A couple days after my post I discovered that YouTube's 1000frolly had gotten to the video a few weeks before me and used it's unfortunate omissions as a platform for driving home his argument that CO2 science is a hoax and that scientists are clueless shills.
I recall the American standards that we used to strive for, honesty, honor and decency. Civility to opponents, fair-play, all this seems to have become irrelevant. But, it shouldn't be. Though it seems like talking to bricks in a wall, the future demands we keep trying.
has to be thrown out.
He admits that the Antarctic is cooling and yet he said "Ah that doesn't refute global warming." - Hey, hello, how can you have global warming, when the globe is not warming? Only part of it is warming.
Frolly's sniping from the side lines sounds more like some drop-out ridiculing the professors who were stuck grading the tests he flunked.
that is currently calving into the oceans like never before in human history?
It takes more than arm waving.
Asserting such a patent lie, isn't about "free speech" - it's nothing more than malicious fraud with intent to deny the peoples' right to honesty understand what the scientific evidence is telling us.
and we ought to at least start calling it what it is.
guess who perfected the details:
Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?
Here again, notice the dependence on portraying scientists as clueless fools. It's an age-old tactic to coverup one's own lack of substance.
All it takes is honest curiosity and desire to learn about the system!
In reality these maligned scientists are actually very sharp people who allow the best evidence to dictate their opinions.
Michael Hopkin | November 8, 2006
When I googled it I found that the Institute of Creation Research has a long description. Alrightie then, let's get this straight, the folks who believe Earth is six thousand years old endorse this cosmic controls climate hypothesis.
Why am I not impressed?
What about temperature affecting the cloudiness (e.g. advection of mild and moist air), and the role of circulation patterns? For sure, there is no simple one-way relationship. I think that the A&G article is bit too cavalier about the complexity involved in the atmospheric processes. The cavalier attitude seems to be a trademark of cosmoclimatology. ...
Suddenly we are challenged with a numbers game over very short term spikes in winter sea ice extent. It's a meaningless comparison, particularly when simultaneously ignoring the massive amounts of millennia old glaciers that are calving off into the oceans.
That would be the subtle shifting of the Earth/Sun's respective center of gravity as they rotate around each other. Fascinating science fiction stuff, perfect for echo-chamber science. They say it's also responsible for earthquakes and can even predict them, if you know how to read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
When it comes to the dynamics of our evaporating oceans and spinning Earth and the sun beating down on the equator. Ever consider that we exist under an ocean of compressed air? Against all those massive components of our global heat and moisture distribution engine, those Barycenters disappear into the infinitesimal.
(excuse my language)
Slowing down heat's escape into space will warm all within that system.
Age old cycles continue but now they exist within this warming climate system, can't squirm your way out of that truth no matter how much someone lies to themselves and others.
- Annual timeseries, area-weighted for the whole continent, similar to Figure 2 in Schneider et al. (2012) but including temperature anomalies from GISTEMP for 64-90S (includes some ocean SST) and from the O'Donnell et al. (2011) RLS reconstruction
What frolly refuses to recognize is that evidence shows this Solar forcing has been very stable, in fact going down a little so if his "theory" were solid, we'd be seeing some cooling, but something is interfering with that cooling.
Curious about CruData, why listen to a habitual liar, why not listen to the actual experts?
- Answers to some HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset frequently-asked questions
- What is the updating schedule?
- How are the hemispheric and global anomaly series calculated?
- What are the basic raw data used?
- Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?
- Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?
- Why do anomalies not average exactly zero over 1961-90?
- How are the land and marine data combined?
- How accurate are the hemispheric and global averages?
- Why can I not exactly reproduce the hemispheric and global averages for HadCRUT4 and HadSST3 that are given here?
- Why are values slightly different when I download an updated file a year later?