Now you the non expert, the non published ... are our teacher. Interesting. Why when confronted with climate scientists papers, do you deny those? Here are 243 solid papers and I believe you are a denier of his works of research. I have been reading scientific research since the 1990s. But I was studying science going back to the early 1950s. Climate since 1980. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
Apparently you think the IPCC is a political operation rather than driven by science. I have a serious problem accepting that Carbon Dioxide drives climate. Again, which IPCC author clinched it for you? Will you at last confess your own background in climate study, in physics and chemistry? For me, Climate since 1980 and the interest started with studying a course mandated by our FAA. Physics dates back formally to 1955 and Chemistry dates back to 1957.
Why are you not reading CURRENT research? The first paper on you list is dated 1965!! And even then how many of those papers state unequivocally that climate change is not happening?
Let's get silly and discuss the internal heat needed to cause corn to pop, producing popcorn. Makes as much sense.
So, now you know he was home schooled, you still want to take credit from him by mentioning a vacuum? Who helps you post what you post? Are you a team?
Afraid of the science? Btw. I just did a rough count. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml Each chapter is referenced. Chapter 1 alone has in the order of 850 references
Academic rules You use the most recent relevant research Yours is not recent nor is most of it even relevant. At least not without a meta analysis
I did The IPCC And I have at least as much expertise as you. I have been studying this subject now for about 20 years so i,know how to read papers and evaluate outcomes But even the most well read experts knew that they did not know enough to fully evaluate all the factors affecting climate which is why the IPCC was formed Thousands of experts from nearly every country on earth reading tens of thousands of research papers
The IPCC is a GOVERNMENTAL agency, not a committee of scientists. And it does not make any differences how many reference papers are used in an IPCC report if all the papers are wrong! None, *NOT A SINGLE ONE*, of the papers show anything about global warming holes over the central and eastern US. If not a single scientific paper and not a single climate model the papers are based on give any indication of global warming holes then just how good are they? BTW, the finding of the global warming holes was done using observational data and not a climate model - and it *is* the most recent relative research! When is the IPCC reports going to admit the existence of these holes? When is the IPCC going to force the climate scientists to redo their models to account for the holes? If you have been studying this for 20 years why didn't *YOU* find the global warming holes? Could it be that you just blindly believed in the outputs of the global climate models?
It exists. If you find it, let me know. His analysis was a simple energy analysis and was calculus based. If I remember correctly he also included fossil fuel reserves to determine a breakover point for the future where CO2 emission would go down through scarcity.
I am still hunting. I went through my youtube history as well. Still trying. He was an engineer at NASA. So he wanted to find out the science of this topic. And he applied science and calculus. And he gives talks to audiences.
I have studied this now for 37 odd years. What makes you suppose I can't read scientific papers and yes, even understand both the math, but the chemistry and physics of all of it. But you never confess your alleged expertise. You are an expert on your own say so. Not that is all bad, but when pressed, you punt. Want my claims, one more time. Climate changes I would love to give you a long parade proving climate changes, but you accept climate does change. We are no different. That is it. We both accept climate is changing. HAS changed and is not likely to stop changing. So, you won.
What part of "international" do you find difficult? We are talking thousands of participants from all over the globe and you have"....... conspiracy theories Yep that's all folks! Gotta be a ginormous conspiracy!! As for reading papers my challenge is the same to you. I would like you to critique the AR5 and show exactly, scientifically, where the errors are using academic methodologies And broadly stating there are holes is no where near academic rigour
Here is what she needs to remember. The rooster crows ahead of the daylight. But the rooster is not the cause of daylight. She mixes up causes with correlates.
of course climate changes and there re whole fields of study on exactly that. It is called paleoclimatology but always there has been a measurable REASON for that change. So what is causing the current change if not co2
Look, when you blamed Australians over the reef problems, i knew you blew a gasket. Wait, surely you did not blame the world for what you guys claim you did to your reefs???
Another ad hominem Try getting back to the challenge What part of the ipcc reports do you find inaccurate?
Simply put. First comes warmer. Then later comes carbon dioxide. Where does that Carbon dioxide come from? Warming of the ocean released it. You have cause and effect completely backward.