So, I looked through some of Billy's questions.
Is he a bona fide paranoid delusional?
Does he really believe the Koch brothers paid parrots?
I think he's a fence straddler.
Clearly global warming really is his chain.
But he complains that Sandy Hook, and the 9/11 hijackings were a hoax.
NOTE: Hey Billy, you need to look up chemtrails.
That's the real Illuminati mind control plot.
I'm leaning toward thinking that he really does believe what he writes.
Keep in mind, around the country there are quite a lot of folks who think somewhat as he does.
I don't know whether they get into such discussions, and have to really defend their position.
I think that for some of 'em, it's come to the young earth status.
Nothing in the real world will change 'em.
For many of those folks, 'honest' science can't disagree with the bible.
For paranoid delusionals, 'honest' science can't disagree with their selected sources.
It's kind of like the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate.
The outcome of that likely changed very few minds.
It just hardened the position one already had.
It has been the coldest winter in at least 20 years. I wish you global warmists were right, but I find it hard to believe. Maybe you should consider a profession that has a future, because everyone is just laughing at what you say. Want to be useful? Shovel my driveway!
Well the alarmist are declaring bankruptcy and are being force to submit their data that they refused to submit because it proves the earth is not warming
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat...
It's partly a question of whether climate science has the basic facts correct. A mountain of reports and studies does not guarantee that they are accurate or valid if they are fundamentally flawed.
I question some of the foundational arguments or assessments when it comes to past climate history and as we all may know about information science and computers...garbage in, garbage out.... or the GIGO rule. The same rule or criteria applies in climate science or any other science....if the basic facts are wrong or inaccurate, then so are all climate models and predictions/forecasts based on past climate history or conditions that affect global climate.
For example, many charts and models of past climate history or paleoclimate calculate the global climate, temps and CO2 levels based on supposed regular Milankovitch cycles and proxy data from ice core samples from various sites in Antartica, etc..which assert long periods of time that it took to compile the records of freeze/thaw cycles. If those freeze/thaw cycles occurred at faster rates in the past, then all of their supposed relevant data is flawed and climate models are skewed as to what has occurred in the past as compared to modern times. Has anyone in climate science really checked and verified to see whether such cycles are truly constant over time? Well there are ways.
There is evidence that the axis tilt of the Earth abruptly changed by a few degrees around 2345 BC and corrected or gradually returned to normal around 1850 AD based on calculations by the Australian government astronomer George F. Dodwell in the 1930's ....observing data from ancient temple sites and gnomon markers and historical measurements by ancient scholars. In the mid-1930s, he became interested in past changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis. He collected almost 100 astronomical measurements made over a 4,000-year period. Those measurements show that the tilt of the earth’s axis smoothly decayed from 25°10' to its present value of around 23°27'. Based on the shape of the decay curve, Dodwell estimated that this axis shift began in about 2345 B.C. George Francis Dodwell (1879-1963) BA, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, Government Astronomer for South Australia from 1909 to 1952 and a valued member of ASSA for over 40 years including its presidency. He was also a nephew of Sir Frank Watson Dyson KBE FRS who was Astronomer Royal for Scotland (1905-10) and for England (1910-33).
If the axis tilt changed by a few degrees around 2345 BC, that equates to a polar region shift of around 333 km.....the north pole climate/temps moving south and vice versa for the south pole.
How would that affect global climate conditions up until 1850 AD ?...polar region temps?, snowfall or freeze/thaw cycles? glaciers expanding/retreating? global rainfall and past climate?, ocean currents? global plant growth and CO2 absorption?, oceans absorbing CO2?, etc..
It's asserted that lines in ice core samples equate to yearly freeze/thaw cycles when in fact, they could be weekly, monthly or even daily cycles if conditions were altered by an axis tilt shift...greatly altering the interpretation of such core samples.
Science often overlooks and does not nail down the basics for various reasons and if a flawed foundation begins and spreads throughout the educational system and a field of study, then people just keep repeating the same mistakes which leads to many more wrong interpretations and conclusions further on.
So show me a climate study, IPCC report or any other of the ecliptic which verifies that Milankovitch cycles are steady and constant by unbiased and independent, objective testing methods that do not rely on circular reasoning.
As you say..."Or is there the slightest bit of ambiguity and uncertainty in here somewhere worth noting?"
Excerpt from one site discussion of Dodwell's findings...with related charts /graphs.....
"Our seasons are a direct consequence resulting from the axial tilt of our planet. Therefore it stands to reason that any increase in the amount of tilt will result in seasons that have correspondingly greater extremes in temperature maxima and minima. Summers will tend to become warmer and winters will tend to become cooler. This increased seasonal temperature differential will eventually find its way into the atmosphere resulting in corresponding instability and pressure differentials and possibly generating storms of increasing severity and magnitude.
The seasonal temperature differential will also cause increased swings in average ocean temperatures which could potentially affect ocean salinity levels and current flows which in turn could then affect land based temperatures ... which then could further impact ocean temperatures ... which could then further affect land temperatures .... and a cycle is born.
Now 3 degrees on the earth's surface is the approximate equivalent to a distance of 333 kilometers. This is based on the fact that 1 minute of arc on the earth's surface is equal to 1 nautical mile, therefore 3 degrees converts to 180 minutes of arc which is the equivalent of 180 nautical miles. Finally, 180 nautical miles converts to 333 kilometers.
Imagine the current Arctic environment moving 333 kms further south and the current Antarctic environment moving 333 kms further to the north ... this is what a 3 degree additional axial tilt would be equivalent to. Now imagine the additional warming that would then occur each northern summer resulting in Arctic ice melting at an accelerated rate because of the additional 3 degree tilt. On the other hand, during the northern winter there would be additional cooling and greater ice formation. Therefore the overall ice levels in the northern hemisphere (and correspondingly in the southern hemisphere) would rise and fall at increased rates compared to those at the present time resulting in greater quantities of fresh water entering (in summer) the oceans and leaving (in winter) the oceans and again potentially affecting ocean salinity and overall stability. "
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre...
Dodwell's work compiled in an online book...
Excerpt...
"The first curve of these ancient observations, which I drew in the year 1934, showed an unmistakable and progressive abnormality when compared with Newcomb’s formula. A careful study of the observations, and their agreement with the curve at all times and places of observation, showed that it was not due to large errors in the ancient observations. It was therefore very puzzling, as it seemed to indicate some unknown movement of the earth in the past. This could not be a cyclical or continuous periodic movement, for such an explanation would merely repeat the Draysonian paradox, and would be impossible."
............
"The date of verticality of the curve, 2345 B.C… coincided with an “irregularity,” this being a large and sudden change in the inclination of the earth’s axis; and the date of “insensibility” or of equilibrium in the horizontal time scale of the curve, was 1850 A.D.
It was absolutely certain that every point on the mean observational curve in Figure 3 is precisely a point on a logarithmic sine curve. The curve is therefore a certain and sure mathematical demonstration that in the year 2345 B.C., the earth’s axis was suddenly displaced by a major impact; and the curve shown in Figure 3 is a curve of the partial recovery of the earth to a state of equilibrium, at its normal inclination and conditions, as reached in 1850 A.D."
................
"This formula, represented in graphic form in Figure 4, gives what is called a “harmonic sine curve with diminishing amplitude,” the amplitude, or departure above or below the mean position, being a maximum at the beginning of the curve, in 2345 B.C., and gradually being reduced to zero at its end, in 1850 A.D. This is characteristic of the way in which a freely spinning body, like the earth in its daily rotation, is restored to a steady condition after a sudden disturbance of its axis.
The presence of this harmonic sine curve, with its diminishing amplitude, is a marvelous confirmation of the important, and now verified, fact that the earth has gradually been making a partial recovery, during the interval of 4194 years from 2345 B.C., to 1850 A.D., after a sudden large disturbance of its axis in 2345 B.C., and that it reached its present state of completed equilibrium in 1850 A.D."
http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_manus...
Dodwell incorrectly assumed a meteoric impact event occurred in 2345 BC for which no impact crater has been found ...and the resulting pressure pulse from such an impact would have caused an extinction level event.
The only event that could have altered the Earth's axis tit to such an extent is the global Flood as described in the Bible. The events of the global Flood would have dumped huge amounts of rain for a time from subterranean fountains erupting and returning water to Earth and also vast amounts of snow and super-cold ice on polar regions in a short time and also altered/raised ocean temps for a while in the post-flood period...thereby increasing atmospheric moisture and rainfall or snowfall in polar regions and elsewhere.
Flood related details regarding Dodwell's findings...see Dr Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory/ flood model linked below...Dodwell is listed in the alpha index..
http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/20...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...
A FAQ on global warming...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...
Kano's simpleminded attempt at anti-science trickery (which I am blocked from responding to):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140223152857AAOGnLl
Jeff M. I don't deny your science, and perhaps your right that I do not fully understand it, but even you admit that there are negative feedbacks, the difference between us is I believe that climate change will not amount to much, where you believe it will be damaging."
(Being an attempt to redo a prior question of his that was removed (not by me, by the way):
"Why should I be called a global warming deniers [sic]?")
1. Here is the authoritative statement of Spencer Weart, the still foremost historian of the science of anthropogenic climate change: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm
"Half a century ago, nearly all scientists thought greenhouse warming was scarcely likely to be a problem. It took decades of accumulating evidence, with many hard-fought debates, to convince them they were wrong. Panels of scientists convened on climate change hundreds of times in many countries. As scientists, most of the panelists were professional skeptics. Yet since the late 1970s essentially every such panel has concluded that warming could become a bad problem someday. In the present century, every respectable panel has concluded that it probably will be a severe problem, and soon."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
How can anyone claim "climate change will not amount to much" WITHOUT UTTERLY DENYING this vastly more credible conclusion that is 180 degrees to the contrary?
Beyond the mountains of evidence in Weart's books, there mountain ranges of vast scientific research and documentation, nearly all of it, except for small cherry-picket snippets utterly ignored by deniers. A few examples (points 2-4) below:
2. This is from the Summary of the FIRST IPCC report in 1990 (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg3.shtml ):
"We are certain emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases...These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface...The potentially serious consequences of climate change on the global environment give sufficient reasons to begin by adopting response strategies that can be justified immediately even in the face of significant uncertainties.
3. This is from the Summary of the FIFTH IPCC report in 2013 (https://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm):
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century...Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased...Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years...Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2."
4. U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12877
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
QED
Corollary: A denier who persists in actively trying to spread anti-science denial, after having it patiently and clearly pointed to him dozens of times is most probably a liar as well as a denier.
Or is there the slightest bit of ambiguity and uncertainty in here somewhere worth noting?
