Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/

I guess Scientific American is another one of your fake journals.

No, that link just proves my point. Despite much warmer temps during the Pliocene, temps now are much cooler despite having close to the same amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

Notice we are not experiencing a runaway warming of our climate right now. Your feedback theory is bunk!

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/02/06/failure-of-climate-models-shows-that-carbon-dioxide-does-not-drive-global-temperature/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, that link just proves my point. Despite much warmer temps during the Pliocene, temps now are much cooler despite having close to the same amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

Notice we are not experiencing a runaway warming of our climate right now. Your feedback theory is bunk!

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/02/06/failure-of-climate-models-shows-that-carbon-dioxide-does-not-drive-global-temperature/

Spencer is not a climatologist, he is a meterologist. He also is seen on wacko programs like the Rush Limbough show on radio. He is aso anti-evolution, in fact a dyed in the wool creationist. Christy and Spencer are both in the same university so there is no diversity of opinion. They are brothers in arms. You can cherrypick articles like this all day but that does not prove your point, it only shows the opinion of one group.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Spencer is not a climatologist, he is a meterologist. He also is seen on wacko programs like the Rush Limbough show on radio. He is aso anti-evolution, in fact a dyed in the wool creationist. Christy and Spencer are both in the same university so there is no diversity of opinion. They are brothers in arms. You can cherrypick articles like this all day but that does not prove your point, it only shows the opinion of one group.

Your theory is still bunk. Regardless of the source of info in the article is true. Furthermore, being a meteorologist does not prove he is not a climate scientist. Climatologists, atmospheric physicists, glacierologists and even meteorologists can be climate scientists. Heck, you don't even need a degree at all to be a climate scientist if you work with climate models. The bar is very low. I'm not saying he is a climate scientist, but ruling it out on such feeble assumptions is wrong.

Is this link better?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your theory is still bunk. Regardless of the source of info in the article is true. Furthermore, being a meteorologist does not prove he is not a climate scientist. Climatologists, atmospheric physicists, glacierologists and even meteorologists can be climate scientists. Heck, you don't even need a degree at all to be a climate scientist if you work with ...[text shortened]... /article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Barbara Hollingsworth? Are you kidding? You seem to specialize in kook sites.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2014/hollingsworth.html

CNSNews. A right wing site. Is that the best you can do? Site dubious sites like this and that dodo Hollingsworth?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Barbara Hollingsworth? Are you kidding? You seem to specialize in kook sites.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2014/hollingsworth.html

CNSNews. A right wing site. Is that the best you can do? Site dubious sites like this and that dodo Hollingsworth?

That does not matter because all sources of information are included. If you dispute her assertions provide your own source of info to counter hers.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That does not matter because all sources of information are included. If you dispute her assertions provide your own source of info to counter hers.

HERS? You mean she is a climatologist? All I saw was the same people from Alabama.

Originally posted by sonhouse
HERS? You mean she is a climatologist? All I saw was the same people from Alabama.

No. You don't have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist. Pay attention!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No. You don't have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist.

Actually, you do.
And anyone who is payed to be a climate scientist who isn't a qualified climatologist is being payed for doing something they are not formally qualified to do (don't know if anyone actually is payed to be one without the qualification and I do not imply somebody is)

Pay attention!

I wish you would.

Originally posted by humy
Actually, you do.
And anyone who is payed to be a climate scientist who isn't a qualified climatologist is being payed for doing something they are not formally qualified to do (don't know if anyone actually is payed to be one without the qualification and I do not imply somebody is)

Pay attention!

I wish you would.

You are a stubborn moron. I already proved you wrong about this before.

Fact: You can be a climatologist and be a climate scientist, but you do not have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist.

Fact: You can be a atmospheric physicist and be a climate scientist, but you do not have to be an atmospheric physicist to be a climate scientist.

Fact: You can be a glacierologist and be a climate scientist, but you do not have to be a glacierologist to be a climate scientist.

You can be a meteorologist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Afiesimama

You can even be an astrophysicist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

You are just plain WRONG!
Either prove me wrong or shut up!

Originally posted by Metal Brain


You can be a meteorologist and be a climate scientist.
...
You can even be an astrophysicist and be a climate scientist.

both obviously correct and irrelevant and I said nothing to imply the contrary.
You can also be BOTH a dentist and a climate scientist i.e. have separate qualifications in both (why not?); what has that got to do with the fact that you have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist?
Showing examples of climate scientists that are qualified in both climatology in addition to being qualified in other sciences other than climatology doesn't logically imply you can be a climate scientist without being in qualified in climatology.

Using your same moronic 'logic'; I am both a qualified horticulturist and a qualified computer programmer (true); proof you can be a qualified horticulturist without qualifications in horticulture?

Where are your examples of 'climate scientists' NOT qualified in climatology? I presume THAT is what you would need as proof.

Try again.

Originally posted by humy
both obviously correct and irrelevant and I said nothing to imply the contrary.
You can also be BOTH a dentist and a climate scientist i.e. have separate qualifications in both (why not?); what has that got to do with the fact that you have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist?
Showing examples of climate scientists that are qualified in both clima ...[text shortened]... sts' NOT qualified in climatology? I presume THAT is what you would need as proof.

Try again.

"Showing examples of climate scientists that are qualified in both climatology in addition to being qualified in other sciences other than climatology doesn't logically imply you can be a climate scientist without being in qualified in climatology. "

You are lying again! I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists. 2 were from the wikipedia link "climate scientists". In fact, there are several examples on that wikipedia link and I pointed them out to you in the past several times as well. Moron!

FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" I gave you several examples of climate scientists that are NOT climatologists.

you didn't.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are a stubborn moron. I already proved you wrong about this before.

Fact: You can be a climatologist and be a climate scientist, but you do not have to be a climatologist to be a climate scientist.

Fact: You can be a atmospheric physicist and be a climate scientist, but you do not have to be an atmospheric physicist to be a climate scientist. ...[text shortened]... ipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

You are just plain WRONG!
Either prove me wrong or shut up!

Yes, I did.

You can be a meteorologist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Afiesimama

You can even be an astrophysicist and be a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

You can find many more on the wikipedia link of "climate scientists" as well. Many climate scientists are not climatologists. You could have noticed yourself if you had taken the time to, but you are too lazy to do so. The fact is you don't even need a college degree at all to be a climate scientist. All you have to do is work with climate models to be considered a climate scientist. I'm serious. You really do not know what you are talking about. Your whole argument is based on assumptions. How many times have I told you to NOT ASSUME? Don't you listen? What is wrong with you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain

You can be a meteorologist and be a climate scientist.
...

You can even be an astrophysicist and be a climate scientist.
...

Perhaps you cannot read but, as I clearly said before, both of those things are correct and I never suggested in any way the contrary and both of those things are irrelevant to your claim. Those people, if they are qualified climate scientists, are both qualified in climatology and qualified in some other profession, such as meteorology or astrophysics, other than climatology. So you can't handle the word "both"?
You can be qualified in more than one profession and many people are including myself and that doesn't demonstrate if you are qualified in one then you don't need qualifications in another to be qualified in another. I am a qualified horticulturist and a qualified computer expert; 'proof' you don't need to have qualifications in computers to be a qualified computer expert? Your 'argument' is completely stupid. Try again.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
All you have to do is work with climate models to be considered a climate scientist.

"considered" by who? The ignorant?
Someone who is not qualified in climatology cannot validly be considered to be a qualified climate scientist just because he has worked with climate models. Even I can work with some climate models (but only as an amateur) if I wanted to for I am able to with my computer and general science knowledge but I still wouldn't be validly considered to be a climate scientist if I did because I still don't have the relevant qualifications in climatology. Here we must make a distinction between a mere unqualified amateur doing the research and the qualified scientist doing the research and never equate one with the other like you seem to.