If you're so confident about that why waste time and space posting it on a financial message board?
Feel free to grow some manners. Its not difficult to be nice if you try. Meteorological spring is the correct spring when discussing meteorological or climate issues since a meteorological season is always 90 days whereas astronomical seasons vary between 89 and 93 days, as you can imagine its difficult to compare seasons of unequal length that way.
I wouldn't expect you to know what I was talking about so I won't be rude and insult your intelligence. Meteorological Spring begins March 1 and ends May 31. Look it up
This will likely be the strongest El Nino in the satellite era. I was actually expecting a much warmer winter than we got given that. Turns out this winter is more like the El Nino winter of 1965-66 than 1997-98 which everyone was expecting. Just a little over 2 days till spring now and I'm hoping for brighter sun and warmer days
and how do I do that? I am a former alarmist myself ie 1990s but now a luke warmer in the mold of Dr. Curry and Dr. Lindzen. Yes the earth has been gradually warming since the last ice age but no man's activities are only contributing a slight amount. I'm guessing You would say a large amount. I guess that is where we differ, but you would have to explain to me why the rate of warming has slowed since the 80s-90s when the rate of CO2 from man has greatly increased? That is the most simple way to put it in a message board format. I could go into the model failures in terms of lack of water vapor increase. lack of significant upper level warm zone as predicted at the equator and lack of antarctica ice melt as predicted but that all gets wonky. If all these things were there I would still be an alarmist , its just that simple
Whoever is the next president needs to back off the financial sector. Without a healthy financial sector its difficult to get much growth. People are turning to crowd source funding and other methods to get the needed capital for their projects and business startups and or expansions.
I have a bachelor's in Mathematics and 2yrs work toward a Master's in physics, where I was rewarded a research assistantship but had to drop out due to an illness. I am a member of Sigma Pi Sigma. I haven't posted here in well over a week if memory serves
roughly 5-8 inches total sea level rise since 1900. Roughly .8 inches sea level rise so far this century. Sea level rise actually slightly fell for a couple of years around 2010 I believe. So unless there is sudden catastrophic melting of Greenland and Antarctica you can't get the dire predictions of the alarmists since sea ice melting doesn't contribute to sea level rise only land ice melting
Junk Science erazor just as junk as those who say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Its anomalously cold in north Antarctica where most of the sea ice is expanding. Its anomalously warm at the north pole causing melting. Those are both facts check them out for yourself.
Yes and its actually referred to as thermal expansion. In fact that is the main cause of sea level rise to date.
Why has global temperature not accelerated since CO2 has accelerated last 20yrs? This was predicted by the climate models but hasn't occurred.
Furthermore in the link you sent with another link embedded it states the temp line follows the CO2 line that is just false! That is the reason I am no longer an alarmist but a luke warmer. IF it were true we would be much warmer the last 20 years than we have been. CO2 is easily detectable and has been increasing while the rate of increase in temperature has been slowing the last 20 years which was not expected to happen. No doubt a portion of warming is due to man's activities what portion that is exactly is impossible to determine. The planet has been warming very gradually since the last mini ice age BEFORE man produced any appreciable CO2. So natural processes are also causing it to warm very gradually. Say you gained 5lbs last week tell me which meal was responsible for most of the weight gain in relative terms? That can't be determined any easier than to determine what portion of warming is due to man and what is due to natural processes. What i do no is there is no climate crisis. The warming is very gradual and a much smaller component is due to man than previously thought.
It wasn't debunked lol. How do you debunk a personal letter? I read the link you sent i see it is full of showered opinions of him but nothing concrete which discredits his as a scientist or his recent views on the subject other than he overestimated the trillions but are definitely billions by now when you consider all the government money poured into green energy perhaps he was speaking more widely there?, given time it will certainly reach into the trillions if this continues. Thinkprogress was started and funded by Soros while that in itself is not reason to discount the information you have to realize often the pieces they do are from a very extremist perspective
I take him at his word do you have any specific information to doubt his integrity? He was educated at Cal Berkley worked for Bell Labs and the University of Wisconsin and then headed up the Physics Dept at UCSB. I wouldn't call it a minor university with 23k students exactly though. He also refused to sign the McCarthyism oath so he is a man of principle that doesn't like to bow down to authority which is what science should be about. Obviously in this big money and fame era we live in due to the Climate change movement science has been corrupted and perverted. Remember most Schools didn't even offer a climate science department till about 20-30 years ago so many so called climate scientists have been educated in related fields of physics, chemistry, meteorology and geology, geography, engineering but now perform climate science research, they are no less qualified and I would argue even more so in most cases than current climate science graduates.
Thanks for this I went to the WUWT website to read the 6 point letter it is eye opening and deserves the light of day. A portion:
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Correct. Essentially Chemistry, Physics are the core disciplines when studying anything regarding the atmosphere since that atmosphere can be thought of and treated as a fluid ie fluid dynamics, but also as a gas in chemistry. Meteorology is the combination focusing on just the atmosphere. Climate science, a relatively new science is simply an attempt to get an understanding of these processes in the past and in the future. It relies very heavily on computer modeling since we only have a very small statistically insignificant data set ie 100yrs of measurements or really only about 30-40 accurate measurements from the satellite era. So therein lies the problem many assumptions have to be made in order to make a model of the future and significant errors result with respect to time. I have a couple degrees in these areas and performed research back in the 90s when I was a global warming alarmist as the facts changed my conclusions had to change and I'm a luke warmer now in the mold of a Dr. Curry or Dr. Lindzen. Yes some global warming is occurring but very very gradual perhaps only a fourth or less of what the alarmists forecast and its impossible to tell how much is caused by man's activities but likely a very small fraction.