.  On extreme contrail days, you can get a thin Cirrus overcast to develop in high air traffic areas.  But this would not be a continuous warming factor as it will break down or move along.

As others have noted, I have not noticed a warming trend at altitude over the last 15 years (I routinely fly at 38000-45000 feet for reference).  That said, the atmosphere is very thin up there (@18000, the atmosphere is approximately half as dense as sea level), so I would not necessarily expect much warming there given fewer molicules spread further apart than close surface temps.  Also, the tropopause acts like a pot lid, trapping the lower atmosphere.  When you hit the stratosphere, the temp lapse rate reverses and gets warmer with altitude.  And the height of the tropopause and stratosphere vary by season/jet stream and region.

Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 14, 2017)

Edd said:


> That's like saying I can't be bothered to pay the bill that's due on Friday because I'll be dead in 70 years.



Well, if the only consequence is that the interest on the bill increases and you can't default, why not?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

benski said:


> The rate at which the climate has warmed since the industrial revolution has shot up. This happens to be during the industrial revolution when humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.



The rate at which the Boston Red Sox started winning World Series has shot up.  This happens to be during the digital revolution.

Clearly global network connectivity is causing Red Sox championships.  

Either that, or we should perhaps beware of unproven inferences until theories are proven.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 14, 2017)

machski said:


> What crack pot science is this?  I fly up high on an almost daily basis, some days you contrail, some days you don't.  The amount of soot emitted from modern Turbofan engines is minute and actually has nothing to do with contrailing.  That is a factor of atmospheric humidity and temperature that day.  On extreme contrail days, you can get a thin Cirrus overcast to develop in high air traffic areas.  But this would not be a continuous warming factor as it will break down or move along.



What crack pot science is this... and then you go on to agree with the findings of the article except in far less detail. Did you read it?

I will say the authors appear to adhere to the scientific method better than a lot of the climate science I've seen.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

And for those of you who "deny" the persecution of those who dont believe in man-made global warming, here's a Boston based meteorologist who was FIRED this week because she doesnt believe man is likely responsible for the bulk of the earth's recent warming.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html

Then there's a meteorologist from France's national TV who doesnt believe in man-made Global Warming who was FIRED last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/

A simple Google search will demonstrate many such instances of people being FIRED, because they "deny" man-made Global Warming.  This has been going on for YEARS now.  

Hell, Al Gore's version of the Night Of The Longknives when he cut off funding and purged NOAA of people who dont believe in man-made Global Warning occurred in 1993, that's almost 25 years ago.

And, _"Just so everyone understands"_, firing people and/or killing their research by drying up its' funding, is _"not how science works"_.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 14, 2017)

Agree with statements on humidity being the cause not soot . Actually soot or ash will put a lid on heating. I've been a glider pilot and crew at races for 40 yrs and observed some weather conditions. I was at a race in Pa. just after the Mount Saint Hellens erupted, even though the sun shone through a high ash cloud the contest was done in by the lack of thermals. At another race I went 15 miles to get out from under a high cirrus/contrail shelf. Once in a full sun area I hit thermals again and was able to make it back to the home field. 

Agree about the powers that be focusing on C02 as a distraction. Combustion and sunlight absorbtion are the answers. Doubt anything significant can be done with the first. You can do something to prevent solar absorption, macadam should be replaced with concrete. Put white shingles on your roof , plant some trees, anything to reflect sunlight from your patch of ground. 

Springtime before trees leaf out is an amazing time to fly , so much  heat headed up through the cold air . Some incredible climb rates and cloud base heights , over a thousand feet per minute and cloud bases over ten thousand feet! When we start to get lower we look for thermal generators , parking lots , rock faces , large buildings. After trees leaf out there is a noticeable change . 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## benski (Feb 14, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Hell, Al Gore's version of the Night Of The Longknives when he cut off funding and purged NOAA of people who dont believe in man-made Global Warning occurred in 1993, that's almost 25 years ago.
> 
> And, _"Just so everyone understands"_, firing people and/or killing their research by drying up its' funding, is _"not how science works"_.



Is this your source seems to be the only thing close to backing you up and this guy appears to have done a bad job photoshopping different paragraphs and headlines together to. 
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/the-climate-of-intimidation-and-harassment/


----------



## benski (Feb 14, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> And for those of you who "deny" the persecution of those who dont believe in man-made global warming, here's a Boston based meteorologist who was FIRED this week because she doesnt believe man is likely responsible for the bulk of the earth's recent warming.
> 
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html
> 
> ...



Meteorologists are not climatologists. They are hired by private industry so there employers may not want conspiracy theorists. Many climatologists are hired by Universities who tenure staff to make it clear they will not be persecuted for there theories since once you have tenure its almost impossible to fire you.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 14, 2017)

benski said:


> Meteorologists are not climatologists. They are hired by private industry so there employers may not want conspiracy theorists. Many climatologists are hired by Universities who tenure staff to make it clear they will not be persecuted for there theories since once you have tenure its almost impossible to fire you.


Where do you think these people get their grants from?


----------



## wtcobb (Feb 14, 2017)

PROBABLY RUSSIA








If we're going to continue down this route, I'm only typing in all caps.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

benski said:


> Meteorologists are not climatologists.



I have a helluva lot more respect for meteorologists than I do for climatologists.   

At least one produces something and can admit when he/she's wrong.  The other arrogantly claims he/she's always right, and if you dont believe me, well, you just wait 247 years!



Puck it said:


> Where do you think these people get their grants from?



Seriously.  As I said before, I'm amazed at someone not "getting" this aspect in 2017.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 14, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> I have a helluva lot more respect for meteorologists than I do for climatologists.
> 
> At least one produces something and can admit when he/she's wrong.  The other arrogantly claims he/she's always right, and if you dont believe me, well, you just wait 247 years!
> 
> ...


I was talking about both sides. The money dictates the research findings.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 14, 2017)

Puck it said:


> The *money dictates the research findings.*



Not always true, but sadly often true enough, and also, "not how science works".


----------



## jack97 (Feb 14, 2017)

^^^ yep funding dictates the "research" findings. Below from a National review article. Micheal Mann of the infamous hockey stick graph received 6 million dollars I believe he started publishing and getting funding around 1996. So he brings in $300K/year of funding. Forget what the split is to the rest of the institution and how much he actually pockets along with the salary he gets. 

[FONT=&quot]"Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails."[/FONT]


----------



## benski (Feb 14, 2017)

If you guys think money dictates finding, then where are the oil company scientist?


----------



## NYDB (Feb 14, 2017)

This thread is a huge bowl of depressing.  

Sent from my SM-G900V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 14, 2017)

NY DirtBag said:


> This thread is a huge bowl of depressing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using AlpineZone mobile app


They always suck. Every single online Global Warming discussion throughout the history of the internet ends up like an NFL game ending in a 2-2 tie.  Zero meaningful forward movement and a couple good defensive stands. That's all you get. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 14, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> They always suck. Every single online Global Warming discussion throughout the history of the internet ends up like an NFL game ending in a 2-2 tie.  Zero meaningful forward movement and a couple good defensive stands. That's all you get.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Good anology! but Like roadkill you stop and look anyway.


----------



## Edd (Feb 14, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> Well, if the only consequence is that the interest on the bill increases and you can't default, why not?



I'm thinking because the service could get shut off...because you're not paying. And the general point I was making was that the timelines of potential climate change induced flooding catastrophe and the sun swallowing the Earth are vastly different, like billions of years. 

So the two events seem to have barely anything to do with each other. Which is not a reason to just chill out about climate change.


----------



## benski (Feb 14, 2017)

And why do you guys think the government has a problem with funding climatologists who deny climate change. The only benefit to society from cutting co2 emissions is not having climate change. Otherwise its just aimlessly reducing economic growth by making goods more expensive and increasing government costs without increasing services.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 15, 2017)

benski said:


> And why do you guys think the government has a problem with funding climatologists who deny climate change. The only benefit to society from cutting co2 emissions is not having climate change. Otherwise its just aimlessly reducing economic growth by making goods more expensive and increasing government costs without increasing services.



That's more of a political approach. IIRC, someone has already mentioned that AGW is taken away funding from more important environment issues. Below are excerpts from Professor Emeritus Botkin's testimony to congress which mentions the same.

The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now.
Energy
Fresh water
Phosphorus and other essential minerals
Habitat destruction
Invasive-species control
Endangered species
Pollution by directly toxic substances
Fisheries
Forests



As for having more CO2, what we put into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude lower than the natural processes. The earth is greening, quite ironic that the "Green" movement does not like the molecule that allows this to happen.


----------



## machski (Feb 15, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> What crack pot science is this... and then you go on to agree with the findings of the article except in far less detail. Did you read it?
> 
> I will say the authors appear to adhere to the scientific method better than a lot of the climate science I've seen.


Nope, don't agree with this study.  Do you know how many atmosphere variables are in play besides just a lack of contrails over the entire United States over those 3 days?  I would have to really examine the study to see how well they isolated variables (which aren't really able to be physically isolated so they would have to estimate them out).  I hate statistics, you can manipulate data to show almost whatever you want.  Very slippery slope in my opinion.

Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wtcobb (Feb 15, 2017)

IT'S SNOWING 8-12" TODAY GLOBAL WARMING MY A$$

smh


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 15, 2017)

machski said:


> Nope, don't agree with this study.



ok



machski said:


> I would have to really examine the study



Wait. Shouldn't that come first?



machski said:


> you can manipulate data to show almost whatever you want.  Very slippery slope in my opinion.



I suppose you can but this study neither goes against or with the grain of the mainstream "climate consensus". It's another variable to consider which is poorly understood.

This is NASA's quote:

"*Climatologists consider the role of clouds to be the largest single uncertainty in climate prediction.* Less than a third of the models participating in the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included indirect aerosol effects, even in a very limited way, and those considered only sulfate aerosols." Source


----------



## Puck it (Feb 15, 2017)

jack97 said:


> ^^^ yep funding dictates the "research" findings. Below from a National review article. Micheal Mann of the infamous hockey stick graph received 6 million dollars I believe he started publishing and getting funding around 1996. So he brings in $300K/year of funding. Forget what the split is to the rest of the institution and how much he actually pockets along with the salary he gets.
> 
> "Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails."


 Typical overhead on grants is 45-50% to the unviversity.


----------



## benski (Feb 15, 2017)

Puck it said:


> Typical overhead on grants is 45-50% to the unviversity.



This is the real problem. Overhead at universities has exploded over the last 30-40 years and likely is responsible for much of the increase in the cost of higher education, along with ways to game the system of ranking and a lack of incentives in those ranking to provide a good price.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 15, 2017)

Edd said:


> I'm thinking because the service could get shut off...because you're not paying. And the general point I was making was that the timelines of potential climate change induced flooding catastrophe and the sun swallowing the Earth are vastly different, like billions of years.
> 
> So the two events seem to have barely anything to do with each other. Which is not a reason to just chill out about climate change.



I guess why not just manage the effects of climate change until the asteroids come or some fanatics get their hands on a genetically modified disease that wipes out the human race or some politician starts WWIII.  Even assuming everyone that matters came to agree that global warming is happening and that it is the direct result of human actions that, if stopped, would reverse the process, the normative question of what, if anything, we ought to do about it would still remain.  Maybe we do nothing because the benefit of providing a slightly cooler climate to future generations is not worth the costs to people who are actually alive today. 

Deciding what kind of obligations we owe to people who don't currently exist, who may never come to exist and whose identities are contingent on the very choices we make is a difficult question.  The dramatic changes in how we live that would be required to do something meaningful about climate change would almost certainly result in future generations consisting of different people than those who would exist if we did nothing.  Which group of potential future people matter more?  Maybe we have an obligation to bring about the best possible environment who whomever lives in the future.  However, it's not clear that future generations could fault us for any action we take now when in all likelihood, the people who make up those future generations would not exist but for the actions we take now.

Ah well, given the uncertainties about global warming and its effects, as well as the existence of much more critical existential threats to the continued existence of life on earth, I can't really get worked up about it even if we ignore the fact that the environment is going to inevitably heat up on its own in the distant future.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 15, 2017)

Zen has been achieved.


----------



## Edd (Feb 15, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Zen has been achieved.



See also:


----------



## JimG. (Feb 15, 2017)

Man, you guys are as serious as a heart attack!

I like Domeskier's take, that's all. Stress will kill you faster than global warming.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 15, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Man, you guys are as serious as a heart attack!
> 
> I like Domeskier's take, that's all. Stress will kill you faster than global warming.



1+...New Slogan "Make America Cold Again"


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 15, 2017)

Jim, 

Ed's post was a Big Lebowski reference.  Completely not serious

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (Feb 15, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Jim,
> 
> Ed's post was a Big Lebowski reference.  Completely not serious
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Admittedly lost on me, not a movie watcher.

Never considered myself a nihilist; I believe in climate change, but I do not believe it is due solely to human activity. I think that assertion is absurd. I also do not believe that in the long term (think geological time) that any human activity has a long lasting effect on Earth.

What does scare me is groups of people who aggressively assert that climate change is caused only by humans to the exclusion of other theories and the notion that humans can "fix" climate change. I do not appreciate being labelled a "climate denier" (whatever the hell that means) because of my opinions. And I sure as hell don't want these aggressive humans who claim humanity is to blame for the problem also telling me that humans can "fix" it. That's insane.


----------



## Dickc (Feb 15, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Admittedly lost on me, not a movie watcher.
> 
> Never considered myself a nihilist; I believe in climate change, but I do not believe it is due solely to human activity. I think that assertion is absurd. I also do not believe that in the long term (think geological time) that any human activity has a long lasting effect on Earth.
> 
> What does scare me is groups of people who aggressively assert that climate change is caused only by humans to the exclusion of other theories and the notion that humans can "fix" climate change. I do not appreciate being labelled a "climate denier" (whatever the hell that means) because of my opinions. And I sure as hell don't want these aggressive humans who claim humanity is to blame for the problem also telling me that humans can "fix" it. That's insane.



THIS!!!  Those who think humans have that much control over mother nature are deluding themselves.  Man is puny compared to Mother Nature!


----------



## Mapnut (Feb 16, 2017)

Dickc said:


> THIS!!!  Those who think humans have that much control over mother nature are deluding themselves.  Man is puny compared to Mother Nature!


Ever look down when flying cross country in a plane? Man has completely transformed much of the earth. You really think that has no consequences?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Feb 16, 2017)

Mapnut said:


> Ever look down when flying cross country in a plane? Man has completely transformed much of the earth. You really think that has no consequences?



You mean like seeing all the agriculture that is grown where none existed before on barren plains?


----------



## yeggous (Sep 29, 2017)

I'm going to regret this... but I thought some of you would want to know. I just published a brief post of the impacts of climate change on skiing in New England.
http://www.***************************/blogs/entry/8-climate-change-and-skiing-in-new-england/


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 30, 2017)

Someone's actually worried if "their" ski experience will be bad 30 years from now due to Global Warming?

Awwww..... that's SO darn adorable! 

 I almost want to buy him a pony party and an ice cream cone to cheer him up.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 30, 2017)

yeggous said:


> I'm going to regret this... but I thought some of you would want to know. I just published a brief post of the impacts of climate change on skiing in New England.
> http://www.***************************/blogs/entry/8-climate-change-and-skiing-in-new-england/



Did your post factor in this?  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/


----------



## yeggous (Sep 30, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> Did your post factor in this?  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/



That is paywalled. I can't see what article they are referencing. If you can paste a reference to the journal article under the comments section or discussion thread I created, I'd be happy to comment on it. I don't think this thread is that place to get into a detailed discussion.


----------



## Rogman (Oct 2, 2017)

VTKilarney said:


> Did your post factor in this?  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/



I'm going to assume that this is in reference to this paper:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html
A number of right wing denialist rags have misrepresented it as meaning there is no global warming, the IPCC got it all wrong, etc. Not true, here is a rebuttal letter _by the authors_ clarifying the meaning of their science http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/379. Also keep in mind that this is _one paper_, additional studies would be required to verify and confirm their findings. That's how this works...


----------



## granite (Oct 2, 2017)

Rogman said:


> I'm going to assume that this is in reference to this paper:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html
> A number of right wing denialist rags have misrepresented it as meaning there is no global warming, the IPCC got it all wrong, etc. Not true, here is a rebuttal letter _by the authors_ clarifying the meaning of their science http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/379. Also keep in mind that this is _one paper_, additional studies would be required to verify and confirm their findings. That's how this works...



Here is your grade on global warming:  *
*


----------



## Rogman (Oct 2, 2017)

granite said:


> Here is your grade on global warming:  *
> *


Apparently you should get an incomplete. :roll:


----------

