Climate Change

gwb-trading said:
I make a living analyzing large scientific data sets to drive decisioning & other analytics for banks and other organizations. I am probably the only person in this forum who has dug through the raw temperature data from HadCRUT and other sources. The bottom line - the global temperature is not rising over the past two decades and it has no correlation to CO2 level. I will also note that many processed temperature sets completely fail basic fraud analysis.

The bottom line is that politically-driven "science" that starts as a fraud - still remains a fraud no matter how much additional government funded "scientific thought" is added to it over a 40 year timespan.
More...


So then you admit that you don't know what a greenhouse gas is and are an idiot.
 
Last edited:
gwb-trading said:
I go where the data leads... not where the politics tell me to go.

I suppose next FC is going to pop up with some absurd comment about 97% disagreeing with me - which is just an absurd example of politics over realistic science. There is no "97%" scientific consensus regarding AGW.
More...


Among the top climate scientists yes there is. No question. Only completely ignorant morons deny that.
 
piezoe said:
Can you identify a single person that does not believe that the climate is changing over some undefined period of time? Is there a Law of Climate Change? Hardly, because there is no theory underlying climate change, no mathematical expression of it that agrees with observation, and it is yet not possible to predict it. We know a great deal about it, and yet our knowledge is still rudimentary.

The central issue now should be whether cutting man generated CO2 by some percent will have any noticeable beneficial affect on climate. A working hypothesis was put forth by Hansen, i.e., man's CO2 emission could lead to catastrophic global warming provided there is positive feedback. Simple greenhouse gas theory (this is actually a true theory) allows one to predict, assuming zero feedback, a warming of about one degree Celsius for the first doubling of CO2 from late 19th century levels, but this is not enough to cause catastrophic warming.

On balance, observation suggests feedback is slightly negative. A key requirement for acceptance of Hansen's hypothesis is missing from the observations. It is absurd, therefore, to base public policy on an hypothesis not supported by observation. Unfortunately, observation is all we have. There is no theory of climate change!, only hypotheses, and the one that is central to the current controversy has been disproved.
More...

Just plain wrong. As usual when you speak about AGW. Climate science 101 is still alive and well. CO2 is still a ghg and positive feedback mechanisms are still firmly in place.
 
piezoe said:
This is the central issue. Until you can grasp this, you can not possibly contribute logically to the current controversy, which ultimately impinges on public policy. That's why it is so important.
More...


Yes, the central issue is that CO2 is very important ghg and we have raised it's levels by 40%. Why you don't understand this is a real mystery that is probably best left to your psychiatrist to figure out.
 
gwb-trading said:
"Majority of real scientists" - you seem to be unaware that the percentage of scientists supporting AGW has slid below 50% in 2014 based on feedback from Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
More...


Complete nonsense. You are very deluded.
 
gwb-trading said:
Yes, and according to ARGO (the organization in charge of all the ocean temperature measurement buoys) there has been no increase in global ocean temperature at any layer. You can feel free to download their data and dig through it yourself if you doubt this assertion.
More...


Complete Bullshit

heat_content700m2000myr.png


http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top