Remember me
▼ Content

Coming up: How concerned should we be about climate change?


Coming up: How concerned should we be about climate change?13-03-2019 16:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1013)
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/03/12/how-concerned-should-we-be-about-climate-change-is-it-time-to-panic
13-03-2019 21:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Define 'climate change'. Why panic at all?
13-03-2019 21:42
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...
13-03-2019 21:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
I'm more concerned about the socialist aspects it's tie to. They are sneaky, and never give up. Nothing wrong with the climate changing, it' always has, always will. Looking forward to a warmer climate, and more CO2 for the plants.
14-03-2019 00:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the socialist aspects it's tie to. They are sneaky, and never give up. Nothing wrong with the climate changing, it' always has, always will. Looking forward to a warmer climate, and more CO2 for the plants.


That IS definable. That IS something to worry about.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 02:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
gfm7175 wrote:
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...


Stop repeating the ignorance of Nightmare. Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.
14-03-2019 03:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 04:02
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...


Stop repeating the ignorance of Nightmare. Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.

And "long term change in weather" or "weather over a long period of time" is how the word climate is typically defined... you are still defining the term with itself, Wake... circular definitions don't work...

Also, "long term change in weather conditions" is not quantifiable, Wake... how is one supposed to falsify that?
14-03-2019 04:08
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?

Exactly... what is "long term" and why is THAT considered to be "long term" as opposed to some other period of time?
14-03-2019 16:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.
14-03-2019 17:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote:
Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.

A climate is the local conditions bounded by a time frame.

You are describing an absurd logical contradiction, i.e. an unbounded bounded global local undefinition. Would you care to explain WTF you believe you mean? And *you* claim that *I* am saying stupid things.

Let's call a spade a spade. You are pulling contradictions out of your ass under the belief that presenting them somehow makes you an f-ing genius.

I have bad news for you. At some point in the past, someone you trusted did you a grave disservice and indoctrinated you into a world of hurt. It must suck being relegated to spewing meaningless gibberbabble and getting defensive when anyone tries to help you.

I pity you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 17:03
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.

You've been told why it is circular, Wake...

Why a century ("or more"), Wake? Why is a century such a special distinction of time as opposed to a decade?

I see your anger issues are still plaguing you.
Edited on 14-03-2019 17:05
14-03-2019 17:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
gfm7175 wrote: Exactly... what is "long term" and why is THAT considered to be "long term" as opposed to some other period of time?

Actually, Into the Night hit the nail on the head. A temperature, or any other measurement, is an instantaneous action. It is absurd to speak of minimum time periods for a measurement to be valid.

Oh, and another piece of wisdom for you: feel free to call BS on anyone who speaks of "trends" in the weather or in any other random event. "Trend" implies some sort of correlation relationship which cannot occur in random events.

For example, if you flip a coin twelve times, it doesn't matter what those twelve results were, the next flip will always be 50/50. There can be no trend.

The same with weather. Past performance says NOTHING about what the weather will be in the future. Ergo, people who claim that the "science" lies in finding "trends" in random events (e.g. weather) are feeding you something particularly stinky.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 18:53
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Exactly... what is "long term" and why is THAT considered to be "long term" as opposed to some other period of time?

Actually, Into the Night hit the nail on the head. A temperature, or any other measurement, is an instantaneous action. It is absurd to speak of minimum time periods for a measurement to be valid.

Oh, and another piece of wisdom for you: feel free to call BS on anyone who speaks of "trends" in the weather or in any other random event. "Trend" implies some sort of correlation relationship which cannot occur in random events.

For example, if you flip a coin twelve times, it doesn't matter what those twelve results were, the next flip will always be 50/50. There can be no trend.

The same with weather. Past performance says NOTHING about what the weather will be in the future. Ergo, people who claim that the "science" lies in finding "trends" in random events (e.g. weather) are feeding you something particularly stinky.


You might have misunderstood... I was agreeing with your post and do agree that ITN was correct. I will say that you bring up a good point about reinforcing that measuring temperature is an instantaneous action, and that tidbit does make for a stronger counterargument.
Edited on 14-03-2019 18:54
14-03-2019 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...


Stop repeating the ignorance of Nightmare. Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


So you are defining 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Circular definition, Wake.
Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather in a region over a long time'.

Just what is the global weather right now, Wake?


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 19:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.


Why is 100 years significant? Why is any other time interval NOT significant? Why use 100 years?


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 19:08
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(153)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...


Stop repeating the ignorance of Nightmare. Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


So you are defining 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Circular definition, Wake.
Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather in a region over a long time'.

Just what is the global weather right now, Wake?

It's 56 and Sunny right now in the Madison WI area... lots of flooding going on here due to lots of rainfall and snow melting all before the ground had any chance to "unthaw"...

I'd bet it's different in Seattle, and different in Miami, and different in Tokyo... ... ...
14-03-2019 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Exactly... what is "long term" and why is THAT considered to be "long term" as opposed to some other period of time?

Actually, Into the Night hit the nail on the head. A temperature, or any other measurement, is an instantaneous action. It is absurd to speak of minimum time periods for a measurement to be valid.

Oh, and another piece of wisdom for you: feel free to call BS on anyone who speaks of "trends" in the weather or in any other random event. "Trend" implies some sort of correlation relationship which cannot occur in random events.

For example, if you flip a coin twelve times, it doesn't matter what those twelve results were, the next flip will always be 50/50. There can be no trend.

The same with weather. Past performance says NOTHING about what the weather will be in the future. Ergo, people who claim that the "science" lies in finding "trends" in random events (e.g. weather) are feeding you something particularly stinky.


Well put. It's also a great example why probability math loses the power of prediction inherent in mathematics. It depends on random numbers.

You can calculate the odds of a coin flip all day long. It will do nothing to tell you what the next coin flip will actually be.

The same thing affects statistics. Data is selected by using random numbers (selection by randN). It cannot use cooked data (since a summary hasn't been run yet!) and requires the use of raw data only. It is normalized against a curve of random numbers (the paired randU curve, otherwise known as the 'probability curve'. The data being summarized is an instantaneous value as a set. Thus, statistics has no power of prediction in it either. It can summarize, but it too cannot predict what is to come.

Not even statistics can predict a trend.

I've notice that when someone brings up the 'trend' argument, they are usually making a baserate fallacy. They somehow figure you are measuring an absolute temperature just because you use a different zero reference.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Yeah, I don't concern myself with circularly-defined "things"...


Stop repeating the ignorance of Nightmare. Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


So you are defining 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Circular definition, Wake.
Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather in a region over a long time'.

Just what is the global weather right now, Wake?

It's 56 and Sunny right now in the Madison WI area... lots of flooding going on here due to lots of rainfall and snow melting all before the ground had any chance to "unthaw"...

I'd bet it's different in Seattle, and different in Miami, and different in Tokyo... ... ...


We are in the mid-60's today. Snow is still melting around here. Our local airport plowed the runways (6 miles of freeway equivalent), the taxiways, and the ramp, and piled the whole mess in front of the terminal building. It looks like a giant snowdrift blocking the view of the terminal building. It's gonna be June before THAT thing melts!


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 21:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.

You've been told why it is circular, Wake...

Why a century ("or more"), Wake? Why is a century such a special distinction of time as opposed to a decade?

I see your anger issues are still plaguing you.


Anger "issues" huh. You cannot grasp that there is a localized climate and world wide climate for which mean global temperature is an indicator. Why are you purposely misrepresenting this?

You do not understand statistical averaging and hence think for some reason that "a century" is somehow the climate during a 100 year period and not a running 100 year average.

These things are not difficult to grasp if you aren't playing know-it-all and making nothing more than negative comments simply in response to the equally stupid comments about man-made climate change.

Apparently you are denying the fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed on a world wide scale driving MGT up 2 degrees C or that the Little Ice Age was a world wide event driving temperatures down 3 degrees C. Apparently, to you this was nothing more than a change of seasons.

But I'm having anger issues and you're not having intelligence issues.
14-03-2019 22:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Climate change is not a "circular definition" it is the "long term change in weather conditions." These are cyclic but quite real.


We already have a word for this: "seasons."


Otherwise, what is a "long term" weather change? Can you give me an example?


Exactly why are you saying stupid things? Climate is the average MGT over periods of a century or more. The pretense that this is "circular" is rather numb.

You've been told why it is circular, Wake...

Why a century ("or more"), Wake? Why is a century such a special distinction of time as opposed to a decade?

I see your anger issues are still plaguing you.


Anger "issues" huh.
That's what he said, Wake. He's right. You do have anger issues.
Wake wrote:
You cannot grasp that there is a localized climate and world wide climate for which mean global temperature is an indicator.

No. There is no such thing as a global weather. There is no such thing as a global climate. It is YOU that is trying to change the meaning of 'climate' for a special case. What is your justification for redefining 'climate' for this special case?
Wake wrote:
Why are you purposely misrepresenting this?
No, Wake. That would be you. It is you that is trying to change the meaning of 'climate' for a special case.
Wake wrote:
You do not understand statistical averaging and hence think for some reason that "a century" is somehow the climate during a 100 year period and not a running 100 year average.

Did you know a 'century' is 100 years, Wake? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth...not now, and not 100 years ago. What 'averages' are you talking about? Did you know that a simple average is meaningless without the rest of the summary results, like the margin of error? You have to show selection is from raw data and the biasing influences have been removed too.

There is no raw data except from thermometers grouped into cities and wherever there are roads. They are not read by the same observer at the same time.

Time is significant. Earth moves. Weather moves. You have to have the same observer read all thermometers simultaneously.

Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be spread uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

Raw data must be used. Cooking data renders the data useless. That at best depends on a summary that hasn't been run yet.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Temperature gradients can be as steep as 20 deg F per mile. This affects the margin of error.
Wake wrote:
These things are not difficult to grasp if you aren't playing know-it-all and making nothing more than negative comments simply in response to the equally stupid comments about man-made climate change.

Define 'climate change'. Your anger issues are showing again, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Apparently you are denying the fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed on a world wide scale driving MGT up 2 degrees C or that the Little Ice Age was a world wide event driving temperatures down 3 degrees C. Apparently, to you this was nothing more than a change of seasons.

We don't have any temperatures of the Earth during the Medieval Warm Period nor for any other period. We don't even know if the Medieval Warm Period existed anywhere outside of Europe. The same is true of the 'Little Ice Age'.
Wake wrote:
But I'm having anger issues and you're not having intelligence issues.

You are having anger issues, Wake. Perhaps you should stop insulting people and concentrate on their arguments instead.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2019 23:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Into the Night wrote: Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be spread uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

I'm going to beg your indulgence over my minor quibble.

[Minor Quibble]
Hundreds of millions of thermometers need to be spread uniformly throughout the atmosphere, across many altitudes if you want an average temperature that resembles anything like "useful."
[/Minor Quibble]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 23:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be spread uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

I'm going to beg your indulgence over my minor quibble.

[Minor Quibble]
Hundreds of millions of thermometers need to be spread uniformly throughout the atmosphere, across many altitudes if you want an average temperature that resembles anything like "useful."
[/Minor Quibble]


Works for me. However, I was only referring to surface temperatures. The same problem applies.

I don't think people much care about temperatures in the interior of the Earth to be part of 'global warming' (except for James). They probably don't give a whole lot of rip about temperatures at altitude.

What both NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC claim is an average surface temperature; that is the air we normally stand in. You've seen this argument already presented by another (in order to improperly compare two different thermodynamic systems as equivalent).

In this case, we are talking about perceived temperature records and how to measure a global temperature, even if it's only a global surface temperature.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-03-2019 23:57
15-03-2019 02:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be spread uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

I'm going to beg your indulgence over my minor quibble.

[Minor Quibble]
Hundreds of millions of thermometers need to be spread uniformly throughout the atmosphere, across many altitudes if you want an average temperature that resembles anything like "useful."
[/Minor Quibble]


I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to stop paying any attention to Nightmare because he is an idiot.

As I published in another area: We have the Weather Satellites, we have the Milankovitch Cycles and we have the solar cycles (for the most part).

These are STRONG indicators of Mean Global Temperature IF and only if we can get honest raw data from NASA and NOAA. This starts becoming rather simple calculation at that point.

The real problem is that open faced pure lying from the environmentalists who control everything from the EPA to NASA climate division to NOAA.

If we have the proper and honest raw data we have a fairly clear picture of what has happened in the climate in the world.

What I'm saying is that the US had extremely good temperature records starting at least in 1880. Europe from a little earlier. Australian and New Zealand from their capitals and South Africa as well.

You do NOT need a thermometer in every nook and cranny to have a reasonably accurate MGT.

Will this be accurate to two decimal points? Hell no. But we do not need that because we are mapping out the climate sensitivity of the Earth.
15-03-2019 04:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be spread uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

I'm going to beg your indulgence over my minor quibble.

[Minor Quibble]
Hundreds of millions of thermometers need to be spread uniformly throughout the atmosphere, across many altitudes if you want an average temperature that resembles anything like "useful."
[/Minor Quibble]


I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to stop paying any attention to Nightmare because he is an idiot.

Am I getting on your nerves again, Wake? Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
As I published in another area: We have the Weather Satellites, we have the Milankovitch Cycles and we have the solar cycles (for the most part).

Nothing to do with each other. You just picked three random sound-good words and strung them together into a meaningless sentence.
Wake wrote:
These are STRONG indicators of Mean Global Temperature IF and only if we can get honest raw data from NASA and NOAA.

NONE of them indicate anything, except the weather satellites, which indicate storm position movements (but not temperature). Neither NOAA nor NASA have any useful raw data. Neither of them can measure the temperature of the Earth either.
Wake wrote:
This starts becoming rather simple calculation at that point.

Really? What equation is that, Wake? A simple average? That means nothing without the rest of the summary information.
Wake wrote:
The real problem is that open faced pure lying from the environmentalists who control everything from the EPA to NASA climate division to NOAA.

Marxists, actually. Environmentalism has very little to do with many 'environmentalists'.
Wake wrote:
If we have the proper and honest raw data we have a fairly clear picture of what has happened in the climate in the world.

There is no raw data possible, Wake. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
What I'm saying is that the US had extremely good temperature records starting at least in 1880.

Never did. The U.S. never measured the temperature of the Earth. They never measured the temperature of the U.S. either. Neither is possible.
Wake wrote:
Europe from a little earlier.

Most of Europe's records were destroyed by WW1 and WW2. They don't even have individual station records for most of Europe.
Wake wrote:
Australian and New Zealand from their capitals and South Africa as well.

Great. How many thermometers did they use to measure the temperature of their countries?
Wake wrote:
You do NOT need a thermometer in every nook and cranny to have a reasonably accurate MGT.

You pretty much do. Temperatures can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. It is not unusual to see such steep temperature gradients.
Wake wrote:
Will this be accurate to two decimal points? Hell no.

What is the margin of error, Wake? Be sure to show your math. Also be prepared to show the source of your source raw data and how data was selected by randN. Remember you must show how the effects of time and location grouping have been eliminated.
Wake wrote:
But we do not need that because we are mapping out the climate sensitivity of the Earth.

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'climate sensitivity'. Also define how it's a map, and the quantifiable nature of it (the units used).


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 05:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote: I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to stop paying any attention to Nightmare because he is an idiot.

Actually, he is an engineer with an extensive background and you should avail yourself of that knowledge/experience. He isn't charging you any money and he's not selling anything. It seems rather foolish to argue with him over an area of his expertise. What could it hurt to check out what he's telling you offline at your convenience? Ditto for me and science. Do you think I would try to lie to you about something you could independently verify at your leisure?

The problem you are facing is that unfortunately, someone led you astray and sold you on the Global Warming faith, and told you it was science. Now you feel obligated to rationalize a belief in violations of physics. I'm not telling you to stop believing in Global Warming but I *am* telling you to stop believing that it is science.

CO2 has no magical superpowers. It cannot create energy in violation of the 1st LoT, it cannot increase temperature without additional energy, there is no such thing as "climate sensitivity," there is no such thing as a Global Climate, feedbacks" violate the 1st LoT, temperature cannot increase while radiance decreases, and CO2 is a life-essential compound.

If you can make Global Warming work within those parameters then more power to you.

Wake wrote:
These are STRONG indicators of Mean Global Temperature IF and only if we can get honest raw data from NASA and NOAA. This starts becoming rather simple calculation at that point.

Nope. Your statement is utterly absurd. Humanity does not have the capability of measuring the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. If you'd like to convince yourself I'll be happy to walk you through it. First, what minimum accuracy do you consider "usable"?

Wake wrote:
What I'm saying is that the US had extremely good temperature records starting at least in 1880. Europe from a little earlier. Australian and New Zealand from their capitals and South Africa as well.

Humanity has only kept records on a paltry infinitesimal portion of the earth's surface and essentially zero of its hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
You do NOT need a thermometer in every nook and cranny to have a reasonably accurate MGT.

You most certainly do if you want usable accuracy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 17:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to stop paying any attention to Nightmare because he is an idiot.

Actually, he is an engineer with an extensive background and you should avail yourself of that knowledge/experience. He isn't charging you any money and he's not selling anything. It seems rather foolish to argue with him over an area of his expertise. What could it hurt to check out what he's telling you offline at your convenience? Ditto for me and science. Do you think I would try to lie to you about something you could independently verify at your leisure?

The problem you are facing is that unfortunately, someone led you astray and sold you on the Global Warming faith, and told you it was science. Now you feel obligated to rationalize a belief in violations of physics. I'm not telling you to stop believing in Global Warming but I *am* telling you to stop believing that it is science.

CO2 has no magical superpowers. It cannot create energy in violation of the 1st LoT, it cannot increase temperature without additional energy, there is no such thing as "climate sensitivity," there is no such thing as a Global Climate, feedbacks" violate the 1st LoT, temperature cannot increase while radiance decreases, and CO2 is a life-essential compound.

If you can make Global Warming work within those parameters then more power to you.

Wake wrote:
These are STRONG indicators of Mean Global Temperature IF and only if we can get honest raw data from NASA and NOAA. This starts becoming rather simple calculation at that point.

Nope. Your statement is utterly absurd. Humanity does not have the capability of measuring the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. If you'd like to convince yourself I'll be happy to walk you through it. First, what minimum accuracy do you consider "usable"?

Wake wrote:
What I'm saying is that the US had extremely good temperature records starting at least in 1880. Europe from a little earlier. Australian and New Zealand from their capitals and South Africa as well.

Humanity has only kept records on a paltry infinitesimal portion of the earth's surface and essentially zero of its hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
You do NOT need a thermometer in every nook and cranny to have a reasonably accurate MGT.

You most certainly do if you want usable accuracy.


He is not an "engineer". He is a certified aircraft mechanic. I have been an engineer for 50 years and to read his garbage is like sticking you head in a toilet.

I originally thought that he was just misinformed and tried to correct them. What was shocking is that things I have been doing for over 20 years, he is telling everyone is impossible.

When I gave my credentials his answer was "I don't believe you." Now I couldn't care less what he believes or not. But I will inform people that he is an ignorant fool who knows nothing about science, mathematics and I certainly wouldn't trust that man with any aircraft work I was managing. And I did that for 5 years in the Air Force and for 3 years in commercial aviation after.

Like him you are making these preposterous claims that CO2 is somehow "making" heat instead of merely slowing the exit of the Sun's energy that the Earth absorbed. If you do not understand the difference then get an F-ing book.

And I said that you do not require every square millimeter of this planet to have it's temperature measured to have an accurate depiction. If you do not understand THAT you do not understand the most basic properties of matter.

What is clear here is that you do not understand science in its' most basic forms. Without such a basic understanding of science you should not be commenting on anything here. You are doing nothing except echoing someone who in some manner got your respect. And that is what the followers of Dr. Michael Mann are doing. You're no more than a non-climate change True Believer in the same manner and they are global warming True Believers.
15-03-2019 18:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote: He is not an "engineer". He is a certified aircraft mechanic.

The two are not mutually exclusive, yes?

Wake wrote:
I originally thought that he was just misinformed and tried to correct them. What was shocking is that things I have been doing for over 20 years, he is telling everyone is impossible.

I am eager for examples. I apologize if I missed them the first time you mentioned them.

Wake wrote: When I gave my credentials his answer was "I don't believe you."

Did you make a mistake about something you've been doing for 20 years? Btw, what have you been doing for 20 years?

Wake wrote: And I did that for 5 years in the Air Force and for 3 years in commercial aviation after.

Where were you in the Air Force?

Wake wrote:
Like him you are making these preposterous claims that CO2 is somehow "making" heat instead of merely slowing the exit of the Sun's energy that the Earth absorbed.

My claim is simply what science says, and you are misstating it.

I have to ask if you realize how absurd your statement is. Photons travel only at the speed of light. How can they be slowed? Can photons travel below the speed of light?

If you are going to insist on the standard Global Warming science denial that earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in earth's temperature then you are simply insisting on being a science denier. Your king is tipped. I posted Stefan-Boltzmann and you didn't seem to think it was somehow in error.

Wake wrote: If you do not understand the difference then get an F-ing book.

I posted the science for you. To this day you have NEVER demonstrated having ANY science whatsoever. I think YOU should get a book.

Wake wrote:
And I said that you do not require every square millimeter of this planet to have it's temperature measured to have an accurate depiction. If you do not understand THAT you do not understand the most basic properties of matter.

Apparently you are abysmal with data and I'm guessing that you wouldn't understand how to properly apply statistical analysis. I'm guessing that you have bought heavily into the Global Warming dogma that mere BELIEF in the faith automatically makes you a science genius and math whiz.

You are officially a science denier, by your own insistence. Good luck with that.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 22:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to stop paying any attention to Nightmare because he is an idiot.

Actually, he is an engineer with an extensive background and you should avail yourself of that knowledge/experience. He isn't charging you any money and he's not selling anything. It seems rather foolish to argue with him over an area of his expertise. What could it hurt to check out what he's telling you offline at your convenience? Ditto for me and science. Do you think I would try to lie to you about something you could independently verify at your leisure?

The problem you are facing is that unfortunately, someone led you astray and sold you on the Global Warming faith, and told you it was science. Now you feel obligated to rationalize a belief in violations of physics. I'm not telling you to stop believing in Global Warming but I *am* telling you to stop believing that it is science.

CO2 has no magical superpowers. It cannot create energy in violation of the 1st LoT, it cannot increase temperature without additional energy, there is no such thing as "climate sensitivity," there is no such thing as a Global Climate, feedbacks" violate the 1st LoT, temperature cannot increase while radiance decreases, and CO2 is a life-essential compound.

If you can make Global Warming work within those parameters then more power to you.

Wake wrote:
These are STRONG indicators of Mean Global Temperature IF and only if we can get honest raw data from NASA and NOAA. This starts becoming rather simple calculation at that point.

Nope. Your statement is utterly absurd. Humanity does not have the capability of measuring the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. If you'd like to convince yourself I'll be happy to walk you through it. First, what minimum accuracy do you consider "usable"?

Wake wrote:
What I'm saying is that the US had extremely good temperature records starting at least in 1880. Europe from a little earlier. Australian and New Zealand from their capitals and South Africa as well.

Humanity has only kept records on a paltry infinitesimal portion of the earth's surface and essentially zero of its hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
You do NOT need a thermometer in every nook and cranny to have a reasonably accurate MGT.

You most certainly do if you want usable accuracy.





He is not an "engineer". He is a certified aircraft mechanic.
I am both. I am also a scientist. I have created and still use theories of science that my company depends on.
Wake wrote:
I have been an engineer for 50 years
I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
and to read his garbage is like sticking you head in a toilet.
Argument of the stone fallacy.
Wake wrote:
I originally thought that he was just misinformed and tried to correct them. What was shocking is that things I have been doing for over 20 years, he is telling everyone is impossible.

I don't believe you have been doing what you claim to have been doing. You are well known for claiming that you are something that you are not, Wake. Your own posts show your lack of expertise the areas you claim to be an expert in.
Wake wrote:
When I gave my credentials his answer was "I don't believe you."
Correct. You also still don't realize that credentials mean nothing on blind forums such as this one.
Wake wrote:
Now I couldn't care less what he believes or not.
But you do. You are ranting about now.
Wake wrote:
But I will inform people that he is an ignorant fool who knows nothing about science,
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wake wrote:
mathematics
The mathematics you deny is being demonstrated yet again right here in this post.
Wake wrote:
and I certainly wouldn't trust that man with any aircraft work I was managing.
You never managed aircraft mechanics, builders, or designers.
Wake wrote:
And I did that for 5 years in the Air Force
I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
and for 3 years in commercial aviation after.
I don't believe you. You can't even answer the most basic questions on an FAA test for mechanics. I already asked you a couple of those questions. Where are the answers, Wake?
Wake wrote:
Like him you are making these preposterous claims that CO2 is somehow "making" heat instead of merely slowing the exit of the Sun's energy that the Earth absorbed.

It is not possible to slow heat, Wake.
You can't create additional energy out of the same sunlight.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
Wake wrote:
If you do not understand the difference then get an F-ing book.

Books don't have sex, Wake. Perhaps your parents never explained this.
Wake wrote:
And I said that you do not require every square millimeter of this planet to have it's temperature measured to have an accurate depiction.

How accurate a depiction are you wanting, Wake? How many thermometers are in the world right now, Wake? How are you going to eliminate the effects of location grouping and time?
Wake wrote:
If you do not understand THAT you do not understand the most basic properties of matter.

Non-sequitur, Wake. This is about statistical math, not the properties of matter.
Wake wrote:
What is clear here is that you do not understand science in its' most basic forms.

He understands science quite well, Wake. He even mentioned the theories of science you are ignoring.
Wake wrote:
Without such a basic understanding of science you should not be commenting on anything here.

YOU don't get to decide who comments here, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
You are doing nothing except echoing someone who in some manner got your respect.

Your memory is failing you again, Wake. Look through the numerous past posts that we both have made.
Wake wrote:
You're no more than a non-climate change True Believer in the same manner and they are global warming True Believers.


A 'non-climate change'??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2019 23:06
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(592)
If the climate scientists are so positive, that CO2 posses these super-properties, and that just 400 ppm can destroy a planet, how come none of them have done any work to harness this power source? It's only 0.04% of the air around us, yet it's more powerful than anything else. Why bother with all these other alternative energy disappointments, when CO2 has such high potential. Why no CO2 powered cars? Well, there use to be CO2 powered cars, but it was more of a fun competition in High School, most barely made the length of the basketball court, before the little cartridge ran out. Sort of surprising nobody got hurt with some of them, flew better than they raced on the ground.

Just seems to me, that if CO2 had such strong planet killing properties, as these criminals claim, it should have some other uses, taking advantage of those same properties. It's relatively rare, least in nature, though we can make a lot more, it could be a very valuable resource. Guess they would want us to continue to burn stuff, to produce CO2, so they could call CO2 a renewable resource...
15-03-2019 23:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote: You're no more than a non-climate change True Believer in the same manner and they are global warming True Believers.

In the previous season I was a "denialist " who engaged in active "denialism."

This season I am a "non-climate change True Believer."

Wake, I don't suppose you realize the logical error built into your moniker, do you?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2019 02:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: He is not an "engineer". He is a certified aircraft mechanic.

The two are not mutually exclusive, yes?


Indeed they are not mutually exclusive but if he was an engineer he would know science, physics and mathematics and he knows none of them.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
I originally thought that he was just misinformed and tried to correct them. What was shocking is that things I have been doing for over 20 years, he is telling everyone is impossible.

I am eager for examples. I apologize if I missed them the first time you mentioned them.


Well, for one I did the total digital design and programming of the RAS 1600 and the later version. The team leader was Dr. Sean Michael McCown whose PhD was in the chemistry end. (Last I heard he was senior lecturer in Chemistry at the University of Conn if memory is correct) And we did the project for Dr. Kary Mullis. This machine was used to identify HIV as the source of AIDS and to remove HIV from the blood banking system. Dr. Mullis won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for that.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: When I gave my credentials his answer was "I don't believe you."

Did you make a mistake about something you've been doing for 20 years? Btw, what have you been doing for 20 years?


You have to understand the business to know that it is highly variable. You get a job doing what you can. Mostly I designed laboratory instruments, medical instruments of various kinds such as the last large job I did in 2008 was cancer detection and treatment instruments. I've also done robotics and artificial intelligence and I still have some rather simple communications boards I designed and programmed on the International Space Station.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: And I did that for 5 years in the Air Force and for 3 years in commercial aviation after.

Where were you in the Air Force?


362 Armament and Electronics Squadron, 8th and then if memory serves moved to the 10th Air Force. Lackland, Lowry, Larson then March until I was released. TDY 3 months to Anderson AFB, Guam during Vietnam.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
Like him you are making these preposterous claims that CO2 is somehow "making" heat instead of merely slowing the exit of the Sun's energy that the Earth absorbed.

My claim is simply what science says, and you are misstating it.

I have to ask if you realize how absurd your statement is. Photons travel only at the speed of light. How can they be slowed? Can photons travel below the speed of light?


What you do not seem to understand that half of the energy that the Sun emits upon the Earth is absorbed as energy which heats the surface which then emits about half of it as radiation which exits at the speed of light - the OTHER half conducts that in the form of heat via conduction through the atmosphere into the outer atmosphere at which point there is a rather complicated process of absorption of incoming radiation from the sun to boost the energy levels to that which will then radiate the remainder into open space. (This is a process that the "energy balance" people call energy reflecting off of the atmosphere but isn't.)

The denser the atmosphere the less escapes the lower atmosphere as radiation, the more via mechanical conduction and the slower the exit of energy. Why do you think that Venus is hotter than the daylight side of Mercury?

IBdaMann wrote:
If you are going to insist on the standard Global Warming science denial that earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in earth's temperature then you are simply insisting on being a science denier. Your king is tipped. I posted Stefan-Boltzmann and you didn't seem to think it was somehow in error.


Like Nightmare you don't know what the Stefan-Boltzman equation means. It is nothing more than the energy bandwidth of emitted energy from a heat source. It is based upon a pure emitter which cannot exist. So ALL emitters have a "correction factor" and there is a process for finding that for each source. But that has NOTHING TO DO with the case in point. Do not wave about magic words as if they mean something. They do NOT.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: If you do not understand the difference then get an F-ing book.

I posted the science for you. To this day you have NEVER demonstrated having ANY science whatsoever. I think YOU should get a book.


Perhaps I was impolite but that does not change the fact that you are parroting an idiot rather than learning the science yourself.

IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:
And I said that you do not require every square millimeter of this planet to have it's temperature measured to have an accurate depiction. If you do not understand THAT you do not understand the most basic properties of matter.

Apparently you are abysmal with data and I'm guessing that you wouldn't understand how to properly apply statistical analysis. I'm guessing that you have bought heavily into the Global Warming dogma that mere BELIEF in the faith automatically makes you a science genius and math whiz.

You are officially a science denier, by your own insistence. Good luck with that.



I am officially someone that understands the actual problem and not someone trying to pretend that he does.

This is how I paid a million dollars for my mother's cancer surgery and treatment, cash up front, when she had cancer before all of the normal treatments today were considered experimental and health insurance wouldn't pay for it. I also paid off her home and remodeling. And I still am worth a million dollars today. Even after near financial ruin of the Obama Great Recession. One of the last jobs I had I was being paid a quarter of a million dollars a year. That is called "competence". My step son took a clue and got a reasonable education and is now running an aerospace company in San Diego.

You do not act as a total idiot and hope to fight false science with other false science such as you and Nightware are trying to do.
16-03-2019 16:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Warning: Long Post
Warning: Contains science

Wake wrote:
Indeed they are not mutually exclusive but if he was an engineer he would know science, physics and mathematics and he knows none of them.

You don't get to assert what you won't discuss. You won't discuss science because it's clearly not your strong suit. On the other hand you feel compelled to preach really stupid violations of physics in the name of your religion. You cannot discern religion from science so you delude yourself into presuming that those who disagree with your religious faith must not understand science.

Let me know when you actually want to discuss science.

Wake wrote:Well, for one I did the total digital design and programming of the RAS 1600 and the later version.

What did you learn?

Wake wrote: I've also done robotics and artificial intelligence and I still have some rather simple communications boards I designed and programmed on the International Space Station.

Regarding AI, what statistical algorithms have you used? Neural nets? Clustering? Regressions?

Wake wrote: 362 Armament and Electronics Squadron, 8th and then if memory serves moved to the 10th Air Force. Lackland, Lowry, Larson then March until I was released. TDY 3 months to Anderson AFB, Guam during Vietnam.

Lowry. You've got a piece of history in background.

Wake wrote: What you do not seem to understand that half of the energy that the Sun emits upon the Earth is absorbed as energy which heats the surface which then emits about half of it as radiation which exits at the speed of light - the OTHER half conducts that in the form of heat via conduction through the atmosphere into the outer atmosphere at which point there is a rather complicated process of absorption of incoming radiation from the sun to boost the energy levels to that which will then radiate the remainder into open space. (This is a process that the "energy balance" people call energy reflecting off of the atmosphere but isn't.)

In the interest of science I'll explain what happens to all the energy in question and I'll leave it to you to fit the round pegs into square holes as you see fit.

The sun emits a lot of electromagnetic radiation in all directions. A certain amount is "incident" with the earth, i.e. in line with). We'll label this incident energy EI.

The earth has an emissivity (that no one knows) that is a value between 0.0 and 1.0 which is applied as a coefficient to IE to determine how much energy is absorbed by the earth. EI * emissivity = absorbed energy. This quantity of energy determines the earth's average global temperature.

Notice that wavelengths are not considered. Notice that whether the energy is absorbed by the solid surface or the hydrosphere (or any fish in the ocean) or the atmosphere (or any clouds or raindrops) is irrelevant. The earth is one body absorbing energy.

If we jump to the chase, the earth radiates away (into space) that same quantity as absorbed, i.e. EI * emissivity, whether you want to explain it using Kirchoff's law or the 1st LoT.

Bonus Question: Is energy radiated by the earth back to the sun absorbed by the sun, thereby increasing the sun's temperature, thus establishing a "feedback loop" of the type that figures so prominently in the Global Warming faith?

Answer: It's not possible. Whether you wish to use Planck's law to show that the photon's energy state is insufficient to be absorbed or the 2nd LoT to show that a cooler body cannot increase the temperature of a warmer body, feedbacks are religious myths and are, in fact, violations of physics.



Wake wrote:Like Nightmare you don't know what the Stefan-Boltzman equation means.

Bring it on baby, bring it on.

I claim that Stefan-Boltzmann means:

Radiance = Temperature^4 * Emissivity * Boltzmann

What do YOU believe it means? Oh wait, you're about to tell us.

Wake wrote: It is nothing more than the energy bandwidth of emitted energy from a heat source.

What exactly is "energy bandwidth of emitted energy" and where does Stefan-Boltzmann ever address it?

Btw, Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere, not only to bodies serving as "heat sources."

Where does Stefan-Boltzmann touch on "heat"?


Wake wrote:It is based upon a pure emitter which cannot exist.

Aaaahh, you rushed to Wikipedia for your "5-minute Masters Degree" believing it to be inerrant and thus absorbing the complete misunderstanding in its entirety.

The science is science. It remains correct for all matter, everywhere, always ... until someone can find one example of where it fails. Guess what, no one has yet done so.

Wake wrote: ...I was being paid a quarter of a million dollars a year. That is called "competence".

I don't believe anyone is claiming that you are not competent in anything, just in physics. There are many Christians, Muslims and Global Warming believers who just suck at physics and that's perfectly OK.

The problem is with the Global Warming religion that requires both scientific illiteracy and delusions of science prowess.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2019 16:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
Elsewhere I said that your name was suspicious. Now I just believe that you are some juvenile idiot who doesn't even know that Dr. Mann exists. You are illiterate in science and I have insulted you. So your reaction is to simply attack without any knowledge of what you're speaking off. Like Nightmare, I can see no point in carrying on any more communications with a moron.
16-03-2019 17:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
Wake wrote:
Elsewhere I said that your name was suspicious. Now I just believe that you are some juvenile idiot who doesn't even know that Dr. Mann exists. You are illiterate in science and I have insulted you. So your reaction is to simply attack without any knowledge of what you're speaking off. Like Nightmare, I can see no point in carrying on any more communications with a moron.


Well, the likely reason we can't continue to converse is that you are simply out of my league. I tried to hang with you but you saw right through me. I won't make that mistake again.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2019 17:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
Elsewhere I said that your name was suspicious. Now I just believe that you are some juvenile idiot who doesn't even know that Dr. Mann exists. You are illiterate in science and I have insulted you. So your reaction is to simply attack without any knowledge of what you're speaking off. Like Nightmare, I can see no point in carrying on any more communications with a moron.


So he went from being a puppet of me to me being a puppet of him to him being Michael Mann to him being a juvenile that never met Michael Mann???

He simply presented the Stefan-Boltzmann law to you. Why do you deny it?


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Coming up: How concerned should we be about climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
Why don't Canada stop making steel and cars like Austrlia did in 2017 if they are so concerned about 004-03-2019 17:21
Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster - November 17, 2015620-11-2017 00:59
coming cold winters1117-07-2017 00:00
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact