Saipan Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 everyone knows "warm ups" happen for no apparent reason it's a unexplainable scientific fact just ask saipan or his grapes.... Well Einstein, the reason comes up every morning. Most call it the Sun. It's very warm. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Everyone should challenge the UN..and Gore for good measure...always challenge those that seek to rule the world. Quote
wyly Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Well Einstein, the reason comes up every morning. Most call it the Sun. It's very warm. einstien? yes that's appropriate, compared to you I am...please explain why solar activity has been flat/down for the last 30 yrs and yet average global temps have been going up?...link -solar activity and temp...if you have trouble explaining this feel free to consult with your grapes, vikings or pilgrims for scientific advice... Edited January 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 and borrowing your logic, how would the vikings know it was cooling? a thermometer? NASA?... When areas that are habitable become uninhabitable, and when sea lanes are choked by ice. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 blathering nonsense! Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)... there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; So even if some scientists come forward with information that goes against the consensus ... what happens? specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas. Obviously MWP warming can't be attributed to man. But current warming is? Alternatively, no natural variations can account for the warming... the accelerated warming... Actually there are many natural variations that do account for the warming, but all that seems to be ignored because it does not fit into the AGW model. of the relatively recent post 1850 period. Current warming can only be accounted for when CO2 radiative forcing is factored - current increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are most definitely, most absolutely, attributed to mankind's burning of fossil-fuels Should include methane as well, because even at lower concentrations it's a more contributing factor than Co2. as always, Simple... don't hesitate to step forward and attribute today's accelerated warming to any natural variations... or haven't you checked the denialsphere for today's latest and greatest smoking-gun, "AGW killer"? Accelerated? You mean since it went up 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, (according to K.I.S's article) and is proposed to go up another 1.5 to 2 degrees celcius, in the next 100 or so years? That is accelerated to you? Natural variations. Solar cycled affecting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time - ignored CO2 was found in higher concentrations in the past - ignored Slight variations in our orbit around the sun contributing to changes - ignored El Nino, La Nina - ignored Artic losing ice, Antarctica growing ice - ignored If anyone can add to this list, it would be appreciated. Quote
waldo Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 So even if some scientists come forward with information that goes against the consensus ... what happens?what happens, is what happens today - is what has always happened within the scientific community. New or updated findings and/or challenges to existing knowledge are evaluated by the scientific community - peer response. If warranted, new or updated findings add to the existing consensus (this presumes upon a period of scrutiny/confirmation); equally, the same applies to challenges to existing scientific understanding.But current warming is?yes, current warming is anthropogenic - if you understand there to be countering science that disputes this, don't hesitate to put it forward. Actually there are many natural variations that do account for the warming, but all that seems to be ignored because it does not fit into the AGW model.no, all natural variations have been factored... are factored... into the attributed collective radiative forcings that affect earths climatic cooling & warming - if you understand there to be countering science that disputes this, don't hesitate to put it forward. Should include methane as well, because even at lower concentrations it's a more contributing factor than Co2.at present atmospheric levels, methane is no where near the significance of CO2... certainly, given feedback aspects, methane has significant warming potentials (hence the, for example, concerns over northern latitude permafrost melting and subsequent releases of methane into the atmosphere).Accelerated? You mean since it went up 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, (according to K.I.S's article) and is proposed to go up another 1.5 to 2 degrees celcius, in the next 100 or so years? That is accelerated to you?yes, most certainly. Against a most relative short timeframe, warming has been at an accelerated rate.Natural variations.Solar cycled affecting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time - ignored (not ignored; simply not significant, not related to Earth's current warming) CO2 was found in higher concentrations in the past - ignored (not ignored; a recent MLW thread spoke to this very topic particularly related to temperature-to-CO2 correlations... do you have some point to make about the 400 billion+ years prior level of CO2 as it applies to the level of today's warming or CO2 levels?) Slight variations in our orbit around the sun contributing to changes - ignored (not ignored; not relevant to the level of today's warming) El Nino, La Nina - ignored (not ignored; recognized for impacts to regional weather influences) Artic losing ice, Antarctica growing ice - ignored (not ignored; Antarctica land sheet ice is dramatically melting... attributions to rationalize the degree of increased Antarctica sea ice exist (e.g.; ozone level, ocean circulation changes)) Quote
wyly Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Actually there are many natural variations that do account for the warming, but all that seems to be ignored because it does not fit into the AGW model. go ahead name the variations that the world's climatologists haven't looked into...Should include methane as well, because even at lower concentrations it's a more contributing factor than Co2. it's not because it has a relatively short cycle in the atmosphere, strange how you object to CO2 being a cause of CC but are quite willing to switch to methane as the cause...Accelerated? You mean since it went up 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, (according to K.I.S's article) and is proposed to go up another 1.5 to 2 degrees celcius, in the next 100 or so years? That is accelerated to you?on a geological time scale that's a sprint lightspeed WARP speed ...a drop of only 3-4 degrees and we would be heading into another ice age...on a geological scale the difference between our temps today and an ice age is a razor thin...an equal tipping toward in the opposite direction toward warming is equally catastrophic..."Solar cycled affecting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time" - not ignored, surprise planets have seasonal changes too and not all planets are warming, are you suggesting the sun selectively warms some planets while others do not? "CO2 was found in higher concentrations in the past" - never denied, climate responded accordingly, there is more than one cause for CO2 increase, AGW is just one...are you now claiming all past climate changes have only a singular cause? "Slight variations in our orbit around the sun contributing to changes" -milankovitch cycles, sorry ruled out long ago... "El Nino, La Nina" - weather events... "Artic losing ice, Antarctica growing ice "-Arctic was projected to be hit by CC before the Antarctic...increased snowfall is to be expected with warming...more heat, more evaporation, more precipitation...Greenland is experiencing the same higher snowfalls but at the same time accelerated melting of the ice pack... If anyone can add to this list, it would be appreciated.do you honestly think that denier blogs can come up with new evidence that the worlds scientists haven't already ruled out long ago?...try do some honest research instead of bringing up long discarded ideas....dammit waldo ya beat me to it! Edited January 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 it's not because it has a relatively short cycle in the atmosphere, strange how you object to CO2 being a cause of CC but are quite willing to switch to methane as the cause... But from what I understand from your threads and Waldo's is that methane is a stonger forcing factor in smaller quantities than Co2. on a geological time scale that's a sprint...a drop of only 3-4 degrees and we would be heading into another ice age...on a geological scale the difference between our temps today and an ice age is a razor thin...an equal tipping toward in the opposite direction toward warming is equally catastrophic... Maybe you can show me in the past how warming has had catastrophic effects? "Solar cycled affecting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time" - not ignored, surprise planets have seasonal changes too and not all planets are warming, are you suggesting the sun selectively warms some planets while others do not? If the sun is melting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time, can you say that it's AGW affecting all 3? "CO2 was found in higher concentrations in the past" - never denied, climate responded accordingly, there is more than one cause for CO2 increase, AGW is just one...are you now claiming all past climate changes have only a singular cause? Never made that claim, however the proponents of AGW are claiming the current climate change has a singular cause, and that is CO2 from burning fossil fuels. "Slight variations in our orbit around the sun contributing to changes" -milankovitch cycles, sorry ruled out long ago... They should not be ruled out, they should be part of the equation. "El Nino, La Nina" - weather events... Cyclical weather events. do you honestly think that denier blogs can come up with new evidence that the worlds scientists haven't already ruled out long ago?...try do some honest research instead of bringing up long discarded ideas.... No but real scientists have, and they've been tossed to the wayside, marginalized, ridiculed, ect ect. Quote
wyly Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) But from what I understand from your threads and Waldo's is that methane is a stonger forcing factor in smaller quantities than Co2. it is but most of it stays frozen in the tundra and in the deep oceans, warming by CO2 is the trigger that will release it...Maybe you can show me in the past how warming has had catastrophic effects? P/T extinction event, the largest of all extinction events, some 90% of all life died...If the sun is melting ice caps on 3 planets at the same time, can you say that it's AGW affecting all 3? what? there are 8 planets, four planets are gas giants with no ice caps, of the four rocky planets mercury and venus are infernos/no ice caps...so that leaves mars and earth, two planets with ice caps...info on mars is very very minimal but you're claiming knowledge of it's melting ice cap but denying science with mountians of data doesn't understand our climate?...mars also has as I mentioned before SEASONS which can account for ice caps melting, as well it has a completely different climactic system...Never made that claim, however the proponents of AGW are claiming the current climate change has a singular cause, and that is CO2 from burning fossil fuels. that's because all the potential causes you mentioned were ruled out long ago...only fossil fuel CO2 remains...They should not be ruled out, they should be part of the equation. it has many problems so it's far from fully accpeted...and if it is true we should be going into a cooling phase not warming... Cyclical weather events. weather is not climate...No but real scientists have, and they've been tossed to the wayside, marginalized, ridiculed, ect ect.tossed because their work does not hold up to peer review(if they actually did any)...anthony watts, christopher booker, lord monkfish are not scientists... Edited January 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 it's offical now...2010 is the warmest year in Canada since records have been kept, by 3c...where's the warm up ...there it is! :lol: Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Saipan Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 go ahead name the variations 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity ) 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes ) 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt ) 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity ) Quote
dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 So even if some scientists come forward with information that goes against the consensus ... what happens? They publish the scientific works and experiments that produced that information in scientific journals, and its subject to both pre and post publication peer review. If the methodology of their work is sound, then it will be considred by the scientific community. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 They publish the scientific works and experiments that produced that information in scientific journals, and its subject to both pre and post publication peer review. If the methodology of their work is sound, then it will be considred by the scientific community. Who will then constantly and carefully reproduce that work to continue to verify it, just like they do with our current knowledge of climate. Quote
dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 Who will then constantly and carefully reproduce that work to continue to verify it, just like they do with our current knowledge of climate. Theres a pre-publication review done by contributors to the journal. Post publication review can be done by anyone... sometimes its other scientists that want to strengthen a theory or dispute it. Other scientists might build on the work and develop it further, and so on. Its not a perfect process, and over the years scientific "consensus" has been built around all kinds of theories that didnt turn out to be true. But the reason we know they were true is because people kept working on them. If AGW isnt real then eventually scientists will figure that out. Theres smart people working this thing from both sides. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
wyly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity ) 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes ) 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt ) 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity ) did your grapes tell you that?...what do your grapes have to say about 2010 being the warmest year on record for canada Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Saipan Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 did your grapes tell you that?... The scientist did. what do your grapes have to say about 2010 being the warmest year on record for canada That it's pure BS Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 The scientist did. Seems like you're perfectly willing to listen to scientists, but only if they already agree with your grapes and your wood pile. This is called being closed minded, I think. You have already made up your mind, and will only listen to data that agrees with you. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
wyly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 The scientist did.it's meaningless when you don't understand it, and you don't...That it's pure BS so Environment Canada is lying to us? it's obvious now that you're trolling so any further debate with you on this topic is pointless...Where's the cool down! Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 Seems like you're perfectly willing to listen to scientists, but only if they already agree with your grapes and your wood pile. This is called being closed minded, I think. You have already made up your mind, and will only listen to data that agrees with you. he'd not listening to any scientists, he has no idea what cut'n pasted and how it relates to anything or if it's significant to the issue.. Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
waldo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 it's offical now...2010 is the warmest year in Canada since records have been kept, by 3c...where's the warm up ...there it is! just released, NOAA's December 2010 temperature anomalies and the NOAA 'State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2010' report: - globally, per NOAA's records, 2010 officially tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). - globally, per NOAA's records, the 2001-to-2010 decade officially the warmest decade on record. Quote
Saipan Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 Seems like you're perfectly willing to listen to scientists, but only if they already agree with your grapes and your wood pile. I.e. reality. Quote
wyly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 I.e. reality. i.e. delusional ignorance Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 it's offical now...2010 is the warmest year in Canada since records have been kept, by 3c...where's the warm up ...there it is! :lol: .....and for the Contiguous US - since 1980: 2010 - 16th coldest 2009 - 10th coldest 2008 - 8th coldest Link: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl Canada is blessed with huge swaths of Arctic territory. As is currently measured, the Arctic is a gigantic regional anomoly which has warmed much more than any other spot on the globe. Funny how the Alarmists say that there is no proof that the MWP was global in nature.....that it may be regional because of the lack of proof in the tropics. Yet right now, the Arctic is the regional anomoly that skews the homogenized global average temperature.....but we are asked to accept that we are experiencing a Global Warming. Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 I.e. reality. Your reality, which is your science at the end of the day. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 Your reality, which is your science at the end of the day. Just youre a sucker for punishment. Do you try to reason with trees, and street signs too? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.