That tremendous silence you hear...

We’re also at eight years and counting without a major — Category 3 or above — hurricane making landfall in the U.S. (Sandy, for all the damage it caused, was never a major hurricane and wasn’t even a hurricane, officially, when it did make landfall.)

Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/10/07/...-over-a-quiet-hurricane-season/#ixzz2h5WqWc38

 

Proof?

Because there is a whole archive of posts on this board that go "global warming is not happening because we have snow in ________"

- - - Updated - - -

loca versus global

Case in point

 

Ever heard of the word "average" ?

Steve Mcintyre et al have spent a lot of time and effort trying to throw doubt on the accuracy of the average temperatures and not getting anywhere because when you are adding THAT many numbers a couple of stations being off by even 0.1 % is not going to affect the average

 

So WHAT is causing that warming?

Please enlighten us

 

No link, no citation just a whole lot of things that either are not proven,or are irrelevant to AGW discussion..

1.The Buffalo was hunted to near extinction,and that was not climate related. Sure man did that, he also did a lot of other bad things,and still does. However AGW is a theory based on a theoretical concept that can only be shown in a computer model. Not exactly the same thing...

2. If you are going to start making bold, absolute claims of things being a fact, and they are not widely known already and accepted as such, then the pertinent ting to do would be to provide some sort of evidence to support the claim.. Just saying "new fishing areas of the oceans have been opened up to native Canadians because the part of the ocean that was once covered with ice no longer is." doesn't compel anybody to take it as fact.. Frankly if they are truly "native" Canadians and rely heavily on fishing for their survival, I don't see how that is hurting them. Nor do I see any evidence that this is an unprecedented event..

3. Uh,yeah... I saw that movie too.. Yes, it was awful.. New york underwater in a matter of a weekend, and then it froze solid almost instantly,making New York the new polar region.. Funny but there were some issues with that film's science.. First being, the earth didn't roll over and shift the poles thousands of miles south east. And if that didn't happen how do you explain the sub-polar temperatures that was achieved? I mean the sun still shined on new york, yet a simple section of ice falling off a larger section of arctic ice, caused the currents to change, and then that caused all heck to break loose and helicopters froze in the air instantly.. ROFL... Come on man, you know that is a ridiculous claim.. Japan has had Earthquakes for as long as they can remember, and sometimes those quakes cause Tsunami's.. It's not a climate issue, it's near an active fault..

4. Colorado's rain wasn't unnatural. It was nature itself... Just because you have never seen it rain like that there, doesn't mean it never did,nor does it mean something we did caused it..As they say,weather is not indicative of climate...

5. LOL, we made jellyfish invade japan? Sounds like one of their monster movies from the 60's..LOL..And migration routes change to suit the animals needs at a given time. Do you think birds always flew precisely the same direction and to the same place throughout their existence? And when arctic ice melts it's due to warming water. If the melting ice causes cooling of the water, then when that water cools enough, the ice comes back.. That's a silly argument man,,, And goats in Tibet?? Seriously? Mountain goats migrate from higher to lower altitudes all the time man.. You are buying the hype...

 

Oh, kind of like earlier when you challenged others to prove that climatologists were expecting a higher then average number of large hurricanes this year? So I gave you half a dozen of them and you never commented?

Sorry, I tend to take your demands for proof with a grain of salt, because they are not serious. You use this as a way to dig at people most of the time, and ignore it if it is produced.

 

Not in a single snapshot obviously. It is the accumulation of measurements of the entire earth for a year. And as far as the accuracy of the measurements, I'll stick with the scientists, not denialist, if you don't mind.

 

Nobody is quite sure.

No more then they are sure of what caused the last Ice Age, and every Ice Age before (and what caused them to end).

Nobody is quite sure what caused "Snowball Earth", the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Spell, or any other high and low point in the past. There are a lot of suspects (sunspots, axis tilt, supervolcanos, plate tectonics), but nobody really knows, and they do not go running around screaming that there was a single cause in any of the past events.

But suddenly, down streaking out of the sky we have Super-Weather-Man! And he can absolutely say that all of the warming in the past century is 100% caused by humans and there is absolutely no other factor at all involved here.

Sorry, that is a logic fail. And unless you can prove humans were the cause of every single climate change event in the last 10,000 years, I think we can discount them from those as well.

 

6CO2 +12H2O-----C6H12O6 + 6O2 +6H20. This is a formula for photosynthesis a green plant takes up water and carbon dioxide and makes sugar (glucose) and gives off oxygen. This is the chemical formula that all air breathing animals depend on for their very survival. Notice CO2 goes in and is changed to sugar and oxygen. This sugar is also transformed by the plant to make cellulose and therefore carbon is stored in a solid form.

This reaction (with sunlight for energy and chlorophyll as a cataylst) is what has made the environment sutible for air breathing animals.

Glucose is also used as energy fuel in your body.

Tree use leaves to pump water up from the roots to distribute nutrients and water throughout the plant. A large tree (100ft tall) can pump from 300 to 500 barrels of water a day. This water is "transpired" out through the leaves. This also puts water into the atmosphere to fall later as rain.

Green plants buffer the landscape. That is why deserts are hot during the day and cold at night and forests suffer from less extremes in temperature.

Just because one person does not know something does NOT mean that no one knows for sure. It just means you do not know.

Did you know that astronmers can predict the orbit of the earth around the sun both backwords and forwards in time?

Did you know that nature leaves clues and records behind...like ice cores, records in the rocks, tree rings....etc???

 

Actually, there has been no statistically significant warming. The warming scare is based on computer models. We are actually in a 2.5 million year ice age interspersed by periodic interglacials of which we are in the Holocene. The temp has been cooling since about 9000 years ago during the Holocene maximum and we could actually be near the end of this interglacial. We could also be entering a Maunder Minimum like the last Little Ice Age since the sun activity is at a minimum with almost no sunspot activity. When sun activity is low, fewer clouds are formed and more temp is lost through radiation. Recently we had an almost cloudless world.

Fact is that with the recent failure of the IPCC projections and the disagreement with outcomes among scientists (other than the authors of the IPCC), there is little agreement whatsoever of what is happening.

 

I probably missed that post but I am betting the links were to news reports and matey I have said often enough that we should not confuse bad reporting with good science.

But regardless, pointing out that hurricanes have not landed in the USA is not the same as saying that storm activity is diminished world wide

But I love those that point out that the weather (not weather not climate) forecasters predicted rain and it was dry so climatologists must be wrong.............. That is like saying "Well Ford put out a crappy car so the entire auto industry must be wrong"

 

Some were press releases from the NOAA, and from climatologists in the AGW camp.

In other words, you reject them because they are not convenient to you, and nothing else.

What was that saying from a while back, "an inconvenient truth"?

It is also why I only dip my toe in these threads only on occasion. I find far to many links between the AGW and Truthers. Ignore anything that does not agree with their beliefs, hype the hell out of anything that comes close to their beliefs. And distort and put down anything that shows they might actually be wrong.

 

Not 100% but they are up to 98% surety it is MAN

Just because YOU do not know the answer does not mean there is no answer

Milankovitch cycles as well as precession - please look it up

So, we just go back to "magic" thinking? DUH! I don know nuffin so nobody knows nuffin an it's all happening because it just is..............

As I have said - if the preference is for "magic" rather than science which clearly shows the current cause and effect then please embrace the magic

Logic fail is denying there is such a thing as the "green house effect" and that the same effect increases with the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere

 

But how can that be when 100% of the models the whole hypothesis rests upon have gotten it wrong ?

I think you better had too. The Milankovich cycles are relevant to periods of 100,000 year cycles or more. There is no way they can be invoked to explain away high temperature variabilities over the 12,000 year post glacial period

Thats correct we know precious little here. So why make the gigantic leap of faith that an extra 0.012% atmospheric volume of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas thats a byproduct of your own respiration cycle can do all the ills claimed for ?

By all means please furnish the linked science showing anything of the sort ! Climate models dont cut it here I'm afraid

Really ? How do you explain this then ?

http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

 

OMG!



An genuine example of "reductio ad absurdium"

I think these guys make a good analysis of the ridiculous claims
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=300667

or this analysis

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=300667

or this analysis

Or this analysis
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05...e-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

and a whole lot more
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner

Interesting who does NOT cite that paper and many of the more well known denialist blogs would not touch it with a barge pole - and that is because even they know it to be a ridiculous excuse

 

Instead of trying to ridicule others perhaps you should get yourself up to date.

All these claims were rebutted by a Peer reviewed reply from December 2010 see page 36 here for details

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf&embedded=true

This has passed Peer review and nobody has yet tried to challenge its conclusions which were quite scathing on the competence of its detractors and it fully explains why . Given the implications of this on the current gravy train of AGW its little wonder why the establishment closed ranks to try and devalue it. The thing is though they failed. Interesting how Wikipedia and your alarmist blogs all missed this part isnt it ?

 

What's interesting is that even your fellow skeptic Spencer, along with every other "skeptical" climatologist, disagrees with you & G&T:
What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?

And how do you explain an the earth's temperature being +14C instead of -18C?

 

I am just presenting the science illustrating the uncertainties that exist even with the very fundamentals of this issue. You either accept that those exist are or you dont

 

Yes, I know. "Uncertainty" is being used as a tactic by you and other pseudo-scientists to cast doubt on accept theories.
See my sig.

 

While I don't agree with the premise an attempted falsification of a theory even if ultimately falling short is a perfectly valid scientific endeavor that helps better understand existing theories and nature. It used to ve fundamental to science before political hacks invented concensus to replace science.

 

There should always be doubt when we suspend doubt science ends.

As to uncertainty lol. Look at thd IPCC report. They increaced the uncertainty so they could claim increaced certainty. For many Orwell serves as a warning but for a select few its an instruction manual.