2017 is the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

[RAMOSS]

Do you realize a degree called "climatology" is a joke? It is just a few more concepts put on top of a meteorology degree. A meaningful climatology degree would effectively require degrees in at least five areas of the geosciences.

The actual degrees what would be appropriate woudl be in 'atmospheric study' , or geophysics.

You may claims it's a 'joke', but that is showing your confirmation bias.

 

[Jack Hays]

The actual degrees what would be appropriate woudl be in 'atmospheric study' , or geophysics.

You may claims it's a 'joke', but that is showing your confirmation bias.

Gavin Schmidt's degrees are in mathematics. Is he unqualified?

 

[Jack Hays]

The actual degrees what would be appropriate woudl be in 'atmospheric study' , or geophysics.

You may claims it's a 'joke', but that is showing your confirmation bias.

James Hansen's degrees are in physics, mathematics and astronomy. Is he unqualified?

 

[Jack Hays]

The actual degrees what would be appropriate woudl be in 'atmospheric study' , or geophysics.

You may claims it's a 'joke', but that is showing your confirmation bias.

You should now reflect on the ridiculousness of your position.

 

[RAMOSS]

Gavin Schmidt's degrees are in mathematics. Is he unqualified?

It depends. What other degrees does he have. It does not disqualify him, but it does not qualify him either. The thing about math is that you have to understand the inputs to have meaningful output. If he has degrees in addition to math in geophysics, geology, meteorology or atmospheric science, then he is more likely to be quaflified that if he doesn't. If he works in the field specifically on climate science (in other words, that's his job), then he is more likely to be qualified. A math degree in and of itself would not either qualify or disqualify someone.

 

[Jack Hays]

It depends. What other degrees does he have. It does not disqualify him, but it does not qualify him either. The thing about math is that you have to understand the inputs to have meaningful output. If he has degrees in addition to math in geophysics, geology, meteorology or atmospheric science, then he is more likely to be quaflified that if he doesn't. If he works in the field specifically on climate science (in other words, that's his job), then he is more likely to be qualified. A math degree in and of itself would not either qualify or disqualify someone.

Mathematics only. And if you don't know who he is then I've been wasting my time with someone who is completely uninformed.

Gavin Schmidt - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Gavin_Schmidt

---

Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award winning climate science blog RealClimate.
Work

Media and outreach

Awards

Publications

 

[Threegoofs]

You are wrong. A number of his climate articles are in highly respected journals. Can you read?

Just one example:

N. J. Shaviv,
“Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites and a possible Climatic Connection”,
Physical Review Letters

You might want to look up the definition of ‘possible’.... LOL

 

[Lord of Planar]

The actual degrees what would be appropriate woudl be in 'atmospheric study' , or geophysics.

You may claims it's a 'joke', but that is showing your confirmation bias.

Those are two degrees needed. I saw a breakdown one time. It includes solar, atmospheric chemistry, meteorology, oceanography, glaciology, and so many others. The geosciences are so vast, there is no one actual climatology degree worth any merit.

 

[Media_Truth]

Fact is that the temperature cooled. There's nothing you can do to change that.

The data is wrong. How many people need to point this out to you.

 

[Media_Truth]

and I bet your sources manufacture theirs. There is no raw data to support any direction accept cool. Greenland is moving into the Arctic and it will become the same as Antarctica some thousands of years from today. There is no logical way the earth can warm. A total manufactured claim. The earth is cooling and there is nothing we can do about it. I know I want coal and natural gas to be used for my electrical and heating needs because I do not wish to freeze to death. perhaps that is your chosen death, but that's just you. so anytime you feel you have actual data, please post it up.

Maybe you should try passive solar with thermal mass. I have to open windows on most winter days, and I live in Colorado, a very cold climate area! And no heating bills

 

[Media_Truth]

Mathematics only. And if you don't know who he is then I've been wasting my time with someone who is completely uninformed.

Gavin Schmidt - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Gavin_Schmidt

---

Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award winning climate science blog RealClimate.
Work

Media and outreach

Awards

Publications

Gavin Schmidt is the founder of RealClimate.com. I've consulted this website quite a lot. Here is one of his contributions on the website:

These results help us understand how drought and heat affect these forests, some of the most productive ecosystems on Earth. The Amazon has experienced three extreme droughts in the past 11 years, in 2005, 2010, and now 2015-16. These extreme events have occurred more frequently than they did in the previous century. Understanding how the tropical forest responds to big droughts and heat waves help us to evaluate the strength of carbon-climate feedback in ESMs, allowing us to better understand and predict climate change over coming decades. The new results show that each of the major tropical forest regions experienced different combinations of heat and drought during the recent El Niño, so their carbon cycles responded in different ways, but the net result was increased emissions in all cases. Based on these results, further warming and drying of tropical forests is expected to result in less uptake and more release of carbon on land, unfortunately amplifying the effect of fossil fuel emissions warming the climate.

Glad to see that we agree on something.

 

[Jack Hays]

The data is wrong. How many people need to point this out to you.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, and no one has claimed the data are wrong except you. Your claim is, as usual, unsupported.

 

[Jack Hays]

Gavin Schmidt is the founder of RealClimate.com. I've consulted this website quite a lot. Here is one of his contributions on the website:

These results help us understand how drought and heat affect these forests, some of the most productive ecosystems on Earth. The Amazon has experienced three extreme droughts in the past 11 years, in 2005, 2010, and now 2015-16. These extreme events have occurred more frequently than they did in the previous century. Understanding how the tropical forest responds to big droughts and heat waves help us to evaluate the strength of carbon-climate feedback in ESMs, allowing us to better understand and predict climate change over coming decades. The new results show that each of the major tropical forest regions experienced different combinations of heat and drought during the recent El Niño, so their carbon cycles responded in different ways, but the net result was increased emissions in all cases. Based on these results, further warming and drying of tropical forests is expected to result in less uptake and more release of carbon on land, unfortunately amplifying the effect of fossil fuel emissions warming the climate.

Glad to see that we agree on something.

My post had nothing to do with Schmidt's views, only with his education.

 

[Media_Truth]

My post had nothing to do with Schmidt's views, only with his education.

Of course. He's a reputable scientist in the Climate field, with his many years of experience and authorship of books on the subject. As others have stated, you don't listen to the experts. You still have not presented a reputable non-AGW article from an actual Climatologist. You've been challenged to do that.

 

[Media_Truth]

Sorry, but you are mistaken, and no one has claimed the data are wrong except you. Your claim is, as usual, unsupported.

Not true. Others have pointed out the falacies of the Watts data on this graph. The High Schooler is a liar. He is so obsessed with his fossil fuel agenda that he flew a plane over the houses of respected Climatologists, in an attempt to prove that they don't use renewable energy (in actuality, they purchase the renewable option from their utility). Your hero at work...

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course. He's a reputable scientist in the Climate field, with his many years of experience and authorship of books on the subject. As others have stated, you don't listen to the experts. You still have not presented a reputable non-AGW article from an actual Climatologist. You've been challenged to do that.

You might be interested to review the origin of the discussion into which you have interjected yourself. By the other party's standard Schmidt would not be qualified to do climate science.

Please see my recent thread recounting Nir Shaviv's takedown of AGW alarmism.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not true. Others have pointed out the falacies of the Watts data on this graph.

Just another false claim.

 

[Media_Truth]

I followed the entire discussion. The other party said that a Mathematics could be, depending on other factors. He never responded to your Schmidt post. And he also accurately pointed out the falsehood associated with Watt's graph.

 

[Jack Hays]

I followed the entire discussion. The other party said that a Mathematics could be, depending on other factors. He never responded to your Schmidt post. And he also accurately pointed out the falsehood associated with Watt's graph.

Of course he didn't respond. He was embarrassed when it was exposed he did not know who Schmidt is. And there's no falsehood in the Clive Best graph.

 

[BitterPill]

1880, eh?

Well, I guess that's settled. Time to start walking and eating leaves.

Might have to learn to crawl first.

 

[chuckiechan]

Might have to learn to crawl first.

That comes last as we work ourselves backwards.

 

[Nickyjo]

In one of these back and forths I suggested new studies on climate might resolve things. Today's paper says one was in progress and was released yesterday and approved by the administration. Apparently human activity is the dominant cause of temperature rise according to 13 federal agencies, with "no convincing alternative explanation." What gives? Has the Chinese hoax toxin seeped into Trumpworld? Will the administration distribute copies of the report to the UN conference next week?

Let the festivities begin!

 

[Jack Hays]

In one of these back and forths I suggested new studies on climate might resolve things. Today's paper says one was in progress and was released yesterday and approved by the administration. Apparently human activity is the dominant cause of temperature rise according to 13 federal agencies, with "no convincing alternative explanation." What gives? Has the Chinese hoax toxin seeped into Trumpworld? Will the administration distribute copies of the report to the UN conference next week?

Let the festivities begin!

There's a thread, two actually.

 

[Nickyjo]

There's a thread, two actually.

Thanks,will look.

 

[bubbabgone]

In one of these back and forths I suggested new studies on climate might resolve things. Today's paper says one was in progress and was released yesterday and approved by the administration. Apparently human activity is the dominant cause of temperature rise according to 13 federal agencies, with "no convincing alternative explanation." What gives? Has the Chinese hoax toxin seeped into Trumpworld? Will the administration distribute copies of the report to the UN conference next week?

Let the festivities begin!

13 Federal agencies? Sounds impressive. You mean all 13 Federal agencies did the research and found that human activity is the dominant cause of temperature rise?
Any idea what those 13 Federal Agencies expert in climate science were and who made the call for them?

That sounds a lot like the claim that 17 Intel agencies confirmed Russian interference in our election ... and that one was absurd from the get-go as we know now and it turns out to be 3 anyway.
And even then they weren't really the agencies but rather by a handful of hand-picked representatives.