Wow, just wow. You are really a mental case aren't you? So a 37% increase of the earth's dominant greenhouse gas in two hundred years won't raise temps? Very interesting. I mean your psychosis. It's very interesting.
You mean like the fact that the NCDC is cooking the books by half a degree with their public and private numbers?
Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it (guess he really is an environmentalist). A conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute, published his "academic" work based on the Surface Stations data claiming that NOAA's weather stations did not meet regulatory code and had collected unreliable data that exaggerated maximum temperatures.[4] Watts' data, however, was collected by volunteers using only microsite data. When the data was reviewed in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, the authors found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable...in the opposite direction. They had actually underestimated the maximum temperatures,[5] meaning that warming was even stronger than originally measured. Good catch, Anthony! In 2011 Watts was back again, claiming to have new "research" that would prove the unreliability of the weather stations and shake the very foundations of AGW theory. In fact, when the paper was finally released, it came to essentially the same conclusion as the aforementioned Journal of Geophysical Research study: minimum temperatures at a number of stations were biased slightly upward and maximum temperatures biased slightly downward, thus canceling out the bias when averaged.[6] Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman, but as is typical of media weathercasters he has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Surprise, surprise.
f/c these are the people who understand the physics of climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._global_warming this is a partial list.... Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999â2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14] Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40] Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41] Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42] Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45] Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46] Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49] Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51] Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]
hey fc since you know that temperature leads co2 accumulation and dissipation. And you stated the earth off gasses CO2 when it cools. how the hell can you claim CO2 is the cause of warming. just explain it to me... given that you know the above. explain why CO2 causes warming even though the earth could off gas it.
How to be a gw alararmist climatologist... first off... take a weak science load not like real scientists second get a job working for the feds third lie your ass off to keep your funding. 6 hours of physics whoa... I bet half the the time that is a remedial physics for dummies type physics. by the way I related to someone who has a environmental / climatology degree from an ivy. his school was sort of a half assed not part of the real school, the program which had much lower entrance requirements. http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Climatologist Plan on an undergraduate program that has a strong emphasis on physical and biological sciences. The U.S. government, the largest employer of climatologists, suggests: 24 hours of meteorology or atmospheric science courses 3 hours ordinary differential equations 6 hours of college physics or 9 hours of physical sciences, including chemistry Statistics and computer science are also recommended. Statistics is helpful in computing and analyzing data, and many climatologists are running models on supercomputers. Good oral and written communication skills are important in most careers. Composition, grammar and literature courses can aid in these skills. (then pursue a real degree or phd.)