Professor Brian Cox clashes with Australian climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Roberts got him

The "overwhelming consensus" argument is bullshyt...argumentum ad populum

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Roberts got him

The "overwhelming consensus" argument is bullshyt...argumentum ad populum

Oh?

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Oh?

so YOU have double checked this data and methodology ...or are you just repeating what they told you

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

so YOU have double checked this data and methodology ...or are you just repeating what they told you

PragerU?

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

PragerU?

Uh theres tons of others if you prefer...who do you want to hear it from....since you love fallacies of appeal to authority

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Aelyas en passant PragerU also brought us these classics

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Aelyas en passant



C'mon man...is this the best source you got?

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

@Aelyas en passant PragerU also brought us these classics

thanks for posting those..

But now youre advancing a "ad hominem fallacy" they could be wrong or right in those others but it doesnt change the argument advanced in the first video..your merely trying to color how we perceive them

instead of dealing with the issue at hand

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

thanks for posting those..

But now youre advancing a "ad hominem fallacy" they could be wrong or right in those others but it doesnt change the argument advanced in the first video..your merely trying to color how we perceive them

instead of dealing with the issue at hand

Its not ad hominem...the other videos are shyt

and this video is ALSO shyt.

I can individually call out each and every video on its bullshyt.

I'm merely establishing a trend for you.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Its not ad hominem...the other videos are shyt

and this video is ALSO shyt.

I can individually call out each and every video on its bullshyt.

I'm merely establishing a trend for you.

Ah...So in short you wont bother actually looking at the numbers or arguments of skeptics...youll just trust your twitter feed completely

after all the media,or the establishment would NEVER lie to us


right???

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***


To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

yeah I trust these people completely

 

[blackzeus]

Skeptic not sceptic, please fix the spelling in the thread title the sh*t is abhorrent