I am extremely sensitive to me being a party to force humans to bend to my political will. I will work to persuade them and pray my fingers do not taunt nor insult them. But Climate means we humans will perform handstands to please government. Sorry but that is not my mission to please government. I want government to please me and you. Why did you blurt out CATO? I never brought up CATO
I don't read alarmists websites. No, "climate", as used and defined in the context of the climate sciences and global warming does not change daily.
We have no foundation if you do not believe in climate change. My task is to explain why climate always changes and to remove the stink put on humans by alarmists.
I'm an instrument pilot with land and sea. Yes, the FAA is about WEATHER and how it fits into climate. It has NOTHING TO DO with climate change. I'm not going further, because there are those on this board who could probably identify me.
I do believe in climate change. I also believe that the climate changes for a reason. These reasons included both natural AND anthroprogenic processes.
You have it totally backwards. Your position is PURELY anti-science. NO scientist guesses at what the policy ramifications might be and then promotes a scientific result based on that. That's called LYING. Scientists have their careers ENDED for that. Plus, you can't cause government to do something more appropriate by feeding the government false information. Public policy is already hard enough. Fake news from YOU does not help. I thought you knew who Lindzen is, so you would KNOW who pays him after he left MIT - where all the professors with whom he worked think he's WRONG! Wow, you REALLY outed yourself this time!
I am far more focused on the natural reasons. For instance, what caused the warming to produce the great lakes and yosemite valley as two examples? i see no way humans did that.
One more effing time, you make a post directed at me. And you insult Lindzen for no decent purpose. The man headed Climate for MIT. Maybe you think he went to CATO because they believe he is stupid. It irks me to hear you do not actually accept science. Science is the whole craft where things end up scrapped until they are totally proven. if it won't stick, it is not glue.
As an instrument pilot, you learned a lot more about weather than typical posters learned. And you know that weather varies all over the place. And you know that weather this moment is not the weather later in the day and in some areas it changes in minutes. Climate is not one thing. Climate in Antarctica is not climate of the Sahara desert. And in your weather FAA books I do not believe they spoke of climate change. I am not fearful of being identified. I say to those in front of me what i say here on the forum.
Example of change of weather. I have sat in the FBO office waiting for minimums to show up. I have taken off in clear weather only to come back to land later that same day to conditions requiring the instrument rating to fly in the cover. Some get the instrument to make sure they can fly in most conditions. I would locate the hole in the weather i knew would be available, fly through that hole and duck under the layer of cloud cover to safely land. If one knows where to fly, they just might land with no instrument rating.
I believe Cato hired him, because he supports their views. It was YOU who rejected science. And, no, science has no way of "proving" an hypothesis to be true. So, suggesting that results are "scrapped" until that happens just doesn't even make sense. Theories are accepted when serious testing has been unable to prove them false, when they are useful in predicting outcomes, when there is no competing theory that can be shown to be better. There is NO theory that has been proven true - every theory is open to be rejected or modified. Lindzen pointed that out in his work on cancer and cigarettes. He argued that "cigarettes cause cancer" is an overstatement, as studies in Japan showed that some people are more resistant, that not everybody gets cancer from smoking, etc. Now, he says that humans aren't causing climate change. He seems to think there could be other causes we don't know about. But, the catch is that science has found that the human contribution is the major reason for a warming planet. Lindzen needs to be rejected for the same reason we reject the notion that not everybody is going to get cancer from smoking. The odds just do NOT justify ignoring the risk of smoking. And, the odds just do NOT justify ignoring what science has found out about climate change.
I do not reject science. But keep in mind the scientific method. You work and work and work to prove things. The problem at the IPCC is that they take work of some scientist to the politicians there who concoct their political report. Keep out the politicians in that group and i trust it more. While politicians love to accept part of the IPCC alleged consensus, they dismiss other science that does not blama man for climate. I agree with your take on science. I do not agree with your smear on Dr. Lindzen. Do you understand the Beef Dr. Lindzen had with IPCC when he was a scientist in their group? He got sick of the politics. You keep talking science as were there no people involved. People like Mann of course are your favorites. And scientists you do not like you revile and apply politics to them. Did you ever catch the NASA retired engineer that applied math to climate and his contention is that so far, none of this is proven and he applies engineering fundamentals to it to dismiss the IPCC. I posted the video where all of us could watch his proof and Bowerbird about crapped her nest and she refused to watch the video. She does not understand climate and perhaps you do not either. Let me outline why i say this. Here in the SF Bay Area, we are the best experiment on climate and climate change. We range from chilly climate to hot climate over a span of a short distance. A person in the midwest does not experience such differences the same day in so few miles of land. We know that if we depart San Francisco and there it is 60 degrees, then drive 40 miles East where it is 90 degrees, that the bad things attributed to warming has not happened. Scientifically we see that 30 degrees warmer has not harmed any of us.
The topic here is climate change. The FAA information has to do with weather. It's not about how the yearly weather patterns of Iowa (or ?) are going to change over the next decade. The FAA does not address that at all. It's not particularly interesting to a pilot that the average yearly temperature of Iowa is going to be a degree warmer - that Iowa's climate will change in that way. However, an additional degree of heat has significant ramifications in other ways.
This doesn't even SLIGHTLY make sense. This isn't about comfort - whether you have to wear a shirt or put on sun tan lotion. The issue has to do with food production, sea rise, propensity for natural disasters such as fire, etc. Surely you remember that the area east of you had a serious drought that cut into agricultural product. Luckily, we're so rich that we can buy and ship our food from pretty much anywhere. However, in the world as a whole, agricultural failure is a gigantic disaster. It's one of the causes of the war in Syria. It's the reason for starvation in Bangladesh. It destabilizes the horn of Africa. When people can't get food, they have to move. And, that movement is hugely serious. Think of the tiny number who escaped to Germany from Syria. Then, consider what the destabilization of India would mean. We are not prepared for dealing with that scale of problem. We don't have international water rights law, etc., etc.
I am not saying all the work he ever did is terrible. And it isn't. So that's not really relevant. Recently his MIT colleagues wrote an open letter to the president contradicting Lindzen and his discredited misinformation. They did so in direct response to a garbage denier letter he had written to the president previously. So clearly he is not as highly regarded as you may think. You ask: who would pay this discredited, retired scientist? Well, that would be the Cato institute, which takes funding from the fossil fuel industry to promote and sow doubt and denial of accepted climate science. So, thank you for the question. Furthermore, I would like to remind the deniers -- who bristle at this criticism of Lindzen -- of something: ALL of you are making precisely the same accusation of the other 97% of the world's climate scientists. So you might want to ask yourselves which criticism seems to be more grounded in reality.
The IPCC AR5 (2013) concluded that: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [humans]. The best estimate of the human induced contribution is similar to the observed warming over this period.” Does this include all things which humans use, such as cars and technology and wifi/cellular towers and such?
Yes. It also includes land use changes such as urbanization, agriculture, and deforestation as well. It also includes the behaviors that produce a cooling effect as well such as aerosol pollution. Also, let me interpret that statement as well. "Extremely likely" means > 95% chance. So there is > 95% chance that > 50% of the warming was caused by humans. Furthermore, the best estimate is that humans account for nearly 100% of the warming.
Most of the research is focused on natural processes so that mentality aligns pretty well with the scientific community. Humans definitely didn't do that.
These weather phenomenon. It's post like these that make me think there's a gap in your understanding of what climate is in the context climate change and global warming. Correct. Weather is more stable in spatial domains in the midwest than on the west coast. However, weather is far more volatile in temporal domains in the midwest. But, we're still talking about weather here and not climate.
I will tomorrow. Today i don't have time. However, check this video out since it is short and gets into green house effect.
Well you just keep your secret then. Frankly in my many courses, were any of the teachers to treat me like this, I would find a new teacher.
