You do address some questions and as far as a global warming skeptic you are far more knowledgeable than most.  There is far more to it, which obviously goes over your head. You don't understand your own mental disorders while they're quite obvious to others. Again you're just going off on random shit ...  you poor thing and your diseased mind. It'll be ok though buddy.

Your nutball ranting misses the mark yet again.  I only selectively support recycling and think Penn and Teller are fake intellectuals who are usually out of their league.  I once went to their show and fell asleep.  (Blame the cocktails I had at the bar?? )

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart,  you sure have a hard time figuring out the formatting tags.

I can't really quote it without just breaking the formatting a second time but refer above.

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

I really have no opinion on 2nd hand smoke except that it was a catalyst for migraines when I was younger. That is enough for me.

You seem like a reasonable fellow, so I'm being polite. If you think tobacco "contributes" to cancer, then it also causes cancer. It obviously isn't binary which you understand.  Your take on this is a bit confusing though.  If tobacco causes cancer, it does _not_ mean that nothing else would.

My whole point here was not the tobacco issue itself. It is that there are ALWAYS a group of skeptics shown to be wrong on so many issues throughout history.  I could come up with countless examples of this.  What I couldn't come up with, is an example of a global conspiracy promulgated by the large majority of scientists.

I think this wins the award of the most incoherent babbling wrong post in all 186+ pages.  Congrats Spendalus. Here's a cookie?

You can't follow a logical train of thought, so you make up views of your opponents and attack those.

At least I think thats what you are trying to do here?

lol

You ignore the fact that directly measuring things is always preferred.  Dealing with biases in these measurements is something that has to be addressed, but it doesn't completely discount direct measurements.  I can make just as sound arguments about why a single source of data is not preferred....  What happens if that satellite's data is monkeyed with before being made public?  Thats a lot of power in one person's hands. However, that would be too logical for your thought processes.

Lol @ saying that global warming scientists are analogous to tobacco companies.

See, back in the day all the "clever" skeptics said tobacco didn't cause cancer.  To this day it probably hasn't been proven, but you know what?  You don't hear from those guys anymore.  Just like (sadly) we won't hear from you people 20 years from now.  And I say sadly, because I'd rather you be right than wrong.

Thank you for your serious and thoughtful reply.

I agree that there are concerns with ground based temperatures, but it isn't clear that systemic changing of the data couldn't happen with any measurement mechanism.  Regardless, the ground based temperatures are preferred.  What is not preferred are the various ways the data can be manipulated. That has more to do with the method of measurement than the data itself.  Spendalus is constantly confused over this.

It seems obvious that both are useful, but to unequivocally dismiss ground based temperature is clearly wrong. I've been reading other sources and they admit that there are times when temperature has decreased, but anyone who pulls a trend out of that is clearly cherry picking.

If you guys were older, I'd ask you if you believe tobacco causes cancer to form a baseline of opinions.

While we can agree there are problems with surface based temperatures, you have given no actual reasoning why temperatures far up in the atmosphere are preferred.


Here is the question.

Why is it preferable to measure the temperature far up in the atmosphere versus the surface when attempting to demonstrate whether global warming is a legimate concern or not?

Seriously, if I was to approach arguing in the same way as yourself, I'd ask you a dozen barely relevant questions to further confuse the issue.  Then of course you won't respond, and I'd say you don't understand and blah blah. It is silly but I don't expect any better from you by this point.

I will say good job on the references etc.  You are increasing my own level of knowledge.

You think the temperature far up in the atmosphere where the temperature only impacts things indirectly is more important than the temperature of where we actually live.  Okey dokey. Tell me what part of that is wrong or you can not understand and I will go into further detail.

I love how you never answer any tough question.  If you can deflect with some tidbit of information, you're all over it and act like that settles everything.  If you can't find a tidbit, then it is silence!

What?   My argument has been refuted?  I'm telling you that taking temperatures at the surface is much preferred over doing it in the atmosphere for all sorts of various reasons.  One reason being that the spectral absorption is different and the effect is not consistent throughout the atmosphere.  There are many things to consider and I can at least appreciate the complexity of it.


It is absurd to think that temperatures up in the atmosphere should be preferred. I understand why you do it.  The data supports your view, but thats not how real and proper scientists go about things.

It is fascinating how you play stupid when what I have typed is not hard to understand.  You type up paragraph long responses where you can't even figure out the basics of formatting codes.  The result is a complete mess of multiple posts running together.

One thing you are always good at is ducking questions and coming up with strawmen.

edit - I never said anything about ice receding and measuring temperatures.  I just realized that the temperature conversation isn't going anywhere because you can't actually reply to what people say, so I was curious how you respond to empirical evidence. 

Basically you just fall back on the 'it makes no sense to me', then you just choose whatever fits your mentally ill based world model. Usually while going into more detail over things that have no bearing as if that proves anything.

I'm not sure if you are serious about not understanding what I said. You are better at describing these things, and you have obviously studied the subject more. I said nothing wrong, just somewhat different terminology which I have to make up on the spot. Further explaining what I said is not really doing anything I couldn't have also done, but holy moly don't kill yourself with your own back-patting.

In your previous argument your whole line of reasoning seemed to be based on the rays hitting the earth and being absorbed at a constant rate per CO2 when in reality the radiation shifts in frequency and the "spectral lines" change. This added complexity explains why you want temperatures on the ground. Now in order to correct me, you seem to understand it far better. Whatever. Your goal seems to be win the argument via being moronically and selectively pedantic.

There is no argument why satellite based temperatures are preferred except that they remove individual biases of stations and should allow a finer granularity of data. Having it come from one source is not inherently different than coming from thousands of sources. The issue obviously doesn't have a clear solution, yet you go with satellite temperatures because the data agrees with you. As much as you appeal to science, your own seems quite lacking. You do give a good place to look into criticisms.

There are large areas of ice that seem to be receding at a higher than normal rate. Enough that it seems quite exceptional to not believe global warming has and is ongoing. Perhaps there are biases here in play, but whats your answer for that ? 

You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.

I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.

I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere.  Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner.  Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.

I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.

At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing.  It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.

It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.

TLDR;
 you basically cherry pick your data.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet?  Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better.  That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

Lol damn I got under your skin. 

This "water cycle" is just a cycle.  The average effect is flat.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the more bullshit you can throw out the easier it is to ignore the most basic question.  However, I can't state that basic question without paragraphs of ass-covering, because given in the most minor opportunity for you to trounce on something as wrong, you will undoubtedly do it. Solely to avoid the question

You guys don't want a real discussion.  It is ok. The rest of the intelligent educated populace sees you guys as loons and nothing ever changes my mind after my interactions.

You find it worth telling me you don't care what I want and I am supposed to care?  You see how that works?

Ergo you're a fuckin' idiot.

Anyway, so more strawman.  The determination of the factor CO2 and greenhouse gasses play is a incredibly difficult question.  This what the denier's argument always boils down to.  A question so incredibly complicated that no one can answer it, only make attempts so therefore nothing else is valid.

So I guess you guys basically believe in manmade global warming, but you just discount it to such effect that it is irrelevant. That lets you embrace a portion of the accepted science without coming across as loons. You're still able to maintain your position and save face.

It is amazing how many word games you people play just to avoid the question that is key to the crux of the matter.

I *KNEW* I would get this sort of response.  I should have put "average" in there, but I'm sure you guys would still find some nonsense to avoid my point.  The average water vapor etc will be consistent in the short-term. It is like a climate change denier saying,


  I'm not going to spend too much time on you guys, because arguing with biases arising from mental defects is not what I consider productive.  I do hold out hope that you guys have something worth teaching me.

I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses).

Actually I glanced at one of your videos.  1:30 hours of fighting a strawman.  No thanks.

Honestly, it is tedious even having discussions with you people.  You don't try to find the truth, you try to constanty justify why the other guy is wrong.  So if I put CO2, I'll get the 'You don't even know that CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses'.  So I have to constantly elaborate every little fucking thing. For that reason alone, I'd banned you guys off reddit if I were in charge.  Tedium.

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.