Reply With Quote
No one gives a about your big bad media nonsense except the AM radio bags that you get it from. If you want to bring up science rather than your bull then I imagine you will get a better response.
:::bump:::
No one gives a about your big bad media nonsense except the AM radio bags that you get it from. If you want to bring up science rather than your bull then I imagine you will get a better response.
The professionals mentioned and referenced in the post...none of whom, that I'm aware, have anything to do with AM radio.
Roger Pielke Jr.'s is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also has appointments as a Research Fellow, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University; Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics; and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes of Arizona State University. And, he's also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Ins ute, a progressive think tank.
Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has been published in a range of publications from Science to Smithsonian. Since 2004, he's been an adjunct professor of journalism at NYU. From 2000-2008, he was the editor at Audubon Magazine and from 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado's Center for Environmental Journalism in Boulder.
John W. Nielsen-Gammon, Ph.D., is a regents professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University and serves as the Texas State Climatologist. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology. He joined the faculty at Texas A&M University in 1991 and was appointed Texas State Climatologist by then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000. He has served as acting executive associate dean for the College of Geosciences, chair of the American Meteorological Society Board on Higher Education and president of the International Commission for Dynamical Meteorology. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
My whole post was about science and the politics of science so, don't argue with me, argue the points raised by these three more-than-qualified experts.
Cheers!
Yoni...
Why do you bother?
Do you really think you will shake the faith of the religious zealots when it comes to their dogma?
It passes the time.
Trtue.
It is funny to see them claim victory over my posts when I talk about something longtime, and they show a seasonal study. Of take the maunder Minima to today, and then claim it wrong because the IPCC period starts 50 years after the end of the minima, yet fail to acknowledge there was still substantial solar change starting in 1750.
Then the laughable ones...
When it's colder... AGW climate change...
When it's hotter... AGW climate change...
When it's wetter... AGW climate change...
When it's drier... AGW climate change...
No matter what happens, the cause is AGW climate change. It is so laughable...
We laugh at you because it was not a study of a particular season but rather how to analyze something as it occurs over a season. It's a nuance that you are too stupid to grasp.
It's like understanding the things that happen to an engine during one cycle and then claiming that you are not going to undersand what happens over 100 cycles.
In short it's because you are simpleminded and unable to understand complex ideas.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-217
Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt
In the same press release...
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
Unprecedented, but cyclical and expected. Hmmm.
When have the Satellites seen melt like this before?
First sentence:
PASADENA, Calif. - For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.
What a hard ing concept for Darrin.
It was never hot before satellites.
I don't know what type of engineer you are supposed to be but you fail to understand rotational motion or any type of periodic system.
Tghere is no questioning that there are cycles. However for example if you have a cycle that reaches a maxima at a particular time but at that maxima the top of the wheel lets say reaches higher than it has ever before what does that tell you?
Does it tell you that its always going to be high at that point or that this cycle is atypical and at least something is amiss?
No wonder you had to learn code.
Strawman. The article doesn't say that. Pretty sure it points out thatmelt has occured before. Like I said, this is obviously a hard concept for you to understand.
NASA releases statement saying Greenland melt has occurred before. Darrin pouts and stamps his feet because his command of the English language is poor.
Also, I'm reading the blog of the Texas State Climatologist that Yonivore linked. I like it so far. He seems to complain - rightfully so - a lot about the way the media does a piss poor job of reporting on climate science. Its a lot of the same type of things I complained about in the Rolling Stone article. The irony of course is that he disagrees with a lot of the bull Yonivore has posted on here but it should be no surprise that Yonivore doesn't red what he recommends and selectively chooses what to believe from any given expert.
I'm considering applying to A&M so its always good to read the thinking of some of the professors at places I'm considering.
Lol @ pouting and stamping my feet. You and fuzz are the angry ones.
Yikes. Get ready for all the "howdy" bull .
I can't speak for Fuzzy, but when you, Yoni and WC post I tend to get happy because entertainment is sure to ensue. See the last few posts.
As for A&M, I've been to midnight yell and I've seen it all before. Been to games (best college football game I went to was a OU A&M game circa 2000) and I've even been to the damn Chicken All I'm concerned about their excellent atmospheric sciences dept.
Land of Bush and the core. You will fit in. lol. Also that's where the first freebird burrito opened up. God bless
I had my first FB burrito there long before they were anywhere else. They're OK. As long as I'm around smart scientists I'll be happy. I just want to learn . I don't need to go marching around in a uniform or hang out with those that do.
I wouldn't say angry. WC is entertaining in the same way as watching Jerry Lewis or Supersuckers is funny. I find your manner to be much more sinister. Sure there is anger but it's more contempt than anything.
That is not hyperbole. You are deceitful and evasive. Like I said, I do not know what kind of engineer you are supposed to be but all engineers study periodic systems and either you are being willfully ignorant, are just terrible what you do, or you are just lying.
Pointing to a maxima and trying to paint a record extreme as inconsequential because it happened at the highest point in the cycle is the height of deceit if you are in fact trained in periodic systems.
What happens to the top of wavelengths if you increase the DC input? Because the maximum happens at the peak of the wave does that mean that the DC input never happened?
What happens if torque is applied to the fulcrum of a pendulum? Does the greatest height occurring at the points of rest on each end of the arc mean that the torque never happened?
What happens if the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere increases? Does the highest temperature happening at the times of greatest exposure to radiation mean that the greenhouse effect is not happening.
That is the simplistic version.
In the DC example, you can evaluate the signal as a whole and when its at intermediate points between the min/max you can compare expected versus observed and determine if there is a value that is raising the baseline of the whole.
That's what BEST did. They did a very thorough spectral analysis to correlate the various cycles to observed phenomenon and then compared baselines for the various cycles. They were diligent in pointing out which correlated better but the conclusion for all of the was the same.
You say you appreciate BEST but you are full of because you make arguments such as the min/max bull . I expect that from WC because he is quite obviously MR but you?
Wow, that was a lot of unnecessary typing Fuzzy. All you have to do is watch Greenland for the next several years. Just read the expert's quote again.
This thread still brings a smile to my face. This might be RGs masterpiece thread. I'll need to buy him a beer next time I slide down to South Texas.
I'm really not talking to you or at least not you specifically. I know you are not going to be convinced and that even if you were that you would rather lie than admit to it.
I am trying to put it in terms that people can understand. Thats why I brought up very simple systems.
The quote you cited is a scientist trying to maintain objectivity. As MiG pointed out there was a whole lot else you left out in your cherry picking.
LOL...
Always finding an angle...
There are other ways of seeing these cycles, and you know it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
