La Ni?a - the part the lib media didn't tell you

Patrick · Sep 5, 2011

The big lib media news networks have been speaking darkly about all the weather this year - the tornado that destroyed joplin missouri, the destruction of hurricane irene, not too subtly implying that it's global warming giving america what it deserves for all that terrible stuff like driving cars and heating their homes in winter.

A REAL meteoroligist I saw on the weather channel explained that the cause of most of this is the La Ni?a effects. La Ni?a means a COOLING of the water in the central pacific equatorial regions. Oh wait, wasn't it that killer hurricanes etc are supposed to be from global warming?

OH, I GOT IT!! THE GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE CAUSING THE GLOBAL COOLING!! Or something like that.......

David · Sep 5, 2011

Patrick said:
The big lib media news networks have been speaking darkly about all the weather this year - the tornado that destroyed joplin missouri, the destruction of hurricane irene, not too subtly implying that it's global warming giving america what it deserves for all that terrible stuff like driving cars and heating their homes in winter.

A REAL meteoroligist I saw on the weather channel explained that the cause of most of this is the La Ni?a effects. La Ni?a means a COOLING of the water in the central pacific equatorial regions. Oh wait, wasn't it that killer hurricanes etc are supposed to be from global warming?

OH, I GOT IT!! THE GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE CAUSING THE GLOBAL COOLING!! Or something like that.......

Learn science before talking about it.

myp · Sep 5, 2011

Oh brother.

1. La Nina is an accepted phenomena- that "REAL" meteorologist isn't the only one who accepts. Far from it.
2. The Earth is getting warmer/projected to get warmer over the long run. There is empirical evidence behind it. Same goes for atmospheric increases in pCO2.
3. What is arguable is whether that warming will be good, bad, or negligible and how much of it is a result of humans.
4. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water, not cold (in fact, the latter could potentially even prevent them - Intellectual Ventures actually has a patent out on a device that mixes water and in turn reduces avg. temperature).

Patrick · Sep 5, 2011

David said:
Learn science before talking about it.

I have three science degrees.

Patrick · Sep 5, 2011

myp said:
Oh brother.

1. La Nina is an accepted phenomena- that "REAL" meteorologist isn't the only one who accepts. Far from it.

Did I say it wasn't an accepted phenomenon? I was using it to make a point. Your comment sounds like an odd non-sequitur.

2. The Earth is getting warmer/projected to get warmer over the long run. There is empirical evidence behind it. Same goes for atmospheric increases in pCO2.

Right, based on rigged computer simulations, corrupted tree ring data, carefully truncated temperature graphs, and "votes" by scientists.

3. What is arguable is whether that warming will [would] be good, bad, or negligible and how much of it is a result of humans.

Oh thank you lord - at least einstein here grasps THAT much.

4. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water,

Oh thank you einstein, for reinforcing what I learned in 3rd grade.

myp · Sep 5, 2011

Patrick said:
Right, based on rigged computer simulations, corrupted tree ring data, carefully truncated temperature graphs, and "votes" by scientists.

Can you show me which study that suggests warming or pCO2 increase in which you found the methodology illogical in coming to the conclusions they did? Or where data was cherry-picked, etc.?

It was not votes and corruption by scientists (there were a couple smaller cases of cherry-picking, but those have surfaced and the data and number of experiments which support global warming/increased pco2 is far greater), it is hard, strong data. There might have been a few bad apples that did something stupid for a political agenda, but the fact stands that warming and increased pco2 is happening, especially in the long. Sorry, REAL scientists don't get corrupted (in practicing science) or pick data based on what they like- they aren't like you or your damn politicians.

David · Sep 6, 2011

Patrick said:
I have three science degrees.

Ya, in what fields and from what institutions?

myp · Sep 6, 2011

Patrick said:
I have three science degrees.

Lol, I missed this. I highly doubt you have those degrees in the hard sciences. Otherwise, you would know how scientists think and how scientific academia and peer-review works and hence wouldn't have made these absurd claims about pCO2 and warming studies.

Patrick · Sep 6, 2011

myp said:
Can you show me which study that suggests warming or pCO2 increase in which you found the methodology illogical in coming to the conclusions they did? Or where data was cherry-picked, etc.?

It was not votes and corruption by scientists (there were a couple smaller cases of cherry-picking, but those have surfaced and the data and number of experiments which support global warming/increased pco2 is far greater), it is hard, strong data. There might have been a few bad apples that did something stupid for a political agenda, but the fact stands that warming and increased pco2 is happening, especially in the long. Sorry, REAL scientists don't get corrupted (in practicing science) or pick data based on what they like- they aren't like you or your damn politicians.

Read up on climategate - I'm tired of reposting this stuff over and over again in political forums. The "vote" was by scientists voting on the IPCC report, most of whom had no applicable credentials in relevent fields, and the overwhelming majority of which did no research in the specific area. Anyone who has done lots of computer simulations (like me) knows it's EASY to tweak parameters, boundary conditions, etc, to get the ":right" answers. Read up on East Anglia University "losing" their original data. Read up on the emails suggesting coverups.

Patrick · Sep 6, 2011

myp said:
Lol, I missed this. I highly doubt you have those degrees in the hard sciences. Otherwise, you would know how scientists think and how scientific academia and peer-review works and hence wouldn't have made these absurd claims about pCO2 and warming studies.

You would be wrong, Sparky.

The degrees (from Ohio State):

B.S. Physics

M.S. Astronomy

M.S. Computer Science

Astronomy master's thesis was in the area of quantum mechanics to calculate curves of groiwth for ions relevent to stellar atmosphere models.

I have four published scientific papers, including 2 in grad school.

I know more science than any 100 people at your level ever will.

myp · Sep 6, 2011

I am aware of climategate. I also realize that it was a very small part of the whole body of research behind climate change.

As for your educational background, if you didn't fabricate there, then good for you, but how can you not be objective politically if you have been in science so long? Anyway, what journals were your papers published in and what were the titles? Would be interested in checking them out if they are available online (I have access to most major databases through my university).

Patrick · Sep 6, 2011

myp said:
I am aware of climategate. I also realize that it was a very small part of the whole body of research behind climate change.

As for your educational background, if you didn't fabricate there, then good for you, but how can you not be objective politically if you have been in science so long? Anyway, what journals were your papers published in and what were the titles? Would be interested in checking them out if they are available online (I have access to most major databases through my university).

I couldn't care less whether you believe me, and I OBVIOUSLY am not going to give my name out over the net, but will tell you the journals:

Sky and Telescope (I know, not a journal and not peer-reviewed)

Bulletin of the American Physical Society,

Astrophysics and Space Science,

Astronomical Letters

myp · Sep 6, 2011

Patrick said:
I couldn't care less whether you believe me, and I OBVIOUSLY am not going to give my name out over the net, but will tell you the journals:

Sky and Telescope (I know, not a journal and not peer-reviewed)

Bulletin of the American Physical Society,

Astrophysics and Space Science,

Astronomical Letters

Um okay, if you don't link to your papers or give your name then I can't see them anyway. But, that's your choice.

That aside, what are your opinions on climate research outside of the climategate nonsense? There is A LOT of it that supports warming in the long run. Also, do you agree that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing?

Patrick · Sep 6, 2011

myp said:
Um okay, if you don't link to your papers or give your name then I can't see them anyway. But, that's your choice.

That aside, what are your opinions on climate research outside of the climategate nonsense? ?

Climategate "nonsense"????

Climate reaserch has been completely politicized, and I'm therefore very skeptical of all of it.

You doubt whether I know how "real" science is conducted.

Welcome to the REAL world: scientists are in certain ways like everyone else: they have a mortgage to pay, kids' tuition in college to pay, and in a few years they might try to get tenure from their colleagues. Now, do you think they are going to challenge the lib religion on global warming? Not in a million years. The academy is a completely lib/left controlled institution. I remember way back (about 20 years if memory serves) a very naive sociology professor, had a name like jerome weinstein, but I'm not sure, who had this bizarre idea that he could investigate a hypothesis on human intellgence, ie that there were innate differences among the races. I don't think his career survived. Scientists depend largely on government and the universities for their research grants. They aren't stupid (after all, they ARE scientists) and they know very well not to challenge anything that has strong political forces supporting it. To get an idea of the atmosphere of fear, do you remember how the AGW establishment started calling AGW skeptics "deniers"? When was the last time that was applied to an academic? Maybe when Gallileo posited a heliocentric theory of the solar system?

myp · Sep 6, 2011

By climategate nonsense I meant yes the few studies that came out (which I labeled climategate) were nonsense. I wasn't referring to all climate change research when I said that. And of course scientists can get corrupted, but when it comes to global warming, there is a lot of research that overlaps and has no fiscal or other consequence for the scientists regardless of the conclusions their studies may draw. I know actual people in those positions- a chemistry professor I had who's primary funding is for his biochem research, for example.

And I ask again, what are your thoughts on increasing atmospheric CO2, do you think its a sham too?

Patrick · Sep 6, 2011

myp said:
By climategate nonsense I meant yes the few studies that came out (which I labeled climategate) were nonsense. I wasn't referring to all climate change research when I said that. And of course scientists can get corrupted, but when it comes to global warming, there is a lot of research that overlaps and has no fiscal or other consequence for the scientists regardless of the conclusions their studies may draw.

Even lib professors (in private) would laugh till they puked at the last statement.

I know actual people in those positions- a chemistry professor I had who's primary funding is for his biochem research, for example.

Is his proposal on line? Does it challenge the establishment orthodoxy? This I gotta see.

And I ask again, what are your thoughts on increasing atmospheric CO2, do you think its a sham too?

Of course CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

myp · Sep 6, 2011

Patrick said:
Of course CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

Are you serious? This makes me question your claims of a scientific background or at the very least your knowledge on climate and atmosphere change. I said (after asking what 3-4 times?) do you agree that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, not whether it goes into the atmosphere (which would be a very peculiar question since in a normal state it is both entering and leaving the atmosphere). Do you even understand what the CO2 dilemma that some are suggesting means (in terms of what is happening)?

Patrick · Sep 7, 2011

myp said:
Are you serious? This makes me question your claims of a scientific background or at the very least your knowledge on climate and atmosphere change. I said (after asking what 3-4 times?) do you agree that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, not whether it goes into the atmosphere (which would be a very peculiar question since in a normal state it is both entering and leaving the atmosphere). Do you even understand what the CO2 dilemma that some are suggesting means (in terms of what is happening)?

You're going nutso over a mere manner of speaking. Also, I don't consider it debate you imititating the Riddler from batman.

If you have an assertion to make, make it.

myp · Sep 7, 2011

Patrick said:
You're going nutso over a mere manner of speaking. Also, I don't consider it debate you imititating the Riddler from batman. If you have an assertion to make, make it.

Care to answer the question properly then? And no its not a minor error- any scientist would call it huge.

Patrick · Sep 7, 2011

myp said:
Care to answer the question properly then? And no its not a minor error- any scientist would call it huge.

What question?

Try this simple plan to cut down on your incoherence:

1. Ask a question.

2. Stop and wait for the answer.

(I'm heading to the beach right now, so don't lose control if you don't get an immediate response.

)

La Ni?a - the part the lib media didn't tell you

Similar threads