17 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidThis might be where he gets all his propaganda crap from. It says, among other things;
@humy
And YOUR link, whats up with that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
extreme bias about climate change denial. Nice work, you always go for the lunatic fringe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
"...Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]
The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
...
Watts Up With That features material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change,
...
Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".
..."
Well, at least I see wiki above, and contrary to metalbrain's assertion, asserts CORRECTLY that what Watts's blog and the climate deniers are saying there is generally all AGAINST the scientific consensus on climate change; That's a start.
@humy said"Watts Up With That features material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change"
This might be where he gets all his propaganda crap from. It says, among other things;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
"...Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]
The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally acc ...[text shortened]... re saying there is generally all AGAINST the scientific consensus on climate change; That's a start.
That is not true. There is no scientific consensus that "Watts Up With That" disputes. Another false assertion based on assumption.
The scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that man has an influence on recent GW, but there is no consensus that man is the main cause. That is a myth.
Wikipedia is known for false information. It is only useful for issues that are not disputed.
Your attempt to discredit the source has failed. The link is for listing peer reviewed articles that prove you are wrong. You have not posted a single peer reviewed article to make your case. You have failed miserably and are trying to digress away from that obvious failure.
17 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidWhat denial? Denial of what specifically? Nobody disputes GW is real. The dispute is over what is the main cause, not whether or not it is happening.
@humy
And YOUR link, whats up with that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
extreme bias about climate change denial. Nice work, you always go for the lunatic fringe.
Everybody denies something or another. All people are deniers. It is just a question of what specifically are they denying. You deny GW is from mostly natural causes. You are a denier. A denier of science.
17 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidDid you read any of the peer reviewed articles?
This link has 30 peer reviewed articles listed. You have not posted even one to back up your claim.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/30-peer-reviewed-studies-show-no-connection-between-climate-change-and-hurricanes/
You are lazy. I did my research and you are too lazy to do any.
Be careful when you see websites selectively quoting peer reviewed research, because oftentimes they are misrepresenting what the study actually showed. I just skimmed through one of them...
.... the activity of tropical cyclones during the early season (April–June) reveals an opposite feature; TC activity tends to be more vigorous in recent years. Intense typhoons over the WNP were observed more frequently in May dating back to the year 2000 (Tu et al. 2011).
18 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidWhich recent years? There are always short term variations where that can be said. It is the long term that matters. I think you are taking things out of context.
Did you read any of the peer reviewed articles?
Be careful when you see websites selectively quoting peer reviewed research, because oftentimes they are misrepresenting what the study actually showed. I just skimmed through one of them...
.... the activity of tropical cyclones during the early season (April–June) reveals an opposite feature; TC activity tends t ...[text shortened]... the WNP were observed more frequently in May dating back to the year 2000 (Tu et al. 2011).
Hurricanes are less frequent in a warmer climate. That is a fact.
The deadliest hurricane on record happened during the little ice age. That is also a fact.
Which fact do you dispute?
18 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI am taking things out of context. That's the point. All the quoted materials from those papers (that you probably didn't read) on your website link were also taken wildly out of context. The same articles present data that refutes their dogma. You have to read the papers to understand context.
Which recent years? There are always short term variations where that can be said. It is the long term that matters. I think you are taking things out of context.
Hurricanes are less frequent in a warmer climate. That is a fact.
The deadliest hurricane on record happened during the little ice age. That is also a fact.
Which fact do you dispute?
18 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidSure. He can't read the entire article because he's too busy reading highlights of only the ones he likes and then saying everyone else is missing the context.
@wildgrass
Don't worry, he will find a way to rationalize all that truth nonsense out.....
18 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidProve it then.
I am taking things out of context. That's the point. All the quoted materials from those papers (that you probably didn't read) on your website link were also taken wildly out of context. The same articles present data that refutes their dogma. You have to read the papers to understand context.
19 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidSo do you. Post an excerpt of what you read and think is relevant. I shouldn't have to guess what you are claiming is relevant, especially since it probably isn't. People who avoid posting the relevant excerpts usually lack confidence it would prove anything.
You know how to read.
I know how to read and what not to read. It isn't even a climate model. You didn't even know what you were reading about. When you can tell me what kind of model it is let me know.
19 Nov 19
Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.
“We were able to create more land than sea level rising was taking.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man
19 Nov 19
4 edits
@metal-brain saidWOW! So now all you deniers are NOW trying to convince us the absurdity that sea level rise would NOT result in a general global DEcrease in land area but rather a global INcrease in land area!? You are in alliance with the flatearthers.
Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most sur ...[text shortened]... m/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man
OK, have you EVER thought about that just for a moment with more than one brain cell? Can you see what's wrong with that? HOW can that work? WHY doesn't an increase in sea level result in the coast-line moving inland? If the coast-line moves inland but somehow without loss of land area, WHERE does the extra land area COME from to negate that land area lost by the sea level rise from the coast-line moving inland? Is that land also everywhere rising upwards to compensate for the sea level rise? If so, wouldn't that mean the Earth is gaining mass and, if so, where is that mass gained coming from? Explain that one to us here...
19 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain
Here is an educational experiment for you;
Get a bowl.
Put a large stone in it.
Partly fill the bowl with water so that the stone is only partly submerged.
Now think of that water level as representing sea level and the area of the stone above that water level as representing land area.
Now put some more water in the bowl to increase the water level.
Now observe whether the area of the stone above that water level increases or decreases; Then come back to us with your findings.
19 Nov 19
1 edit
@humy saidSo now you are claiming facts are absurd?
WOW! So now all you deniers are NOW trying to convince us the absurdity that sea level rise would NOT result in a general global DEcrease in land area but rather a global INcrease in land area!? You are in alliance with the flatearthers.
OK, have you EVER thought about that just for a moment with more than one brain cell? Can you see what's wrong with that? HOW can that work? ...[text shortened]... th is gaining mass and, if so, where is that mass gained coming from? Explain that one to us here...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
Are you claiming the Journal Nature was asleep at the wheel when they were supposed to do the scholastic peer review process?