Climate continues to change.

[trysail]

...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...

-Andy May, Ph.D.​

​

 

[Conager]

...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...

-Andy May, Ph.D.​

​

I have been explaining that to Frodo as long as I have known him to absolutely no avail. The entire concept of significant figures goes right over his head.

 

[Conager]

See post #1786.

As the actually self-proclaimed smartest person on the board maybe you could learn to link and/or quote posts.

 

[water505]

What truth are you referring to? You haven't ever posted anything backed up by evidence.

Okay, Phrodough, I'll make it easy for you.

Do 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made?

It's a simple question and only requires a yes or no.

If you answer my question with another question, filibuster,m deflect, or change the subject it means you're afraid to admit what you think.

I asked this question yesterday but the person I directed at towards never answered.

Can you?

 

[water505]

As the actually self-proclaimed smartest person on the board maybe you could learn to link posts

He makes a lot of proclamations, all of which are bullshit....especially ones about himself.

 

[phrodeau]

...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...

-Andy May, Ph.D.​

​

We are concerned with surface temperature. If the same amount of radiation is added (from the constant sun) and the surface warms, the atmosphere gets cooler. The heat is trapped by a greenhouse effect. That is physics.

I have been explaining that to Frodo as long as I have known him to absolutely no avail. The entire concept of significant figures goes right over his head.

According to NASA, the surface temperature has increased 0.7 degrees Celsius in the past century. Mr. May's claim about accuracy puts the figure between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees.

Is that significant enough for you? Tell me something, if your body temperature increased 0.5 degrees Celsius, would you leave the house? Not likely, unless you were on a stretcher. And your body temperature is much hotter than the average global surface temperature, so that small increase should make less of a difference to your body than it does to the planet.

I keep explaining these things to you guys and you never seem to understand or provide any scientific counter arguments. Talk about no avail.

 

[phrodeau]

Okay, Phrodough, I'll make it easy for you.

Do 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made?

It's a simple question and only requires a yes or no.

If you answer my question with another question, filibuster,m deflect, or change the subject it means you're afraid to admit what you think.

I asked this question yesterday but the person I directed at towards never answered.

Can you?

I do not know, so fuck off.

 

[water505]

I do not know, so fuck off.

LMFAO!!!

You argued back and forth but don't have the balls to say if it's true or not, then tell me to fuck off?

You have serious issues.

 

[Conager]

I do not know, so fuck off.

How do you know with the certitude you proclaim to have that there is "scientific consensus" if you can't specifically articulate what it is that scientists are largely in agreement with, and how wide spread the agreement is among scientists?

There actually are some fairly accepted facts about climate that are not at odds with any particular scientific disipline.

Why not start with some easilly demonstrated facts and move forward until it can be identified where it is that you went so horribly awry in your understanding of what science as a body writ large does and does not know?

Somewhere here, recently, BotonyBoy gave a pretty succint, even-handed paragraph discussing the wide variability of climate and the factors that man brings that might nudge it this way, or that. His point was, at what cost should we attempt to ameliorate man's impact and will those attempts actually be effective in a meaningful way?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made?

Climatologists. Not scientists in general.

 

[KingOrfeo]

As the actually self-proclaimed smartest person on the board maybe you could learn to link and/or quote posts.

What, for something just a few posts up the page? You have a mouse-wheel; use it.

 

[Conager]

What, for something just a few posts up the page? You have a mouse-wheel; use it.

You have a multi-quote button, use it.

I think my smartphone would be a little clunky with a mouse wheel.

 

[Conager]

Climatologists. Not scientists in general.

Ok. Lets use your retarded qualifer and only use the select group that earn their bread and butter by affixing thst meaningless lable to whatever subspeciallty they are actually qualified and trained in.

No matter.

Do even they agree 97% of the time with your ridiculous assertion that "Climate Change is anthropogenic?"

 

[Conager]

See also, post 1809.

 

[phrodeau]

See also, post 1809.

I see you dropped the "significant figures" argument, and latched onto the "consensus" argument instead, with a little "it costs too much to fix" argument thrown in.

Did you do any research on those arguments, or are you just grasping at straws now?

At least you've got some arguments, unlike water505 who throws up fake stats and insults.

 

[water505]

I see you dropped the "significant figures" argument, and latched onto the "consensus" argument instead, with a little "it costs too much to fix" argument thrown in.

Did you do any research on those arguments, or are you just grasping at straws now?

At least you've got some arguments, unlike water505 who throws up fake stats and insults.

You just can't stop making yourself look like a complete fool.

 

[Hard_Rom]

You just can't stop making yourself look like a complete fool.

Look whose talking. You can't quote one serious source to debunk global warming. All you got is bloggers and paid lobbyists of the fossil fuel industry.

Quit while you're behind, loudmouth!

 

[water505]

Look whose talking. You can't quote one serious source to debunk global warming. All you got is bloggers and paid lobbyists of the fossil fuel industry.

Quit while you're behind, loudmouth!

Is whose like "who's?"

Did I say global warming didn't exist? I didn't, did I? Fucking liar.

As expected you didn't read any of the credible sources exposes the 97% figure as a fraud. In fact if you read anything on the subject you'd find out the 97% figure originated with one of those "bloggers."

Why are you leftists so deathly afraid of anything which discredits your whacko ideologies?

Willful ignorance.

Dipshit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . thst meaningless lable to whatever subspeciallty they are actually qualified and trained in.

Climatology is a hard natural science like any other hard natural science.

Do even they agree 97% of the time with your ridiculous assertion that "Climate Change is anthropogenic?"

Yes.

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I see you dropped the "significant figures" argument . . .

Yeah, what was that about, anyway?

 

[water505]

This is a perfect representation of how leftists disuss the issue.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is a perfect representation of how leftists disuss the issue.

What do "leftists" have to do with anything? The question of whether climate change is anthropogenic is scientific, not political. I'm sure a great many conservatives accept that it is. In other countries, the point does not appear to be controversial practically anywhere along the political spectrum.

 

[Hard_Rom]

What do "leftists" have to do with anything? The question of whether climate change is anthropogenic is scientific, not political. I'm sure a great many conservatives accept that it is. In other countries, the point does not appear to be controversial practically anywhere along the political spectrum.

In Yankland EVRYTHING is politicized along partisan lines.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In Yankland EVRYTHING is politicized along partisan lines.

Well, abortion is so politicized in many countries, isn't it? Not as thoroughly as here, but still. And then there's immigration -- seems to be partisan-politicized in every country that attracts significant numbers of immigrants.

 

[Conager]

I see you dropped the "significant figures" argument, and latched onto the "consensus" argument instead, with a little "it costs too much to fix" argument thrown in.

Did you do any research on those arguments, or are you just grasping at straws now?

At least you've got some arguments, unlike water505 who throws up fake stats and insults.

What?

You can't follow several different points of contention in your own thread about the subject that you present yourself as knowlegable about?

Significant figures is only relevent when discussing malfeasance in collating and presenting data. I realize even though I've explained it several times that you still don't understand the concept. It has to do with decimal points I suspect you weren't very good with fractions.