Quote from bigdavediode: Okay, look, this is just getting embarrassing. Launching a weather balloon is meteorology. Thatâs right. The data from the balloon (with all other forms of observations) will eventually go into a climate model. Very important for atmospheric modeling. Scientists who study the Earth's climate is climatology. They are different. No Shit. Climatology: study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Climatologists are involved with the study of climate (s). They obtain their data from geology, paleontology, oceanography, and meteorological data. Other methods such as dendrochronology also give clues to climates at various times in Earths history. Meteorologists become TV weathermen, and then sign silly Republican online anti-global warming petitions, signing alongside dentists. I became a trader. TV weatherman are journalists. I'm not a republican (or democrat), and have not signed anything. I am simply opposed to having my life drastically altered without a true consensus on a very important issue. I don't buy that there is consensus until all sides have been given equal time. Opposition is being routinely vilified. I question whether enough data from the mentioned sources is even a fraction of the amount needed to provide accurate extrapolations in climate models. Diode, you do yourself a disservice by assuming others lack knowledge simply because they donât go into detail, or agree with you. I donât really disagree with you on manâs role in warming. I disagree with how it should be approached. You are right about one thing. This is getting embarrassing.
A note of interest about a source oft quoted. Realclimate.org (was) hosted or created by: Environmental Media Services. Environmental Media Services founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt. (Schardt was with Al Gore's 88 campaign and his 00 run.) EMS apparently ended in 2005 and is now Science Communication Network http://www.sciencecommunicationnetwork.org/ EMS had close ties to Fenton Communications. Moveon.org is/was one of Fenton Comm's many progressive clients. http://www.fenton.com/pages/home.htm Absolutely no chance of bias, right? Let's get all sides into the debate.
Exactly my point. Climate change will occur abruptly and naturally, warm or cold. And nothing can be done about it. The Arctic was once subtropical. Yes, no ice at the North Pole. The earth has been completely covered in ice, completely free of ice and somewhere in between without human activity. It will be interesting to see you humans try to optimize the weather to your liking. After this Inconvenient Ruse fizzles, people will doubt real science when real danger approaches.
Wow, you've figured this thing out all on your own, relying on nothing more than a few thought experiments. Splendid.
A tiny fraction. http://www.snowballearth.org/could.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html http://www.climatecooling.org/ http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/20/finnish-finish-global-warming/ http://www.realclimate.org/ There are thousands more. Some good, some bad, some biased, some unbiased. And yet, some would say the debate has ended.
i love the smell of DIESEL in the morn Fire up those those 18 WHEELERS.. ahhhh !!! FUCK the ECO.. all part natural order
Scientists who study in Intelligent Design labs have a conflicting theory to global climate change, that God is making CO2 concentrations increase via angel contrails (incorrectly called angel farts by laymen.)
So there is proof that the CO2 levels have to be rising due to man's activities?? That is your giant leap of faith....