| 09-07-2017 00:06 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Yes, and I have yet to see ANY evidence that CO2 emissions are having any measurable effect on global climate.
That can only be from want of looking. The evidence is conveniently summarised in the first part of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report at Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Perhaps you'd like to take a read and let us know which parts you think are unfounded. |
| 09-07-2017 01:29 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Yes, and I have yet to see ANY evidence that CO2 emissions are having any measurable effect on global climate.
That can only be from want of looking. The evidence is conveniently summarised in the first part of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report at Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Perhaps you'd like to take a read and let us know which parts you think are unfounded.
Estimates and models are not evidence especially when those estimates and models repeatedly fail in their predictions..
Repeated failure of predictions should lead one to question the underlying theory.. |
| 09-07-2017 02:03 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
From chapter 10 of that report (emphasis mine):
One of the simplest approaches to detection and attribution is to compare observations with model simulations driven with natural forcings alone, and with simulations driven with all relevant natural and anthropogenic forcings. If observed changes are consistent with simulations that include human influence, and inconsistent with those that do not, this would be sufficient for attribution providing there were no other confounding influences and it is assumed that models are simulating the responses to all external forcings correctly. This is a strong
assumption, and most attribution studies avoid relying on it. Instead,
they typically assume that models simulate the
shape of the response to external forcings (meaning the large-scale pattern in space and/or
time) correctly, but do not assume that models simulate the
magnitude of the response correctly. This is justified by our fundamental under
standing of the origins of errors in climate modelling. Although there
is uncertainty in the size of key forcings and the climate response, the
overall shape of the response is better known: it is set in time by the
timing of emissions and set in space (in the case of surface temperatures) by the geography of the continents and differential responses of
land and ocean (see Section 10.3.1.1.2).
Assumptions and uncertainty... I could build a model of solar activity that would have a far better correlation to observed temperatures than co2 concentrations does.. but that in itself would not allow me to say that without question high solar activity in the late 20th century caused warming of the planet.. although I expect its predictions would wind up with a much better record in 25 years than the IPCC models have.. |
| 09-07-2017 04:48 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
RealityCheck wrote:
From chapter 10 of that report (emphasis mine):
One of the simplest approaches to detection and attribution is to compare observations with model simulations driven with natural forcings alone, and with simulations driven with all relevant natural and anthropogenic forcings. If observed changes are consistent with simulations that include human influence, and inconsistent with those that do not, this would be sufficient for attribution providing there were no other confounding influences and it is assumed that models are simulating the responses to all external forcings correctly. This is a strong
assumption, and most attribution studies avoid relying on it. Instead,
they typically assume that models simulate the
shape of the response to external forcings (meaning the large-scale pattern in space and/or
time) correctly, but do not assume that models simulate the
magnitude of the response correctly. This is justified by our fundamental under
standing of the origins of errors in climate modelling. Although there
is uncertainty in the size of key forcings and the climate response, the
overall shape of the response is better known: it is set in time by the
timing of emissions and set in space (in the case of surface temperatures) by the geography of the continents and differential responses of
land and ocean (see Section 10.3.1.1.2).
Assumptions and uncertainty... I could build a model of solar activity that would have a far better correlation to observed temperatures than co2 concentrations does.. but that in itself would not allow me to say that without question high solar activity in the late 20th century caused warming of the planet.. although I expect its predictions would wind up with a much better record in 25 years than the IPCC models have..
Assumptions and uncertainty are part of any scientific investigation. Literally every single scientific paper you will every read will discuss the assumptions made when coming to its conclusions and the uncertainties in those conclusions. To think that these words, by themselves, are indicative of any failings is to misunderstand how science works.
And no, you couldn't build a model of solar activity that would have a far better correlation to observed temperatures than CO2 concentrations does, at least, not one with any basis in reality. It would fall at the first hurdle. Solar activity has been falling in recent years, while global temperature has continued to rise. |
| 09-07-2017 05:25 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Surface Detail wrote:
And no, you couldn't build a model of solar activity that would have a far better correlation to observed temperatures than CO2 concentrations does, at least, not one with any basis in reality. It would fall at the first hurdle. Solar activity has been falling in recent years, while global temperature has continued to rise.
There are dozens of things that line up better with CO2 than temperature does. Here, chew on this.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Attached image:
 |
|
| 09-07-2017 08:15 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gassed & gurgling" gushed: There are dozens of things that line up better with CO2 than temperature does.
Ah, your chart shows technology driven societies with lots of CO2-producing engines, which can also use technology to increase crop production using C02-producing engines.
No connection there, fer shore, Fred Flintstone.
Edited on 09-07-2017 08:18 |
| 09-07-2017 20:51 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Assumptions and uncertainty are part of any scientific investigation. Literally every single scientific paper you will every read will discuss the assumptions made when coming to its conclusions and the uncertainties in those conclusions. To think that these words, by themselves, are indicative of any failings is to misunderstand how science works.
My point is that the assumptions and uncertainties underlying the models on which this whole report are based preclude suggesting that global warming has been caused primarily by human activity... and any scientist worth his salt would agree with that..
Further, as the models have failed in their predictions, they are invalidated... and tweaking observations to better fit the models is just bad science...
And no, you couldn't build a model of solar activity that would have a far better correlation to observed temperatures than CO2 concentrations does, at least, not one with any basis in reality.
Ah good a project to work on... I'll come up with something for you...
It would fall at the first hurdle. Solar activity has been falling in recent years, while global temperature has continued to rise.
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 09-07-2017 21:14 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
....watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
You mean like this?
...from our dear friend Spot.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.
Edited on 09-07-2017 21:20 |
| 10-07-2017 00:41 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
I suggest you actually research this topic before making any more daft assertions. |
| 10-07-2017 00:49 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I pointed out that the satellite record showed no warming whereas NOAA charts are off-the-scale. That puts NOAA in the field of nothing more than propaganda.
No, that was just you being unable to read a graph any better than you can read text. Anyway, seems the satellite record was wrong:
Satellite temperature data, leaned on by climate change doubters, revised sharply upward
"This new study shows that after corrections to one of the two satellite temperature records are made, there is little discrepancy at all and that estimates of global warming from both Earth and space are consistent. In fact, the revised satellite-based temperature estimate shows even a little bit more warming since late 1978 than the surface-based record from NASA.The corrections to the satellite data were published in the Journal of Climate on Monday by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems, who have maintained a record of satellite temperature estimates since 2003. They bring the satellite temperature record into close alignment with multiple surface-based records maintained by government centers in the United States (NOAA and NASA) and United Kingdom (Hadley Centre)."
Sorry, but that is pure BS - they used the last couple of years "trend" which were some hot years in the record. "Correcting" the record by using a short trend is not reliable. The entire BS from these two means absolutely nothing. |
| 10-07-2017 01:54 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 10-07-2017 03:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Remember you're talking to surface detail. To him the world is the way he wants it to be. And he wants the world to be failing because of someone else. He will do anything, say anything and deny ANY science that says otherwise.
There are a foursome here that are psychotic. One claims that AGW is a hoax but he uses such bizarre "science" to back himself up that he is clearly one of the True Believers pretending to be otherwise simply to enforce the idiocy of people such as "litebrain".
We have no records of the arctic ice pack from more than a couple of hundred years ago. So to these people what the ice pack is now, is "normal". They can dance around their campfires praising the evil spirits who are destroying "our world" and blame it on "BIG OIL" or those evil "1%ers" who are rich. Anyone will do, to blame.
In the meantime they are driving cars making 8 mpg. They drive 15,000 miles a year - down to the car wash or to a bar, it doesn't matter because it ain't their fault now is it? They can with clear conscious take commercial air travel. And they can blame it all on someone else.
They are losers and always will be but that's OK because it's the fault of someone else. It's OK to go into a new car dealer and get a new car for no down and six months before their first payment and they not make any payments and it takes two to three months for the dealer to catch up with them and get the car back. Now beaten up so badly that they can't even sell it as a used car.
I've seen these types my whole life. I can spot people like IBdaIdiot and his fallacious ideas of science a mile away. |
| 10-07-2017 08:56 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
[b]Wake wrote:
Remember you're talking to surface detail. To him the world is the way he wants it to be. And he wants the world to be failing because of someone else. He will do anything, say anything and deny ANY science that says otherwise.
maybe he's hoping to get a position in the politburo?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 10-07-2017 14:25 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data. |
| 10-07-2017 18:29 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
As I noted - there can be NO conclusions based from the hot years from 1998 until present but as I noted elsewhere - you will do absolutely anything to blame someone else for your being a loser. |
|
| 10-07-2017 18:58 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
As I noted - there can be NO conclusions based from the hot years from 1998 until present but as I noted elsewhere - you will do absolutely anything to blame someone else for your being a loser.
You're not making sense. Both the surface record and the revised satellite record show that the Earth continues to warm rapidly despite the drop in solar activity. Hence it cannot be changes in solar output that are making the Earth warm. |
| 10-07-2017 19:38 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
As I noted - there can be NO conclusions based from the hot years from 1998 until present but as I noted elsewhere - you will do absolutely anything to blame someone else for your being a loser.
You're not making sense. Both the surface record and the revised satellite record show that the Earth continues to warm rapidly despite the drop in solar activity. Hence it cannot be changes in solar output that are making the Earth warm.
Odd that the surface record for 1979 until 1998 didn't match the satellite record but then inventing "changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE to the measurement of thermal energy and using only the years from 1998 until present do.
But after all, I don't make any sense because I work in science and you live in your mother's basement. |
| 10-07-2017 20:34 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Solar activity HAS been falling.. just recently returning to levels not seen in 100 years... and guess what.... temperature has flat-lined... and will begin falling UNLESS solar activity increases... watch the scramble to tweak models and data if that starts happening...
Temperature has flat-lined, you say:
yes. flat for 20 years...
And should the coming solar minimum last longer than average temps will fall to levels not seen in 40 years ...
but , getting back on topic, the IPCC is primarily a UN tool being used to scare populations and governments into handing over sovereignty and rights 'for the good of the planet'... then we can get rid of that pesky democracy and have the world being run by those proper liberal elites..
The truly sad thing is that if a fraction of the resources being wasted on this chicken little story were being used to deal with REAL problems , we might actually see some progress..
Don't be fooled...
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
As I noted - there can be NO conclusions based from the hot years from 1998 until present but as I noted elsewhere - you will do absolutely anything to blame someone else for your being a loser.
You're not making sense. Both the surface record and the revised satellite record show that the Earth continues to warm rapidly despite the drop in solar activity. Hence it cannot be changes in solar output that are making the Earth warm.
Odd that the surface record for 1979 until 1998 didn't match the satellite record but then inventing "changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE to the measurement of thermal energy and using only the years from 1998 until present do.
But after all, I don't make any sense because I work in science and you live in your mother's basement.
You clearly don't understand why the satellite record has been revised. No surprises there. |
| 10-07-2017 20:38 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
Hey that's an interesting argument for people much smarter than me. Does a dirty orbit make a difference? I'll go make some popcorn. |
| 10-07-2017 21:43 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
Hey that's an interesting argument for people much smarter than me. Does a dirty orbit make a difference? I'll go make some popcorn.
Supposedly if an orbit is lower the scanning range is less - that is the scan is less than a particular portion of the Earth. This could make an almost infinitesimal difference with the orbital changes in a single satellite but there weren't single satellites - at the time of this they were launching almost continuous strings of satellites for weather, temperature and precipitation. So were the Russians who showed similar temperatures.
So the majority of the readings had error bars of small percentage points and Dr. Spencer's graphs from NOAA were perfectly adequate.
What has happened is that the True Believers simply take the time period of 1998 to present - a 20 year period in which there were unusually hot years - common in chaotic weather patterns - and manipulated it and made the absolutely idiotic statement that they proved that it matched ground temperature levels.
Well for the period from 1979 to 1998 there is no question about the orbits of the weather satellites and that temperature was cooler than "normal" and was NOT open to interpretation. These temperatures weren't even close to the NOAA charts.
So what we have is just another demonstration of the True Believers manipulating data to force conclusions that do not exist. |
| 10-07-2017 21:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote: You clearly don't understand why the satellite record has been revised. No surprises there.
Tell us all WHY the satellite record for 1998 to present was "revised" and showed similarities to ground records but from 1978 to 1998 could not be shown to have errors and yet they had a dramatic difference between ground temperatures and satellite temperatures.
On your smartest day you could give a barn fly a run for it's money. |
| 10-07-2017 23:05 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
Hey that's an interesting argument for people much smarter than me. Does a dirty orbit make a difference? I'll go make some popcorn.
Supposedly if an orbit is lower the scanning range is less - that is the scan is less than a particular portion of the Earth. This could make an almost infinitesimal difference with the orbital changes in a single satellite but there weren't single satellites - at the time of this they were launching almost continuous strings of satellites for weather, temperature and precipitation. So were the Russians who showed similar temperatures.
So the majority of the readings had error bars of small percentage points and Dr. Spencer's graphs from NOAA were perfectly adequate.
What has happened is that the True Believers simply take the time period of 1998 to present - a 20 year period in which there were unusually hot years - common in chaotic weather patterns - and manipulated it and made the absolutely idiotic statement that they proved that it matched ground temperature levels.
Well for the period from 1979 to 1998 there is no question about the orbits of the weather satellites and that temperature was cooler than "normal" and was NOT open to interpretation. These temperatures weren't even close to the NOAA charts.
So what we have is just another demonstration of the True Believers manipulating data to force conclusions that do not exist.
Still think a satellite can measure temperature of the Earth, do you?
What we have here is True Believers and a few Outsiders arguing about what a system incapable of measuring the temperature of is measuring for temperature.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-07-2017 23:31 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
changes in orbit" which DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
Hey that's an interesting argument for people much smarter than me. Does a dirty orbit make a difference? I'll go make some popcorn.
Supposedly if an orbit is lower the scanning range is less - that is the scan is less than a particular portion of the Earth. This could make an almost infinitesimal difference with the orbital changes in a single satellite but there weren't single satellites - at the time of this they were launching almost continuous strings of satellites for weather, temperature and precipitation. So were the Russians who showed similar temperatures.
So the majority of the readings had error bars of small percentage points and Dr. Spencer's graphs from NOAA were perfectly adequate.
What has happened is that the True Believers simply take the time period of 1998 to present - a 20 year period in which there were unusually hot years - common in chaotic weather patterns - and manipulated it and made the absolutely idiotic statement that they proved that it matched ground temperature levels.
Well for the period from 1979 to 1998 there is no question about the orbits of the weather satellites and that temperature was cooler than "normal" and was NOT open to interpretation. These temperatures weren't even close to the NOAA charts.
So what we have is just another demonstration of the True Believers manipulating data to force conclusions that do not exist.
Still think a satellite can measure temperature of the Earth, do you?
What we have here is True Believers and a few Outsiders arguing about what a system incapable of measuring the temperature of is measuring for temperature.
You don't even understand what's being said. So exactly why are you acting as if you could? |
| 11-07-2017 00:05 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
well someone who knows much more about the satellite data then I , has this to say about those corrections: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/
A small excerpt (emphasis mine):
"Before I go into the details, let's keep all of this in perspective. Our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade, while the new RSS trend has increased to about +0.17 C/decade.
Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.
These are the important numbers; the original Carbon Brief article headline ("Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998") is seriously misleading, because the warming in the RSS LT data post-1998 was near-zero anyway (140% more than a very small number is still a very small number)."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 11-07-2017 01:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
"A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009."
well someone who knows much more about the satellite data then I , has this to say about those corrections: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/
A small excerpt (emphasis mine):
"Before I go into the details, let's keep all of this in perspective. Our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade, while the new RSS trend has increased to about +0.17 C/decade.
Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.
These are the important numbers; the original Carbon Brief article headline ("Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998") is seriously misleading, because the warming in the RSS LT data post-1998 was near-zero anyway (140% more than a very small number is still a very small number)."
Probably best to stick to the reliable, public and verified surface data rather than allowing yourself to be fooled by unreliable satellite data.
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
Oh me me me me I want to answer: his idea of reliable is any agreement with AGW. Unreliable is anything that doesn't show AGW. |
| 11-07-2017 09:49 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Wake wrote:
Oh me me me me I want to answer: his idea of reliable is any agreement with AGW. Unreliable is anything that doesn't show AGW.
lol that cracked me up... just spit beer all over my keyboard lol
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 11-07-2017 18:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Wake wrote:
Oh me me me me I want to answer: his idea of reliable is any agreement with AGW. Unreliable is anything that doesn't show AGW.
lol that cracked me up... just spit beer all over my keyboard lol
But you have to agree that it's true. What we HAVE shown if nothing else is that there is widespread disagreement in the scientific community about AGW. So people that purposely take one side or the other are acting that way for reasons other than science. |
| 11-07-2017 18:24 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Wake wrote:
Oh me me me me I want to answer: his idea of reliable is any agreement with AGW. Unreliable is anything that doesn't show AGW.
lol that cracked me up... just spit beer all over my keyboard lol
...and there ya have it. The Canadian is not credible due to over indulgence before 10AM
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 11-07-2017 18:27 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
It is reliable because of its simplicity and because temperature measurements can be cross checked against neighbouring stations. The satellite data is notoriously unreliable because it is extremely difficult to derive near-surface temperatures from measurements of atmospheric radiance. This is why there have been several major corrections to this data.
The surface data is public in that all the raw measurements from which the global temperature changes are derived are freely available on the internet, as is much of the software used to do so, including the NASA GISS software. The raw data used for satellite determinations is not publicly available, nor is the software.
The surface data have been verified in that they have been independently analysed by teams such as Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Project and found to give much the same global temperature record. The two teams working with the satellite data (RSS and UAH) obtain global temperature records that differ substantially from one another.
All of this means that the surface temperature record should be regarded as the more reliable record, although the recent corrections to the temperature record from the RSS satellite data now bring it broadly into line with the surface record. |
| 11-07-2017 18:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
It is reliable because of its simplicity and because temperature measurements can be cross checked against neighbouring stations. The satellite data is notoriously unreliable because it is extremely difficult to derive near-surface temperatures from measurements of atmospheric radiance. This is why there have been several major corrections to this data.
The surface data is public in that all the raw measurements from which the global temperature changes are derived are freely available on the internet, as is much of the software used to do so, including the NASA GISS software. The raw data used for satellite determinations is not publicly available, nor is the software.
The surface data have been verified in that they have been independently analysed by teams such as Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Project and found to give much the same global temperature record. The two teams working with the satellite data (RSS and UAH) obtain global temperature records that differ substantially from one another.
All of this means that the surface temperature record should be regarded as the more reliable record, although the recent corrections to the temperature record from the RSS satellite data now bring it broadly into line with the surface record.
Now here is the most interesting thing - a man who claims he has a PhD in plasma physics tells us that ground based thermometers are more accurate than satellite detectors specifically designed for the job.
Anyone here believe this man has a two year degree from a community college let alone a real education in science? |
|
| 11-07-2017 20:26 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 11-07-2017 20:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Wake wrote:
Oh me me me me I want to answer: his idea of reliable is any agreement with AGW. Unreliable is anything that doesn't show AGW.
lol that cracked me up... just spit beer all over my keyboard lol
But you have to agree that it's true. What we HAVE shown if nothing else is that there is widespread disagreement in the scientific community about AGW. So people that purposely take one side or the other are acting that way for reasons other than science.
This would include you.
Consensus is not used in science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Argument from randU. It is not possible to determine a global temperature this way. You are committing a math error in statistics known as a selection by opportunity. It produces a biased result.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is reliable because of its simplicity and because temperature measurements can be cross checked against neighbouring stations. How? The possible temperature gradient is too high between stations.
Just how many 'official' thermometers do you think are in the world?
Surface Detail wrote:
The satellite data is notoriously unreliable because it is extremely difficult to derive near-surface temperatures from measurements of atmospheric radiance. This is why there have been several major corrections to this data. It is not possible at all. Satellites don't measure temperature. They measure light. They can't tell the difference between Planck radiance and light from other sources. They can't determine specific heat of the entire globe. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Surface Detail wrote:
The surface data is public in that all the raw measurements from which the global temperature changes are derived The derivation is not valid due to the demands of statistical math.
Surface Detail wrote:
are freely available on the internet, Some of the raw data is available, some isn't.
Surface Detail wrote:
as is much of the software used to do so, including the NASA GISS software. Some provide the software, some don't.
Surface Detail wrote:
The raw data used for satellite determinations is not publicly available, nor is the software. Because a satellite can't measure temperature. They are only good at relative indications on a broad scale. They can see if one place is hotter than another, but that's about it.
Surface Detail wrote:
The surface data have been verified in that they have been independently analysed by teams such as Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Project and found to give much the same global temperature record. No one ab Berkeley can determine the global temperature. They are simply making the same math error as anyone else claiming a global temperature.
Surface Detail wrote:
The two teams working with the satellite data (RSS and UAH) obtain global temperature records that differ substantially from one another. No surprise. One random number is as good as another.
Surface Detail wrote:
All of this means that the surface temperature record should be regarded as the more reliable record, Surface temperature records, do measure temperature. Satellites don't. There is no global temperature record.
Surface Detail wrote:
although the recent corrections to the temperature record from the RSS satellite data now bring it broadly into line with the surface record.
Correcting data is destroying it. You cannot apply corrections to any data.
Casting out aberrant points of data is only possible after running a proper statistical analysis, which was never done. Neither is it possible to do with our present instrumentation.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
It is reliable because of its simplicity and because temperature measurements can be cross checked against neighbouring stations. The satellite data is notoriously unreliable because it is extremely difficult to derive near-surface temperatures from measurements of atmospheric radiance. This is why there have been several major corrections to this data.
The surface data is public in that all the raw measurements from which the global temperature changes are derived are freely available on the internet, as is much of the software used to do so, including the NASA GISS software. The raw data used for satellite determinations is not publicly available, nor is the software.
The surface data have been verified in that they have been independently analysed by teams such as Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Project and found to give much the same global temperature record. The two teams working with the satellite data (RSS and UAH) obtain global temperature records that differ substantially from one another.
All of this means that the surface temperature record should be regarded as the more reliable record, although the recent corrections to the temperature record from the RSS satellite data now bring it broadly into line with the surface record.
Now here is the most interesting thing - a man who claims he has a PhD in plasma physics tells us that ground based thermometers are more accurate than satellite detectors specifically designed for the job.
Anyone here believe this man has a two year degree from a community college let alone a real education in science?
A thermometer is more accurate than a photo detector. It's why we still use them, dumbass.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
This picture is the result of manufactured numbers.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:14 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
Consensus is not used in science.
You know what? Consensus IS used in legislation and litigation, and this subject of global climate change has a LOT to do with one, a will have a lot to do with the other if we don't stop the nonsense.
And if you tell me there's no such thing as a global climate, and you will, I'll challenge you on that too.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Consensus is not used in science.
You know what? Consensus IS used in legislation and litigation, and this subject of global climate change has a LOT to do with one, a will have a lot to do with the other if we don't stop the nonsense.
Here you are correct. Consensus is a political or religious term. We are really discussing a State sponsored religion.
GasGuzzler wrote:
And if you tell me there's no such thing as a global climate, and you will, I'll challenge you on that too.
Okay. First 'global climate' must be defined without using circular arguments.
Go ahead.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-07-2017 21:53 |
RealityCheck☆☆☆☆☆
(28) |
Into the Night wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
ummm which 'reliable, public and verified surface data' would that be? and why do you think its more reliable than the satellite data?
It would be the thousands of measurements taken directly at the Earth's surface by hundreds of meteorological agencies using straightforward thermometers.
Would that be those reliable measurements that produced this picture?:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201312.gif
Good thing we have all those reliable , verifiable thermometers in eastern russia and in the middle of the oceans so that, even though North America was experiencing the coldest winter in 100 years..., we still knew the earth was warming...
This picture is the result of manufactured numbers.
Indeed. That was my point
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22). |
| 11-07-2017 22:06 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
Okay. First 'global climate' must be defined without using circular arguments.
Go ahead.
Why do I need an argument for a definition? Circular or square?
Climate, by definition, is the average of all weather.
Does the globe have an avearge rainfall? Yes.
Does the globe have an average wind speed? Yes.
Does the globe have an average dew point? Yes.
Does the globe have an average Temperature. Yes.
Do we know exactly what these numbers are? No.
Does the globe have a climate? Yes.
Are there many climates? Sure. So does your house. Cool damp basement, comfortable living room and a hot attic area.
Do we know what the average climate is for the globe....exactly? No. But it does have a climate, and we've got a pretty good idea of what it is.
The number of peoples minds that will change by simply saying there's no such thing as global climate is exactly 0.
So to revisit your original request for the definition of global climate, it would be the "average of all the weather on the globe".
Global climate change would be "the moving of the averages of global weather".
The argument is what is causing the averages to move?....., God or man.
Where do we disagree?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 11-07-2017 22:50 |
| 11-07-2017 22:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Okay. First 'global climate' must be defined without using circular arguments.
Go ahead.
Why do I need an argument for a definition? Circular or square? Because you brought it up.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Climate, by definition, is the average of all weather.
Okay. Since you are now discussing averages, what is the start time and end time of sampling? Why are these times significant? Why are any other times NOT significant? The simple average for an instant of weather is weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an rainfall? Yes. Rainfall is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average wind speed? Yes. Windspeed is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average dew point? Yes. Dewpoint is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have an average Temperature. Yes. Temperature is weather. It moves around.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know exactly what these numbers are? No. Correct.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Does the globe have a climate? Yes. No. You are confusing weather with climate.
Climate is prevailing weather over a long time. Nothing specifies the time interval. Nothing specifies the starting and ending timepoints. This is why you don't find 'climate' in the world of science.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Are there many climates? Sure. So does your house. Cool damp basement, comfortable living room and a hot attic area. The Earth has many climates. It has no single climate.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know what the average climate is for the globe....exactly? No. But it does have a climate, and we've got a pretty good idea of what it is.
No it doesn't. The 'average' climate is itself an average, taken over an unspecified time interval and region.
When you consider the Earth's 'climate', are you considering only surface conditions? What about the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? From when to when is this average and why are those points of time important?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The number of peoples minds that will change by simply saying there's no such thing as global climate is exactly 0. Argument from randU, stemming from an argument of ignorance.
GasGuzzler wrote:
So to revisit your original request for the definition of global climate, it would be the "average of all the weather on the globe", The average of an instant of weather on the globe would be weather.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Global climate change would be "the moving of the averages of global weather". A moving average? What is the time interval of sampling? Why is this time interval significant? Why is any other time interval NOT significant?
GasGuzzler wrote:
The argument is what is causing the averages to move?....., God or man. You have not defined what these averages are.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where do we disagree?
In terms of our view of the Church of Global Warming, we agree.
In terms of attempting to define a global 'climate', you seem to be unable to define the boundaries of sampling. Without that, you still have no more than a circular argument.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |