Methane emissions jump

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Let's play you're little game.

However, let's also be clear of what the question is.

What is an OPEN peer reviewed study?

Does your question mean that you agree that global warming is man made?

Or does your question mean that global warming is causing harm to mankind?

Do you question that co2 is a greenhouse gas?

Lol. The question is clear. But redirect with more questions back. Stall...stall...stall.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Peter Gill

That would be one where the author(s) don't get to select their own reviewers, aka "pal review."

I don't think he realizes peer reviewed by only peers that are sucking on the global warming funding teat is not really peer reviewed.

Still...I doubt he has ever read any of the studies and rather went of news reports. Never asked if these studies can be repeated or tested and proved. Philosophical global warming studies are the norm.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Lol. The question is clear. But redirect with more questions back. Stall...stall...stall.

Your question contains a number of elements.

Let's break them down. I need to understand what you mean by the parameters you are setting. I can then respond appropriately. I won't be told afterward ,"Oh, that is not what I meant ". Not that you would do that.

You said:

"I asked you first so how about you provide me with 5 OPEN peer reviewed studies that prove in your mind that man made global warming is significantly harming mankind"

The first clarification I need is:

-"I asked you first so how about you provide me with 5 OPEN peer reviewed studies"

What is your definition of OPEN peer reviewed. You see, this is new nomenclature you have not used previously, do obviously it is a parameter you feel is important.

-" that prove in your mind that man made global warming is significantly harming mankind "

This part implies you concur global warming is happening. It also implies you acknowledge that warming is man made.

If that is truly the case, then I'm not going to provide science that shows the same, as that would be redundant.

Your question seems to ask for me to show science that indicates that this warming is harmful to humans.

So, to sum up, define what you mean by open peer reviewed, and clarify if the thrust of your question is to show what harm global warming is doing.

If you meant anything else by the second part of the question, let me know.

If your going to plant some goal posts around this question, I need to know where they are and that they won't get moved.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Your question contains a number of elements.

Let's break them down. I need to understand what you mean by the parameters you are setting. I can then respond appropriately. I won't be told afterward ,"Oh, that is not what I meant ". Not that you would do that.

You said:

"I asked you first so how about you provide me with 5 OPEN peer reviewed studies that prove in your mind that man made global warming is significantly harming mankind"

The first clarification I need is:

-"I asked you first so how about you provide me with 5 OPEN peer reviewed studies"

What is your definition of OPEN peer reviewed. You see, this is new nomenclature you have not used previously, do obviously it is a parameter you feel is important.

-" that prove in your mind that man made global warming is significantly harming mankind "

This part implies you concur global warming is happening. It also implies you acknowledge that warming is man made.

If that is truly the case, then I'm not going to provide science that shows the same, as that would be redundant.

Your question seems to ask for me to show science that indicates that this warming is harmful to humans.

So, to sum up, define what you mean by open peer reviewed, and clarify if the thrust of your question is to show what harm global warming is doing.

If you meant anything else by the second part of the question, let me know.

If your going to plant some goal posts around this question, I need to know where they are and that they won't get moved.

LOL Just can't answer a straight question without a question or misdirection.

It points to your knowledge purely comes from news reports and that you are not thinking for yourself.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I asked you first so how about you provide me with 5 OPEN peer reviewed studies that prove in your mind that man made global warming is significantly harming mankind.

the word "your" does not contain SDF in it. For your clarity...your refers to you in this context.

Keep trying however. I know you are struggling online right now...deperately trying to find an answer online.

Good luck or redirect once again. Your choice.

I will make it easier and leave peer reviewed to include a narrow circle of acceptable global warming approved reviewers.

[Sundancefisher]

Classic Global Warming "What If" study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0501101224.htm

Summary.

Global warming could cause worse weather in Africa. Computer models says so.

Hits the news circuits and in turn the believers glom on.

Same type studies said models proved earth will warm. Instead we have had no warming in 17 years.

Same type studies said the Arctic would be ice free. Ice is still there...recovering from a low yet not as low as in the past when sailing ships plowed the oceans.

Same type studies said hurricanes will be bad last year...lowest year in a long time.

Same O Same O.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Classic Global Warming "What If" study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0501101224.htm

Summary.

Global warming could cause worse weather in Africa. Computer models says so.

Hits the news circuits and in turn the believers glom on.

Same type studies said models proved earth will warm. Instead we have had no warming in 17 years.

Same type studies said the Arctic would be ice free. Ice is still there...recovering from a low yet not as low as in the past when sailing ships plowed the oceans.

Same type studies said hurricanes will be bad last year...lowest year in a long time.

Same O Same O.

I'm going to quickly respond to your issue with hurricane predictions. I'm scrambling to get ready to come back up north so will not be spending much time online for the next week.

Here is a very technical but detailed analysis of what happened in 2013. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I follow this guy's postings daily. He is an expert on hurricanes.

http://stormw.wordpress.com/2013/12/...-p-m-est-phfc/

The long and short of it seems to relate to the same issue your link describes, and that is what happened with Sahara dust, as well as the lack of activity in the Madden Julian Oscillation.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm going to quickly respond to your issue with hurricane predictions. I'm scrambling to get ready to come back up north so will not be spending much time online for the next week.

Here is a very technical but detailed analysis of what happened in 2013. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I follow this guy's postings daily. He is an expert on hurricanes.

http://stormw.wordpress.com/2013/12/...-p-m-est-phfc/

The long and short of it seems to relate to the same issue your link describes, and that is what happened with Sahara dust, as well as the lack of activity in the Madden Julian Oscillation.

Did you actually stop to think that when scientists get caught with their pants around their ankles they need to save face.


Ummm...there is a reason why we were so wrong... and ummm...it still means all our models are correct and we are still doomed. Just let me redo my models 1000 more times till it fits.

Read this. It summarizes the farce nicely.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/2...n-in-30-years/

[wasteland.soldier]

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by wasteland.soldier

haha...OK, that's funny...cause I've been there.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

haha...OK, that's funny...cause I've been there.

Do sad... Yet so true.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-claims/

Looks like all the fear of warmer winters causing problems is actually bogus.

Looks like we need to increase CO2 output to stop the cooling.



Still waiting for your top 5 peer reviewed studies as mentioned earlier.

[Unregistered user]

That snow outside my house today is scalding hot!

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0504133207.htm

Hmmm. Scientists are now forced to admit that some areas of the planet are cooling.

Ahhh... but they say that just proves global warming since warming causes it to cool in some places.

These guys crack me up.

Scientists still fail to own up to the fact that the data is biased due to where and when they collect it. For instance...there used to be many more recording places in the Canadian north. Now much fewer and Eureka is one of them...historical always unusually warm hence the name...still it is used as a major indicator of a more regional temperature variable.

Still...at least now they have to admit...all this warming leads to cooling. So confusing. LOL

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

White house now says floods and droughts are caused by global warming.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-tec...tudy-1.1810977

Another crack in the ice as finally a scientist says "wait a minute. Natural climate variation is still occurring."

Fortunately he was able to add global warming is still a part of it. I call that a "please keep giving me research grants".

Very interesting.