Good bye. I don't report people, but i don't care to have a conversation with a shrill, hateful person.
Another denizen of Denierstan who has no evidence and can't stand to be proven wrong. Here's a little unsolicited advice: stay off the science threads unless you actually have evidence, have actually read it, and know how to cite it.
Because no one has shown their data to have been bent, twisted and tortured like Warmer data. No email scandals or admittedly erroneous predictions.
I believe we should be advancing the Cause of fusion (an energy with a future) to help preserve green-space.
Oh my, you've drank the Kool aid. Of course, none of that is true. If it was, you'd have presented an argument backed by documentation. But you didn't do that. You simply did what deniers always do, recited the party line. Even worse, you cited arguments that have long been refuted. Perhaps you need to update YOUR database.
then why attribute that 'interpretation' to my post. The context is obviously the alleged 'settled science' of agw. Perfect example. Of course this is not settled. Volcanoes are a much bigger factor than humans. Then you add other things, like normal climate swings, ocean currents, weather patterns, & the impact of humans is very questionable. it is not miniscule, but it is hardly THE MAJOR FACTOR. It is certainly not settled. This is your PRESUMPTION that the rest of you model is built upon. ..sigh.. So first you browbeat me with 'How can you say that ALL science is settled??!?', then you continue with, 'Of course, AGW science is settled! It's all man's fault!' So you appeal to science, then make unscientific assertions about these 'settled' facts. You PRESUME to have the facts, when there are none. You cannot extrapolate hysteria from opinion.. well, you can, but that is called propaganda & fear mongering, not science.
source As with anything dealing with long past events, there is speculation. But the correlation between mega eruptions & climate change are indisputable, historical events. Man's input, from fossil fuels, is a minimal factor, & does not have the impact that a mega volcano does. We have been TOLD it does, but the predictions have all been false. Coastal cities are NOT flooded, and we are NOT in a global warming period, like was predicted from the computer models of atmospheric co2. There are theories about ice ages being started by mega eruptions. Human emissions dwarf by comparison in effect. Data is presented that is sketchy at best, claiming that human co2 output exceeds volcanic activity, but the observable effect of volcano activity is visible science, while the other is speculation. Nothing has come close to affecting the weather like volcanic activity. To claim that human activity can match or exceed volcanoes is a huge leap of faith, with no corroborating evidence.
Wonder how low the hysterical alarmists would wish co2 levels to go? Obviously they are not happy with the current level, although the plants would beg to differ. Or do they want them to remain at the 280 ppm that they seem to have an affinity for? Or do they simply lack the intelligence to understand completely the earth's climate cycles, and wouldn't know where the optimum co2 levels would fall, in so far as a healthy earth, and humanity? I have said it before, and I will say it again. This AGM hysteria will be a case for study by a future school of psychology. We are actually learning about the human mind here, with this debate over AGW and the cherry picking of facts as other important facts are just totally ignored. It's almost like a mass psychosis of some kind.
Good point. The earth, the solar system, the milky way, & the entire universe just doesn't care about human mandates & edicts. They are not even a pesky gnat. The universe is massive (that means real big) & we cannot micro manage it. Is the climate changing? Yes, always. Do we have a 'major factor' in it? Hardly. Now, i'm all for responsible management of the earth's resources, & keeping the air & water clean. But the pseudo scientists & their agenda based alarmism is not part of that. Theirs is a political agenda, with political motives. Lies, deception, fake science, & erroneous conclusions have almost completely discredited any claims of 'science' from the AGW proponents. The only thing they have left is religious devotion & blind faith. BTW, here's another volcano 'factor' from another active thread (about active volcanoes!) source
Science says human factors are the primary agent in climate change - not volcanoes. A primary (perhaps THE primary) task of climatology is to determine where and how heat flows. Yes, there are many cycles (seasonal, el nino, solar, etc.). Yes, there are local weather affects. It's the job of climatology to measure these so that we can get an understanding of the trend over longer periods of time. Again, this analysis has led science to the conclusion that human factors are the major cause of change.
Science says? Science says? No, YOU say. You just reassert the same thing! Repeating the dogma over & over somehow gets past the pesky 'evidence' thing? Speculations & conjecture are not 'science'. I have not read any credible studies that have real data for measuring volcanic activity vs human activity. I can SEE & OBSERVE real proof of climate change from volcanoes, in both recent history, & from evidence, in times past. We have NO SUCH evidence for human caused climate change.. only changing assertions & hand waving. Oh, you will find charts & graphs, 'showing' co2 emissions from humans & volcanos.. but no source of data.. no critical questions about the data gathering, which, most of the time, is from computer generated models!! And the projections that are made do not come to pass, as predicted. Sorry, but my skepticism won't allow me to buy such a far fetched notion, based on bullying & repeated assertions. You can believe it if you want. I won't bash you for it.. i'm very tolerant of diverse views, & am content to live & let live. But don't try to browbeat me with faulty science & think i will fall for it.
My statement wasn't meant to be a repetition - it was meant to be an indication of what the "settled science" was about. The second figure (page 2) of the first document below from NOAA gives measurements of the forcing from various sources (forcing being the "push" toward being warmer or colder). Note that it shows the forcing in terms of watts per square meter toward cooling or warming - depending on the specific factor. Also, note that there are error bars showing the range within which scientists believe resides the exact affect. In the last two lines of the diagram that summarize contribution you can see that the lower error bar of human contribution still outweighs the only real natural factor in warming. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf As for volcanoes, first lets note that your civilian observations are not even slightly comparable to the measurement that science is doing. Beyond that, science is saying that volcanoes have a net COOLING affect, because the sulfur products ejected into the atmosphere tend to reflect solar heating. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
I like to ask how long the "pause" would need to last for people to reconsider their views on catastrophic climate change but have never gotten a number from anyone.
While this one volcano may have caused a 0.5 °C drop in global temperature, climate returned to normal in only a decade and it didn't happen again for over 1,000 years. Human CO2 emissions caused global temperature to rise by 0.5 °C just in the last 30 years and it appears to be heading higher. That's the difference between a single large event and sustained forcing. You would need a Tambora size volcanic eruption every century just to equal what humans are doing to our climate.
No one person can "look at" the raw data anymore. The data collected by climatologists is simply massive covering literally thousands of factors from large numbers of measuring devices on land, in the sea from elevations in our atmosphere, and from space. It includes the guys who are deriving temperature information from history - ice cores, writings, geology, etc. There is just too much volume and variety. Each of these areas is evaluated based on numerous factors related to the type of measurement and its location, involving different fields of science and technology. You have no doubt seen the graphs of earth's temperature. The data points on that graph are created from massive analysis of that data. But, that's not the end of it. In order to detect whether warming is occurring, that graph must be analyzed to remove the affects of various cycles, such as solar cycles. The fact that we're slightly warmer during years of high solar output or years of low solar output can't be allowed to affect the assessment of the long term trend. So, civilians look at that jagged graph and think it is the final answer, but even that graph is only one representation along the way. If you want to "look at the data" in any kind of meaningful way, you should pick a good university and get a phd in physics or something.
With this wholesale rejection of science I am guessing that you will not want a science based discussion Let me see - of course there is the much maligned graph Then there is the simple - lets count it out http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm And if you go to SKS you will see the references for the data source And if you want your evidence harder http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm Then there is this http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html Oh! Dear! Seems there is source data after all and guess what? You can access it online
I've seen discussions of this where climatologists gave views. It seems like one of the issues is the on-going solar anomaly. Another has to do with how much heat we think the oceans will absorb before we will start experiencing the heat more broadly. I don't see anyone suggesting that there is a change in the way that earth is collecting heat. So, it would seem that if the sun behaves as normal and the heat doesn't go into the ocean, warming will continue. Other factors? I'd love to hear if so!
Did you want a logical discussion, or just insults & name calling? I can go right to the ignore if it is the latter. The mods won't let me return insults to you guys, so all i can do is ignore you. But i will, if this is how you're going to address me. I would love to return fire & give you a proper tongue lashing, but i can't. So because i cannot defend myself, i am forced to use the ignore function. I alluded to your response preemptively, but you missed it. But i will not go any further with this until you choose the style of discourse you wish to pursue.
Real observations.. aka, science, have been made regarding volcanic activity & climate change. Ice ages have been postulated, cooling periods have been recorded (not a perfectly reliable measurement, but it at least shows relativity). Connections have been made between volcanic activity.. mega volcanoes, & the earth's weather. AGW has no such data. It is all speculative. Dire predictions were made 40+ years ago! NONE of them have happened. The ice caps have NOT melted, flooding coastal cities. The predictions were WRONG, based on faulty data AND analysis. What do you do, if you're following the scientific method? Revise your hypothesis, or start over. What have the AGW followers done? Doubled down with loud, angry assertions, as if that will compensate for the lack of data or reason. it does not.
What insults? The post had an inherent rejection of the science - if you wish to amend that I would be happy to see it But I do note that in responding to me this way it becomes a convenient "out" to avoid the substance of my post which was very much science based
Oh! My! A graph! So your basis for your assertions that this has not occurred in the science of climate change is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Remember science is about academic rigor, To achieve that you have to have validity for statements and that means referencing claims Oh! And as an aside - I ignore people who put me on ignore and respond regardless. See it is the misinformation and not the person posting it that I wish to address
