Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[kimmielittle]

You amaze me, Kimmie. I didn’t know you were an agricultural researcher,

Your memory must be failing you. We’ve had this conversation before.

I have to know the difference between such as Johnson Grass and corn.

You spend $70,000.00 on an electric car to go two miles to work - some of us step out the back door and get on a $70,000.00 tractor / combine.

on top of being a climate scientist

THANK YOU! I had never thought of myself as a “climate scientist” - Just a good researcher.

While all I do is pass on what I’ve read in other people’s studies.

You should have no problem supporting their claims then?

 

[wittgenstein]

See post 275
The debate is over (unless you believe that every scientific organization in the world of international and/or national reputation is part of a conspiracy). Global warming is real and humans have contributed to it.

 

[kimmielittle]

See post 275
The debate is over (unless you believe that every scientific organization in the world of international and/or national reputation is part of a conspiracy). Global warming is real and humans have contributed to it.

Empirical evidence?

 

[wittgenstein]

Absolutely! See post 275. I will add more links from NASA, American Meteorological Society…Unfortunately, I am using a tablet now. But those sites should be enough.
However, I am sure that even if I had 50 pages of sites (from established scientific organizations) that would still not be enough for a conspiracy enthusiast.

 

[wittgenstein]

True, that last site at post 275 is from wiki. But it does give links to primary sources that prove an overwhelming concensus. As for empirical evidence click on the other links.

 

[kimmielittle]

Absolutely! See post 275. I will add more links from NASA, American Meteorological Society…Unfortunately, I am using a tablet now. But those sites should be enough.

Sorry, if they had empirical evidence - observational proof … they would not be trying to get a computer to verify their hypothesis.

Say, here’s a question for you… what is the optimum mean world temperature? Let’s start at the BASICS. After all, you would need this before ANY serious claim could be made. How about the optimum World CO2 concentration?

However, I am sure that even if I had 50 pages of sites (from established scientific organizations) that would still not be enough for a conspiracy enthusiast.

To be a scientific fact - you need scientific observation of causation and correlation core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm

This is a BASIC of science…
Without the observational correlation equals causation…you can not accuse anyone of being a “conspiracy enthusiast”.

 

[kimmielittle]

True, that last site at post 275 is from wiki. But it does give links to primary sources that prove an overwhelming concensus. As for empirical evidence click on the other links.

I have read many scientific studies on CAGW - could you point me to the one that doesn’t depend on a computer program, please? You do realize computers aren’t the same as real life…don’t you?

D&D …no matter how much you want to be an elven lord… well…

 

[LisaA]

Sorry, if they had empirical evidence - observational proof … they would not be trying to get a computer to verify their hypothesis.

Say, here’s a question for you… what is the optimum mean world temperature? Let’s start at the BASICS. After all, you would need this before ANY serious claim could be made. How about the optimum World CO2 concentration?

To be a scientific fact - you need scientific observation of causation and correlation core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm

This is a BASIC of science…
Without the observational correlation equals causation…you can not accuse anyone of being a “conspiracy enthusiast”.

Kudos to you for bringing reason into the debate. What I find in “climate scientists” that they basically quote each other, use computer models and when faced with information such as no significant increase in temperature for what 15 years…they say well just you wait!!!

Thanks again
Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

Kudos to you for bringing reason into the debate. What I find in “climate scientists” that they basically quote each other, use computer models and when faced with information such as no significant increase in temperature for what 15 years…they say well just you wait!!!

Thanks again
Lisa

:thankyou::thankyou:

You know, it’s funny…there is actually more observational evidence but it can’t be reproduced - thus not empirical evidence ] that RF from cell phones can promote brain cancer Read your cell phone warning book ], than the CAGW claims.

 

[wittgenstein]

Actually, if you had clicked the links you would have seen the empirical evidence * and why there is universal scientific concensus. There has been a dramatic increase in warming that does not correlate to cycles etc.

• We keep breaking records!
  PS: Why are NASA, American Meteorological Society, National Geographic, Scientific American and EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation lying? They all agree that global warming is real and humans have greatly contributed to it. I do not think they are all lying. Why do you?
  It is perfectly legitimate to prove scientific concensus. One can quote experts. However, the sites I gave also give their evidence.

 

[wittgenstein]

Thats just silly to claim that all they do is quote each other.* I supplied many different sources for empirical evidence.

• Conspiracy!

 

[LisaA]

Actually, if you had clicked the links you would have seen the empirical evidence * and why there is universal scientific concensus. There has been a dramatic increase in warming that does not correlate to cycles etc.

• We keep breaking records!
  PS: Why are NASA, American Meteorological Society, National Geographic, Scientific American and EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation lying? They all agree that global warming is real and humans have greatly contributed to it. I do not think they are all lying. Why do you?
  It is perfectly legitimate to prove scientific concensus. One can quote experts. However, the sites I gave also give their evidence.

I like listening to the Skeptical Environmentalist (?) who does believe in some Global Warming but a) the results are not necessarily detrimental b) the cost to make even the most minute change is far more than any perceived benefit c) the GW activists all focus on statist responses through additional regulations and/or taxes or both.

It will still get warmer if it’s going to get warmer. We aren’t all gonna die even if it happens.

Lisa

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, if you had clicked the links you would have seen the empirical evidence * and why there is universal scientific concensus. There has been a dramatic increase in warming that does not correlate to cycles etc.

Nonsensical!

I challenge you or NASA etc to prove your claim about cycles not correlating to a warming OR cooling.

• We keep breaking records!

Actually, no. If this were true or AGW fact - we wouldn’t have seen a 17+ year opposite of the AGW hypothesis - Something that was NOT seen by those who promote CAGW

PS: Why are NASA, American Meteorological Society, National Geographic, Scientific American and EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation lying? They all agree that global warming is real and humans have greatly contributed to it. I do not think they are all lying. Why do you?

Can they tell you the optimum mean World temperature? Donja think they should be able to before making CAGW claims?

Say, is water vapor and clouds a negative or positive feedback?

It is perfectly legitimate to prove scientific concensus.

Only in the pseudo-sciences. Consensus is NOT a part of real science.

 

[wittgenstein]

It is a myth that we have been cooling. See the established sources in post 275!
Actually, it has been absolutely established that we are getting warmer when the cycle theory (junk science) predicts we should be cooler.

 

[wittgenstein]

Concensus is an accepted and legitimate argument. For example, if one said that every scientific organization in the world accepts the idea of a spherical earth that adds support to the contention that the earth is not flat.
However, that is not the extent of my argument. I also provided empirical evidence. Why do you think NASA is lying? If you reject all the empirical evidence from the entire world’s established scientific community,we have no data to use. I find it VERY unlikely that NASA… and the entire scientific community all falsify data. And then to accuse the entire scientific community of doing so as part of a global conspiracy is silly.

 

[kimmielittle]

It is a myth that we have been cooling. See the established sources in post 275!
Actually, it has been absolutely established that we are getting warmer when the cycle theory (junk science) predicts we should be cooler.

Would you take Phil Jones word for it?

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Seems they found cycles?

 

[wittgenstein]

Actually, I’m surprised that a Christian would be so stubborn in rejecting the evidence of science. Especially, when it fits so well into biblical prophecy.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 315,
Yes, global temps have continued to rise since the industrial revolution. However, if the cycles were natural, we would be cooler.
You are misunderstanding what he said.

 

[kimmielittle]

Concensus is an accepted and legitimate argument. For example, if one said that every scientific organization in the world accepts the idea of a spherical earth that adds support to the contention that the earth is not flat.

Ahaaaaaa…that was backed up by what? Empirical Observational evidence…ships didn’t fall off the edge.

However, that is not the extent of my argument.

Without empirical evidence you have no science argument. YOU have only conjecture!

I also provided empirical evidence.

No, neither they, nor you provided empirical **observational ** evidence. They, and you, provided hypothesis based on computer projections.

Why do you think NASA is lying?

Because CO2 has risen and temperatures have not done like the AGW hypothesis projected. THe data doesn’t support the CAGW hypothesis.

appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansensPredictions1988.htm

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually, I’m surprised that a Christian would be so stubborn in rejecting the evidence of science. Especially, when it fits so well into biblical prophecy.

Conjecture is NOT science. No matter how you try to paint it. IT remains ideology.