If your calculations are meaningful, the exact chemical description needs to be meaningful, as well. 3 or 4 drops of LSD25 or botulism could kill or seriously debillitate anyone entering that olympic pool.
They have. It is in thousands and thousands of scientific papers in many journals covering research going back 1/2 a century. And ExaBytes of observational data. They have shown you the science. But you haven't read it yet.
Or are you suggesting that the worlds scientists should come to your home to give you a personal briefing on it?
"Undeniably the one and only source of global warming is the sun, not man. The sun is producing an upsurge in solar flares putting out more heat some of which hits the earth."
Over the last 1/2 century solar activity has declined very slightly at the same time that temperatures have been rising. So its not the sun causing it. Inconvenient thing ain't it. A nice speculation about alternative theories shot down by inconvenient data.
Done. All though you have a bit of reading ahead of you. Start with the IPCC's last report - AR4. Read the working group 1 section, the physical science basis. Then read the thousands of scientific papers cited in support of this across many different branches of science - Physics, Thermodynamics, Radiation Heat Transfer theory. Oceanography, Ocean Chemistry, cloud science, geochemistry, hydrology, paleoclimatology.... Then start following the citation links in all those papers to earlier papers containing more of the earlier research. After reading thousands of scientific papers stretching back to the 1950's, with a handful from pioneers before WWII you will a grasp of the scientific basis for it.
Then to look at data you can use the Data Sources page at RealClimate.org to link to all the main repositories of data amassed Exa Bytes of it - spectroscopic data, satellite observations of everything imaginable, radiosonde data, sea surface temperatures, GH gas concentrations, Solar activity, aerosol ovservations, Soil moisture data, ocean temperature, density, salinity, Ph, Carbonate concentrations, ocean current speeds,, recently satellite gravity measurements of mass changes, cloud height & composition, paleo climate data - sediment cores, ice cores, diverse isotope ratio studies, geological and geochemical data and .....
"Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate."
Sorry but this is very faulty reasoning. I'll give you an analogy. My swimming pool's water level is low so I throw a hose in and start adding water.I know that it will take hours to fill but I'm not sure exactly because I can't measure the flow rate in the hose that accurately. But certainly some hours. Now you are suggesting that if I watch one single point in the pool and look at the instantaneous level changes, while my family are busy using the pool, making waves, if I can't predict exactly what that spot will be like 33 seconds from now, I can't possibly predict what the water level will be like hours from now. You are trying to judge how well we can prdict the signal ased on how well we can predict the noise.
If you read back through some of my earlier comments you will see that warming is continuing unabated. The oceans are accumulating heat pretty much unchecked at a rate of multiple Hiroshima Bombs per second. Its just that over the last decade circulation patterns in the ocean have changed a bit and more heat is being drawn down to greater depths so the surface isn't warming much so the atmosphere isn't warming much.
" volcanic activity, the sun, and many other "natural" influences are discounted" No they are not. They have all been looked at and their impacts assessed. And apart from the occasional very large eruption such as Mt Pinatubo in 1992, their effects are observed to be small.
Since we are past the peak of the last Inter-Glacial we should if anything be in a very slow cooling trend, which is what the last 8000 years have been doing. The Orbital changes that trigger Ice Ages are well understood and the expected next Ice Age would have a very slow gentle but cooling start. Instead we are seeing warming.
Science SHOULD be about facts, but the GW is about false data and conclucions made then data fabricated to support that end. The vastness of the earth's climate has just been scratched by man's questioning and we haven't been around that long in Earth time.
Good point, Doc. Concerns about this actually date back to the late 1800s in London. The budding industrial revolution changed the nature of the clouds over London, according to observers. Add 125 years to that.
The size of the planet, atmosphere, and volumes of oil are not engineering statistics, they are facts. Science is about facts, not expert opinions. We as humans actually know very little. But again the experts are asking me to sacrifice based, not on fact, but their opinions! They may indeed be correct, but first, show me the science!
We Americans are both the best educated and wealthiest people in the world. I guess we--with exceptions--value our money more than our education
Well America is the largest economy, (excluding the European Union) 10-15th ranked in GDP/capita, and has many Nobel laureates and the top ranked Universities. However, as we can see on this board, education is not evenly spread.
At the bottom end America has people living in cardboard boxes and unable to get basic health-care and a majority of the population who believe in creationism or intelligent design, including Roy Spencer, one of the handful of sceptic climate scientists!
Unfortunately, if people can be convinced of creationism they can be manipulated into believing AGW is a fraud as well. Now how does that happen?
In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, it identified two targets
"Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, ICE said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence...."
"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" "... These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green
New versions of BASF's Ecovio line are both compostable and designed for either injection molding or thermoforming. These combinations are becoming more common for the single-use bioplastics used in food service and food packaging applications, but are still not widely available.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.