But that has been the only way to confirm a tornado,...by eye witness,...as I understand it anyway,...after watching an episode on Global TV,...the meteorologist stated there was no increase.I'm not concerned about eye-witness reports. What about the incidence of tornadoes in Ontario from a meteorological standpoint?
You can find some of the links to the IPCC's findings in this blog: http://dailysignal.com/2014/03/31/five-myths-extreme-weather-global-warming/I find that hard to believe. We are talking not just about 'weather' here but physical changes, including droughts and brush fires.
In that case, you might be interested to know that the most recent survey of the American Meteorological Society found only 49% of its members believe warming is mostly due to man-made emissions.I'd prefer to know what meteorologists are saying.
Nope. You're just making a complete fool of yourself.I'm not sure I can decipher your Engwish in your 1st sentence,...but I'll give it a shot.
Your Nature magazine has been proven to be NOT credible,...and its peer reviewing proven to be incompetent and biased,...so you lose..
You completely missed the point. The significance of the paper is that it supports the position that the models' predicted temperature increases for the 21st century were "substantially" larger than the observed temperature trends.And like every other article the deniers post, nowhere does it even hint that CO2 doesn't play a major role. At best it just means that the changes won't be as rapid as some thought.
The impact of CO2 has been measured, the warming effect it has is not debatable, it's observed fact.Think there are many scientist coming up with many ideas, but CO2 is an easy one for people to understand and latch on to. We all drive cars, burn gas in our homes etc so we can see it, and the government can point to it and tax it.
Very small changes in cloud cover can have an impact on global temperatures. Notice how it's warmer in the late evening when there is cloud cover, cooler in the evening when the sky is clear.
Not as spectacular wrong as deniers.You missed the point. The significance of the paper is that it supports the position that the models' predicted temperature increases for the 21st century were "substantially" larger than the observed temperature trends.
If we accept the paper's findings, this confirms what I have been saying for years: The predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Indeed, in previous threads, you insisted that my position wasn't supported by the "scientific community." Clearly, you can no longer make that claim.
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, P Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Not as spectacular wrong as deniers.
The warming that can be directly attributed to CO2 (rather than water vapour feedback) is minuscule and not worth worrying about. The debate is about the predictions attributed to the alleged amplification from water vapour.The impact of CO2 has been measured, the warming effect it has is not debatable, it's observed fact.
That's a meaningless response.Not as spectacular wrong as deniers.
Indeed. As was noted in your post, the constant reworking of past temperature anomalies definitely makes us think about Winston's statement, "who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.
Let me know when you can find something published in a credible journal. Until then you're just spamming.PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, P Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.
On February 25th 2009, Professor Happer testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee : The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.
There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts…
The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel 1984 : “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” In 2011, Will Happer expanded his thoughts on “controlling the past” : This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.
The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Maybe not. But the hockey stick certainly took “facts and evidence” on a wild ride. In order to control the future, the IPCC had to take control of the past and Mann’s graph was their way to do that.
well if you do not known, then you do not know, do you?I don't even know if it was widely believed.
Are you kidding?Anyone who took the time to get educated knew what had been previously discovered. Of course the vast majority is Europe were too busy drying to eke out an existence to even think about the shape of the world.
The possibility exists it may be a contributing factor, however without quantifying the impact of other possible causes , such as variability in the earths orbit or variability in the suns radiation, you can not state it is a major factor with a high degree of confidence.Similarly, anyone who takes the time to get educated on climate change will see that Human CO2 is a major factor.
Again, you are attempting to apply an absolute to a theory because it is the most convenient one which happens to fit what is obviously a very limited and insufficient data setAnd yes, their conclusion is absolutely the correct one based on the evidence available.
He won his Nobel prize in 1973.The fact that you have to keep quoting the 1973 quantum mechanics guy instead of the great many other experts shows that your instinctual conclusion is not based in evidence.
The links you provided confirmed AGW.That's a meaningless response.
The fact is you insisted on wanting to see peer reviewed papers and they have been provided.
The published papers confirm that the computer model predictions have been completely wrong, which means you don't have evidence that human emissions are a meaningful contributor to the tiny changes that have been reported in the Earth's temperature.
If we accept what the papers are saying, they confirm that what I have been saying about the models (for years) has been exactly right all along.
You're just making a complete fool of yourselfBlah,...blah,...blah,... :blah:.
On the contrary the articles from Nature and other respectable journals support AGW.You're just making a complete fool of yourself
Meaningless,...the magazine Nature, is confirmed to be NOT credible,...and has a history of incompetent peer reviewing,...and obvious bias.On the contrary the articles from Nature and other respectable journals support AGW.
Untrue.Meaningless,...the magazine Nature, is confirmed to be NOT credible,...and has a history of incompetent peer reviewing,...and obvious bias.
too late, he had accomplished that a long time agoYou're just making a complete fool of yourself
This coming from the guy who insisted that selling oil for USD would require the BoC to borrow USD..too late, he had accomplished that a long time ago
