Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.
The debate and the science itself has been tilted by the dollar. Not just a lot of dollars, and not just a bunch of dollars. But a mountain size pile of dollars. And where you find dollars you find political agendas providing the dollars.
Behind the debate are two pathways.
If CO2 is the main driving force.
Then regulations, carbon credits, population control, alternative energy sources are needed.
If the sun is the main driving force.
Then infrastructures are needed.
The CO2 pathway requires taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Where the sun’s pathway may require adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Talk about right or left. Has there ever been a scientific debate like this before in your lifetime?
Shouldn’t the science settle the debate? Normally yes. But the science in buried under that mountain of cash right now. And the political agendas don’t care about global warming. Their goals are taxes and regulations.
Then along comes President Trump. He sees what’s going on and stops the flow of money to the mountain. Then backs off regulations and stops taxing laws from moving forward. It will take some time for the money to get used up. When it does hopefully the science will change to following the ideology instead of the money. When it does maybe President Trump will re-join the Paris Accords.
The most important items to debate right now is the computer models. If President Trump can hold off the political forces until the computer models can get out from under the mountain of cash and start producing needed projections with creditability. We may have a chance to let science settle the debate.
spam program holdup
Why are you blowing smoke up our asses.
The fundamental questions have been long resolved.
What you write there is delusional and belongs in a fiction novel, has nothing to do with today’s physical or scientific reality!
Total non sequitur so to speak.
On another note,
How and why haven’t you come to the defense of your Judith Curry and your own claims?
No matter, thanks for the inspiration:
Tuesday, August 29, 2017 Judith Curry, ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer! Harvey's global warming connection. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/judithcurry-asks-stupid-questions.html The hallmark of a great scientist is the ability to ask great questions. Questions who's pursuit leads to meaningful progress towards understanding. When it comes to our country's contentious manmade global warming discussion, it also comes down to how serious one is about asking meaningful questions that allow for meaningful constructive answers.Judith Curry writes, “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on." (I thought she knew about climatology. Please consider.)* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.
PS Politicizing Harvey - George Monbiot explains what others hide from. "The media avoids the subject of climate breakdown – to do otherwise is to bring the entire infrastructure of thought crashing down."Once again George Monbiot writes a sober realistic assessment - as opposed to the disconnected, delusional watered-down mishmash we are receiving from our leaders, too many cowered scientists who know better, and the profits driven news media in general - regarding the Harvey manmade global warming connection and what we must expect these next years. At first I wanted to quote highlights and link to his article, but that just chopped up the narrative since Monbiot's writing is already plenty succinct. Then I was going to quote the first few paragraphs and link to the original. But I could not decide on an appropriate cut off. I’m driven to post the entire essay since it’s so rare for me to read something that hits every note and so closely aligns with my own decades long musings and frustrated attempts at communicating Earth's climate realities to other people. Fortunately, Mr. Monbiot has already given me permission to reprint some of his articles, so here’s another must read. As I mentioned in my previous post this latest round of desperate climate science avoidance crystalized for me the image of a people desperately clinging to dreams of yesterday’s normal, like a child desperately clinging to her mother as they're being inexorably torn apart for all time. Unfortunately, what we refuse to comprehend will harm, nay destroy all we’ve come to love about this world. In the following George Monbiot once again offers the reader a cold sobering slap in the face, it ain't nice but it is the reality we made for ourselves. Might as well honestly face what's arrived at our doorstep. Can't say we didn't see it coming. Check out Monbiot's article: http://www.monbiot.com/2017/09/02/dont-look-now/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to the new normal.
Science of Superstorms. After Harvey, What’s Next?
Paul Beckwith
Science of Superstorms. After Harvey, What's Next? - YouTube
Ever hear of the Brown Ocean effect? That’s where we’re at you silly goose:
'Brown Ocean' Can Fuel Inland Tropical Cyclones | NASA
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/tropical-cyclones/brown-ocean-effect
All this chatter coming from a person who will not list the items of agreements and disagreements of the Global Warming issues between us so that a dialog can be done in a scientific method.
When I look at what is going on, I can’t help but compare it to the weeks before the election and Rachel Maddow telling us that it was going to be a landslide. There was nothing anyone could do or say about Trump that could not be buried in data showing the opposite. After all look where all the money had been spent. Same thing here.
The post is about how money is degrading the science because of political agendas. You want to talk about hurricanes. Please go back to the subject of the post.
You post and ask me to look at what George Manbiot has to say. OK, he starts off with a lie. Follow by another lie. And then starts a bitching. There is time spent I will never get back.
Then you post link to Paul Beckwith. OK, Paul talks weather in detail. He could have said that hurricanes are nothing more than the weather readjusting the energy on the earth. Same point. Then the last link you posted seems to be a data dump.
Four links. Manbiot writing an opinion on a popular subject matter for money. And three guys working in agencies getting government funds.
If Trump was wrong about Global Warming then both sides would be complaining. But only one side is complaining. The side that is getting all the funds.
Everyone understands that you hate Trump with a passion. Why are you not happy that Trump is stepping America back on supporting CO2 as the driving force? That is political suicide and guarantees you the 2020 election. Unless Trump is correct and locks in the 2020 election by guiding America down the correct pathway.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.Does an automobile run on gasoline or oxygen? Put a car in a room with nothing but nitrogen and see if it will start. What do you mean you could not breathe in the room? psik
I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor.
Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men.
Professor was asking us as students few questions:
- Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780.
He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence. - Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883
He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912) - Earth pollution is bad enough
Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have.
Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.
The problem is three fold especially, in the U.S. The first two are power and money and they are one in the same. The third is that those with the first two apparently don’t give a damn about the future. Now if money and power doesn’t care about the future and if it is because they don’t hold a religious belief about an after life, maybe that could be a good thing but so far not so much. Not caring enough about trying to stop the heat wave is essentially condemning our children and grand children. We may not be able to out spend money and power but we can sure as hell out vote them unless we too don’t care about our children or grand children. There is simply no future in JUST LIVING FOR YODAY.
All this chatter coming from a person who will not list the items of agreements and disagreements of the Global Warming issues between us so that a dialog can be done in a scientific method.That from a guy who freely calls LIE, but doesn't outline what he's calling out as a lie.
You post and ask me to look at what George Manbiot has to say. OK, he starts off with a lie. Follow by another lie. And then starts a bitching. There is time spent I will never get back.Come on list them. You are also the guy that can't enunciate serious questions to answer. Here's what we know for sure
* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.I don't give a f__k about what someone said about something else. How about sticking to the facts of the geophysics involved. Oh yeah, the suspicious is that you constitutionally incapable of it.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.Does an automobile run on gasoline or oxygen? Put a car in a room with nothing but nitrogen and see if it will start. What do you mean you could not breathe in the room? psik Doesn’t the oxygen control the amount of gasoline that will burn? I think a car can run on nitrogen.
I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor. Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men. Professor was asking us as students few questions: 1. Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780. He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence. 2. Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883 He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912) 3. Earth pollution is bad enough Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have. Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObmapEm2a4 if you have time. This will show some of the ideas of the sun as the main driver.
(author-"MikeYohe") And three guys working in agencies getting government funds.So you're one of them paranoid government haters - if it come from the gov-ment it sucks. Oh unless I need their help. What the MikeYohe criminals refuse to acknowledge is that this is the geophysics - it's not make believe like the Hollyworld they are committed to. We will all pay the price for allowing them to pull this con-job on a supposedly intelligent people.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/brown-ocean-can-fuel-inland-tropical-cyclones/ 'Brown Ocean' Can Fuel Inland Tropical Cyclones July 16, 2013 In the summer of 2007, Tropical Storm Erin stumped meteorologists. Most tropical cyclones dissipate after making landfall, weakened by everything from friction and wind shear to loss of the ocean as a source of heat energy. Not Erin. The storm intensified as it tracked through Texas. It formed an eye over Oklahoma. As it spun over the southern plains, Erin grew stronger than it ever had been over the ocean. Erin is an example of a newly defined type of inland tropical cyclone that maintains or increases strength after landfall, according to NASA-funded research by Theresa Andersen and J. Marshall Shepherd of the University of Georgia in Athens. Before making landfall, tropical storms gather power from the warm waters of the ocean. Storms in the newly defined category derive their energy instead from the evaporation of abundant soil moisture – a phenomenon that Andersen and Shepherd call the "brown ocean." "The land essentially mimics the moisture-rich environment of the ocean, where the storm originated," Andersen said. The study is the first global assessment of the post-landfall strength and structure of inland tropical cyclones, and the weather and environmental conditions in which they occur. ... ... ... Andersen and Shepherd show that a brown ocean environment consists of three observable conditions. First, the lower level of the atmosphere mimics a tropical atmosphere with minimal variation in temperature. Second, soils in the vicinity of the storms need to contain ample moisture. Finally, evaporation of the soil moisture releases latent heat, which the team found must measure at least 70 watts averaged per square meter. For comparison, the latent heat flux from the ocean averages about 200 watts per square meter. Indeed, all three conditions were present when Erin tracked across the U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest. Still, questions remain about the factors – such as variations in climate, soil and vegetation – that make Australia the region where brown ocean conditions most often turn up. The research also points to possible implications for storms' response to climate change. "As dry areas get drier and wet areas get wetter, are you priming the soil to get more frequent inland tropical cyclone intensification?" asked Shepherd. Related Links › NASA's hurricanes and tropical cyclones website › University of Georgia, Department of Geography Kathryn Hansen NASA's Earth Science News Team
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/tropical-cyclones/brown-ocean-effect Brown ocean effect Hurricane Irene makes landfall in North America When a tropical storm or cyclone makes landfall is usually begins to lose its energy, but sometimes conditions on the land can resemble the moist environment of the ocean maintaining and even increasing the power of the storm. You may have heard of the 'brown ocean effect' in relation to the current Tropical Storm 'Bill' in the southern US. This effect is boosting 'Bill' as forecast and enabling it to dump phenomenal amounts of rain onto Texas and Oklahoma - perhaps more than would be predicted from this kind of tropical storm or cyclone over land. Significant impacts are expected, for example, flooding and landslides - as this rain follows a record wet May in these two US states. What is the brown ocean effect? It is rare, but the brown ocean effect refers to when a tropical storm or cyclone maintains or even intensifies in strength as it moves inland, contrary to the usual behaviour of such systems which tend to fragment and peter out once they make landfall. As most tropical storms or cyclones get their energy from warm sea water and weaken once they cross the coast and lose their usual source of heat and moisture, and hence energy, from the sea. So for most tropical storms/cyclones the largest amounts of rain are usually recorded before or on landfall. What does it do? So why do a few tropical storms or cyclones remain energised or intensify once they make landfall? Recent scientific research has found that three conditions appear to be necessary. 1. The ground must be very warm and have a similar temperature to the sea from where the tropical storm or cyclone has come from. 2. The ground must be very wet or saturated and so this land 'mimics' the sea - and hence the name 'brown ocean effect'. The high amount of moisture in the soil, then allows a high rate of evaporation, which then acts as a source of heat energy for the storm or cyclone, technically known as latent heat - similar to the process over the sea. 3. And the amount of this latent heat must be at certain level - at least 70 watts per square metre. Over the sea it would normally be around 200 watts per square metre. These conditions are currently being met in Texas and Oklahoma, as we are in early summer and the ground has warmed up enough, the ground is saturated following the recent record wet May and the latent heat has reached or exceeded the required level. The 'brown ocean effect' was first investigated following the 2007 US Tropical Storm 'Erin' when it made landfall across the Texan coast and then intensified as it moved inland over Texas and Oklahoma bringing huge amounts of rainfall. Last updated: 23 June 2015;lkhj
(MikeYohe) ---utter nutter distracting bullshit that doesn't have a thing to do with today's world. --- www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObmapEm2a4 CLIMATE HYSTERIA - Judith Curry on Climategate, Concensus and Bullying (and she sure does know how to bully) if you have time. (are you insane? No I don't have time for some fool to tell me the sun is causing current global warming) This will show some of the ideas of the sun as the main driver.The sun is the main driver of Earth's climate system - IT IS NOT THE MAIN DRIVER OF TODAY'S GLOBAL WARMING !!! More Judith Curry nonsense. Nope you still got unfinished Judith Curry business
Dr. Curry did a workup on the weather computer models and Harvey. It is worth a read for anyone following the computer models. //judithcurry.com/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-long-range-forecasts/Okay, I've read it. She reiterates what happened in professor speak. Her assessment of the forecasting and weather models in general were no great shakes. Now please explain why do you think that was insightful or worth reading? What did she write that was of any significance? The gist of all she says is obvious, there were no special insights and not much to take issue with. White bread. I'm just saying. Although you know Mike, Judith Curry did toss down couple incredibly stupid sentences. But, my lips are zipped for now. I think it's time for me to shut up and listen to you. Please help me understand what you found important and worth pondering in Curry's message. Quotes would be cool. I'm genuinely interesting in understanding how you arrive at your outlook. As for my critique to her performance
The hallmark of a great scientist is the ability to ask great questions. Questions who's pursuit leads to meaningful progress towards understanding. When it comes to our country's contentious manmade global warming discussion, it also comes down to how serious one is about asking meaningful questions that allow for meaningful constructive answersI was told to read this recent article by Judith Curry regarding Hurricane Harvey. I did as requested and was baffled, what was I was supposed to find interesting in it? Other than watching Judith’s outrageously biased perspective manipulate facts into fantasy. Which is thing worth studying. So with no further ado, lets take a look.
Hurricane Harvey: long-range forecasts Posted on August 27, 2017 by Judith Curry .... http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/judithcurry-asks-stupid-questions.html
The problem is three fold especially, in the U.S. The first two are power and money and they are one in the same. The third is that those with the first two apparently don't give a damn about the future. Now if money and power doesn't care about the future and if it is because they don't hold a religious belief about an after life, maybe that could be a good thing but so far not so much. Not caring enough about trying to stop the heat wave is essentially condemning our children and grand children. We may not be able to out spend money and power but we can sure as hell out vote them unless we too don't care about our children or grand children. There is simply no future in JUST LIVING FOR YODAY.Canadian Minister of the Environment says, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Not what I wanted to hear.
Doesn’t the oxygen control the amount of gasoline that will burn? I think a car can run on nitrogen.ROFLMAO
The hydrocarbons in fuel normally react only with the oxygen during the combustion process to form water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), creating the desirable effect of heat and pressure within the cylinder. Unfortunately, under certain engine operating conditions, the nitrogen also reacts with the oxygen to form nitrogen oxides (NOx), a criteria air pollutant.https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/64-tiger-cub-1/64-data/combustion-chemistry.pdf And we are supposed to read what you write about climate and atmospheric physics!!! Oxygen runs the planet. Fortunately it is mostly free. psik
None of you noticed he emphasized CREDITABILITY…
Really???
That’s what science needs CREDITABILITY; uhh the ability to use credit???
It’s CREDIBILITY!!!
Almost none of you actually read anyone else’s post. Let alone the articles posted. That has been the most significant trend I have seen on this forum. If you read the OP and took a few minutes to reflect on it, you might come to the inevitable conclusion that he is a moron.
Why are we always trying to convince people who lack the level if comprehension required to process such concepts? Hell, why are we trying to explain something that we don’t fully understand ourselves?
Unless you hold a PhD in an field associated with climate change, you have no business attempting to portray the role of spokesperson.
Unless you hold a PhD in an field associated with climate change, you have no business attempting to portray the role of spokesperson.Making an issue of typo's is not my thing, I'm guilty of enough of them myself. It's understand what's happening upon our planet that is important. Oh and why the hell shouldn't someone who's paid attention to the developing science since around '71 not get involved in trying to inform others. I understand it plenty well, I keep up and I can accept I have more to learn and that making mistakes is part of the learning process and not something to get all defensive about. Also I can explain things and I can supply the references to authoritative credible sources, so you too can read what the real experts have to say and what helped inform the opinions I share. It's called an attempt at constructive discussion. You know what got me started? All the f'n astro-turfing dedicated to selling transparent lies and bullshit to gullible people who just as soon ignore what's happening in their world. Someone needs to care enough to oppose it. Why don't you petition them and let them know they don't have any business deliberately, maliciously misinforming the public about something so critically important? Now you have anything constructive to add, or are you just another pea shooter? then of course sometime the S.N. won't allow simple corrections either
I was not referring to you Citizenchallenge, when I said “almost none of you actually read anyone else’s post”. If you look a little closer you will realize that is not a typo it is a conscious attempt at spelling. I am not the grammar police, but when you couple that with the overall summary of the OP, you can interpolate that he is incapable of objective analysis. Everything that informs this guy is only the information his bias deems acceptable.
Everything else, citizen, you are right about. Especially:“and that making and that making mistakes is part of the learning process and not something to get all defensive about”, all of us on this forum, myself included, need to take this point to heart. I admit I am a little disheartened by my own contribution to this problem, so feeling helpless I wrote that post.
Citizenchallenge, you are right. We should not give up, we should try to educate and expose. Mike is the closest thing to a representation of a dangerous opposing view point and you must debate him. But I have read his posts across the forum and he is a weak facsimile of a much more calculating and unscrupulous opponent.
I apologize for original post, it came from an emotional place. But regardless, Mike yohe is an idiot and is only useful as a punching bag not a sparring partner.
I was not referring to you Citizenchallenge, when I said "almost none of you actually read anyone else's post". If you look a little closer you will realize that is not a typo it is a conscious attempt at spelling. I am not the grammar police, but when you couple that with the overall summary of the OP, you can interpolate that he is incapable of objective analysis. Everything that informs this guy is only the information his bias deems acceptable. Everything else, citizen, you are right about. Especially:"and that making and that making mistakes is part of the learning process and not something to get all defensive about", all of us on this forum, myself included, need to take this point to heart. I admit I am a little disheartened by my own contribution to this problem, so feeling helpless I wrote that post. Citizenchallenge, you are right. We should not give up, we should try to educate and expose. Mike is the closest thing to a representation of a dangerous opposing view point and you must debate him. But I have read his posts across the forum and he is a weak facsimile of a much more calculating and unscrupulous opponent. I apologize for original post, it came from an emotional place. But regardless, Mike yohe is an idiot and is only useful as a punching bag not a sparring partner.Fair enough and I read that late last night, probably should have passed on commenting, but sometimes I can't keep my mouth shut. You are correct, although I do take on the bones his type tosses out, as a sort of challenge. Phony's like Yohe have provided me with many learning opportunities. Unfortunately, that's about as far as it goes, still haven't converted one. I hope perhaps it's helps some onlookers. But I'll admit sure seems like it's pissing in the wind. cheers.
None of you noticed he emphasized CREDITABILITY.... Really??? That's what science needs CREDITABILITY; uhh the ability to use credit??? It's CREDIBILITY!!! Almost none of you actually read anyone else's post. Let alone the articles posted. That has been the most significant trend I have seen on this forum. If you read the OP and took a few minutes to reflect on it, you might come to the inevitable conclusion that he is a moron. Why are we always trying to convince people who lack the level if comprehension required to process such concepts? Hell, why are we trying to explain something that we don't fully understand ourselves? Unless you hold a PhD in an field associated with climate change, you have no business attempting to portray the role of spokesperson.Sorry for you making your life ruff on understanding the misspelling of a word. I am sure that must have hurt you. I would take more time in reviewing my grammar, but your check has not arrived. So, deal with it. I was trained on the American phonic alphabet to spell words the way they sound. There are no vowels or double consonants in that phonic alphabet. I have tried everything thinkable to pick up our alphabet with no luck. Maybe if we had computers and the internet and could have debated the good points of the American phonic alphabet, such as no illiteracy, years ago. Then today you would be using the phonic alphabet. Using the phonic alphabet would cut one year off schooling. Spelling bees would be impossible. The alphabet also has speed and volume which makes reading much more enjoyable. I have spell check and grammar on the computer. But words are still going to get by that are incorrect. It isn’t that others on the site did not notice the misspelling. Most likely they are aware of my spelling mistakes. And for needing a PhD to debate a subject. There has only been one president with a PhD, Woodrow Wilson back in 1913. When it comes to money, you don’t even need an education or to speak the same language to understand money. And Trump slowing the flow of money is helping the science by letting it rebalance the political powers involved.
All this chatter coming from a person who will not list the items of agreements and disagreements of the Global Warming issues between us so that a dialog can be done in a scientific method.That from a guy who freely calls LIE, but doesn't outline what he's calling out as a lie.
You post and ask me to look at what George Manbiot has to say. OK, he starts off with a lie. Follow by another lie. And then starts a bitching. There is time spent I will never get back.Come on list them. You are also the guy that can't enunciate serious questions to answer. Here's what we know for sure
* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.I don't give a f__k about what someone said about something else. How about sticking to the facts of the geophysics involved. Oh yeah, the suspicious is that you constitutionally incapable of it. Now replace “Global Warming" with “Earth’s natural temperature cycles". Unless you have the computer models agreeing, you really got nothing but the promoting of political agendas. Where's the beef (science)? Give me something that both sides agree upon otherwise it is contested science you are using.