Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ptif219, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Simple minded ignorance doesn't help. Your question there doesn't make any sense. You ask: "if Man is causing any global climate change" and then you turn around and claim that "climate change is normal and natural". If mankind is causing it, then it isn't "normal and natural". If we're causing climate changes, then we definitely should care and we should definitely try to stop doing whatever we're doing that is causing the climate changes. The Earth has undergone many changes in climate due to natural forces but that doesn't mean that all climate changes have to caused by natural forces. In the case of the abrupt warming trend the Earth is now experiencing, the world scientific community is telling us that the causes are not natural, rather they are a result of mankind's activities - primarily deforestation and the burning off into the atmosphere of millions of years of fossil carbon deposits in only a century or so.

    It's like you're trying to claim that because, for hundreds of millions of years, all forest fires were started by natural forces, like lightning strikes, then all current forest fires that happen can't possibly be caused by mankind. That's obviously absurd. We know better. Similarly, climate scientists know that the current abrupt warming trend has mankind's 'fingerprints' on it and is not being produced by natural forces.
     
  2. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You wouldn't need to use the word If 'if' this.."the world scientific community is telling us" were actually true.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is and anyone who can read and understand science knows this
     
  4. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you did not actually ask three questions. You made three statements that were followed by question marks. And then you asked one loaded question, that contained a false assumption.

    So when you were 16 Hemingway was one of your favorite authors, and now that you're past 50 you're reading Glenn Beck. How the mighty have fallen.
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You may have missed the point, does it really matter if it is natural or not, if climate changes regardless? We already know climate changes even without Man's input. Shouldn't it be considered more rational to discover more perfect knowledge of structures which can ameliorate the effects of climate change, rather than simply play shell games with Statism?
     
  6. NotAmused

    NotAmused New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems to me that the skeptics here are not the only people pompously pontificating.

    The skeptics cite data from sources that believe Climate Change is natural; and the advocates cite data from sources that believe Climate Change is anthropogenic. Either way, regardless of the shouts of 'peer review' (this cannot be used as a valid rebuttal when the peer review system regarding Climate Change is so tightly controlled) both belief systems remain just that, beliefs.

    The science regarding greenhouse gasses is absolutely sound; but that is as far as it goes; this in itself does not prove without doubt that Climate Change is anthropogenic. There are many parameters to be considered, some we may well be unaware of as yet. Simplicity is something that does not exist within this sphere and is why the science is not yet settled despite rash statements to the contrary.

    It is also disengenuous for the advocates to state that all scientists who now have doubts are not experts in the field of Climate Science.

    Another aspect that is sadly missed by many, is that those learned persons who advocate that the public at large must completely change their lifestyles and behaviours; and propose drastic measures to save the planet rarely include themselves in the equation.

    So; when Politicians and other Anthropogenic Climate Change Campaigners, including the IPCC Panel, start taking it seriously themselves, I will too.
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is debate over the degree to which man is currently impacting climate change. Obviously we live in a closed system so we can not put out unlimited amounts of CO2 and expect things not to change.

    The earth does however have a CO2 utilization capacity so the question is whether or not we are putting it out faster than the earth can cope with.

    My big beef with "climate change" is not answering the question above, but that it crowds out more important environmental discussions.

    There are bigger and more real and quantifiable environmental threats. If we do not address these other threats "NOW" Global warming will be the least of our issues.

    1) Heavy metals and persistant organic pollutions in the Ocean.

    More than 2 cans of tuna a week puts you over the recommended mercury intake guideline for pregnant women.

    The oceans are not a garbage can. Folks worry about that "dirty oil" from Canada. From an environmental standpoint a barrel of Nigerian conventional crude is way dirtier than the stuff from Canada that takes more energy to produce.

    We have environmental standards in North America and do not dump pollutants into the rivers like in these other "backwards" oil producing nations.

    The Yellow river in China is a cesspool, loads of garbage just floats on this river.

    2) Population growth - I hate to break it to you folks but every time one breaths out the CO2 concentration of the earth increases. If you really want to help out then quit breathing.

    The contribution of CO2 of each "industrialized person" is far greater from utilization of resources (power, car, food and so on) than breathing so do not feel too bad about breathing.

    Do however consider that in 1850 the world contained 1 billion people. The industrial revolution of North America and Western Europe then took place over 200 million or so of the total.

    Today there are 2.4 Billion people in China and India alone wanting to industrialize.

    Consider that the average industrialized citizen uses 36 times the amount of the earths resources than someone eating a bowl of rice a day.

    China some years ago was at 11. The article I read stated that if China was to realize our level of consumption (get to 36) world resource production would have to double.

    Now China will not likely make it to 36 anytime soon .. but they will get half way. China and India together, if they made it half way, would require global resource production to double.

    The effect on the increase in pollution on the environment ? Breathing the air in Bejing is already equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigs a day. You can not get out of the smog even when you leave the city - except when you get really far away into some of the unpopulated areas.

    If you think things are bad in China and India .. Double or triple that for many african nations.

    What we should be boycotting is "a barrel of Nigerial crude". The middle East is far better than Nigeria but not even close to North America or European standards as far as Earth Pollution/barrel of oil.

    The Ocean is not a garbage can. 70-80% of the worlds oxygen comes from the Ocean and a large portion of the global food supply.

    Keep messing with the Ocean and Global warming will take care itself due to massive population decreases as a function of starvation, poisoning ourselves from eating marine products, or some change to the Ocean equilibrium that causes a rapid change in Oxygen output.
     
  8. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A question that has not been answered by the climate industry.

    Most fish contain trace amounts of natural mercury and that level has not significantly changed however, predators like Tuna, Swordfish, Sharks, etc. have much higher levels of the substance because of their diet.

    Go to the CA Santa Barbara coast and you'll be able to see a black sticky tar substance on the beaches from time to time which is the NATURAL seepage of oil that has been going on since the Spanish galleons used it to seal their hulls.

    Yep

    I suggest all environmental whackos just stop taking up precious oxygen too. It's really a 'win/win' for society.

    Awww there you go spoiling it...

    I suggest that all enviro-whacko-leftist fools eat more sushi. If the mercury don't get them the worms will.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True .. One thing that was not considered in the models was the rate of bacterial utilization of CO2 in the first couple feet of soil. Increasing the % of CO2 could increase this utilization rate.

    At the same time .. this equilibrium may take time to sort itself out. We need to keep the overall equation in check and it does seem like CO2 concentration is rising suggesting that we are generating more than can be used.

    As I said .. there may be a lag time and it may not happen at all.


    .

    Not according to the study that I read. It is my understanding that things have changed. If you look at bioaccumulation of persistant organic pollutants (chlorinated hydrocarbons and so forth) there is huge amounts of these in Polar bear livers for example. The seals eat the fish (accumulating the toxins), then the bears eath the seals.

    Apparently a slice of Polar bear liver is so toxic that you would get seriously ill from eating it and if you did so on a long term basis you would die.

    The breastmilk of Inuit women in the north is contaminated from eating seals and so forth.

    POP's are a real issue.


    I am a bioremedation expert (can get bacteria to eat hydrocarbons) I do biocorrosion now because it pays more but its the same principle.

    Oil is not a persistant organic pollutant. An oil spill in the ocean is an eyesore and has effects for a short period of time but little long term effects.

    The issue has gotten way too political. Scientists are human and they like to jump on the money and career bandwagon too.

    I have attended many conferences ( distinguish between and environmental scientist and an environmentalist - big difference) and no environmental scientist or engineer has ever gainsayed my comments in relation to the number 1 environmental issue.

    Climate stuff is debated .. Ocean pollution as the top environmental issue is not.
     
  10. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with that statement is that there is no 'equation' in the first place because no one has actually experimented with the global climate successfully.

    The subject was mercury.

    It is well known that the livers of polar bears, seals, walruses and the Husky contain extraordinarily high levels of Vitamin A which can be toxic to humans. The Inuits have long known this.

    As is anyone who eats predatory marine life mostly due to natural mercury.

    Agreed

    I do know that storm drains are a big cause of ocean pollution. Where I live there is a major water-way running right through the City and I know for a fact that the runoff is not all sent to a treatment facility. The City has permanent plaques on every storm drain that warn of dumping pollutants and there are constant local radio PA spots that warn folks not to dump pollutants down drains, gutters, etc.
     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    But without those "shell games" how can we convince people to do what is right?

    I am not saying shell games occur but just read through this thread and you will see fervent opposition to fixing an environmental (and societal) problem. Scientists have been trying to warn the public for decades now that there is a real looming problem and it will impact our civilisation

    Never in the history of man have so many ignored and derided so few for so long
     
  12. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They do? They have? Actual data instead of opinion? Really???? When? Where?

    Utter tripe. Beliefs are for church. Science is about data.

    Peer-review is tightly controlled only in the sense that your conclusions must be supported by your research. Skeptical scientists get published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. But if you want to publish opinions instead of science, you have to go elsewhere. That's why, for example, noted skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer routinely gets his science published and passes peer review, and when he wants to spread his political screed, he writes a book and bypasses peer review.

    Not in and of itself. But anthropogenic attribution isn't based on just that alone. It's also based on Conservation of Energy, and on observations of downwelling IR, and on observations of upwelling IR, and on observations of stratospheric cooling, and on observations of oceanic heat content, and on observations of earth's orbit, and on observations of declining solar activity, and on observations of atmospheric clarity, and on observations of oceanic acidity, and on historical records of fossil fuel production.

    Is there any part of that list that is not part of settled science, in your view? If so, what?

    So what you're saying is, it might not be us because some undiscovered magic fairies might really be at fault. Are we supposed to "teach the controversy" on that basis? Or do you actually have a hypothesis in there somewhere?

    And it is equally disingenuous for you to claim that advocates have actually stated anything about "all scientists". What we have stated is that 97% of active climate scientists accept the consensus view (and that number is confirmed by two independent groups using completely different methods). But when you expand the word "scientist" to cover veterinarians and civil engineers (as the Oregon Petition does), then you do get a lot of doubt from non-experts. The Oregon Petition has 31,000 signers and of those exactly nine are climatologists.

    And your evidence for this is ... what? You read it on the Drudge Report?

    The most dedicated advocate for lifestyle change I know of is Amory Lovins, and he practices what he preaches.

    You can start right now then. Here's Amory Lovins. Tell me what about this you disagree with.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTKGP0O5f5Y"]Amory Lovins' presentation at the Reinventing Fire Launch - YouTube[/ame]
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No, the peer review system is NOT "tightly controlled" - it has standards that the denialists fail to achieve time and again (think of the failure to prove Obama is not a citizen and you start to see the analogy). Each journal has a DIFFERENT panel of people who do the peer review and there are lots of journals out there - so how can it be "tightly controlled"? BTW journals are not government owned or controlled they are part of a free market - it is just one that has to meet certain industry set standards - which is why journals like "Energy and Environment" are not considered "valid"

    ((((((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))

    And there speaks someone who has not LOOKED at the wealth of research out there. CAREFUL research, valid research that has looked at those "many parameters" and crossed them off one by one to come to the one conclusion

    Yes it is man making the change.

    But even if you dismiss all the research into Orbital variance, precession. solar activity, ocean currents, natural forcing etc you are still left with some very incontrovertible facts

    [​IMG]
    We do not state ALL scientists - there are some, who remain fervent sceptics but they number a bare handful

    Pardon?

    Sorry but where do you get this from? They live on the planet too - they drive cars too, they hate taxes too

    But they realise unless we act now our children will not enjoy the world we love
    Believe me - they take it seriously, far more seriously than most denialists
     
  14. NotAmused

    NotAmused New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So; Amory Lovins showers with solar-heated water.

    The advances that allowed him to create this home with a tiny carbon footprint came with an incredibly high upfront cost. The reality is, the majority cannot ever afford to do this and citing one individual; is not a valid rebuttal.

    I could also cite a single individual who just happens to be the UK Climate Minister; who also happens to have purchased a 16 bathroom Castle and a massive carbon footprint.

    One poster is also being disegenuous when stating that the peer review system is not tightly controlled. How do you explain scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's clear statements that whenever they were presented with data that did not concur with their own belief systems, they redefined what peer-review literature is?

    When the findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the IPCC, one has to feel highly alarmed about this.

    You can sigh and try to undermine posters with your childish ridicule posted in caps as much as you wish; but your own ill-tempers when faced with the slightest dissent within this thread, demonstrates quite clearly that you, yourselves are no different than some of the skeptics.

    You also demonstrate quite clearly that your knowledge also consists only of verbally repeating the data you yourselves have read and digested; and of whose source conclusions you accept; yet the skeptics are worthy of scorn for doing the same thing, even when their sources may also be respected.

    You also make silly, emotion based assumptions; just because I personally have doubts does not mean I have not read much of the same data you have. It's available to everyone you know.

    But; I suppose unless I have the same mindset and the same belief systems you have, I cannot possibly have read the 'right' data, yes?

    Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds?

    Those very incontrovertible facts along with the very impressive pictorials provided in one post; still does not demonstrate that man is responsible; it still remains an unproven theory, a leap of faith, no matter how much you may scream, shout and ridicule.

    What you are doing here on this thread is very similar to what scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have been systematically doing; trying to censor differing opinions.

    Only here you are nowhere near as good at it.
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Meh! Every little bit helps - as with recycling paper and other initiatives
    Solar hot water is a fabulous initiative and does pay for itself - this is why many governments offer subsidies for installation

    Really does it? How old is this Castle? Are you aware that one of the biggest factors in determining carbon footprint is the amount of concrete in the building and how recently hit has been erected.

    Seems he is planning to make it into a guest house and function rooms - which means multiple people in the same dwelling - this too reduces carbon footprint. Then he may do what Gore did - renovate to turn an old hard to heat and maintain building and make it over to be more energy efficient


    Linky?

    Or are you referring to the couple of blatantly cherry picked statements out of hundreds of emails that have since undergone multiple investigations and proven no substance to the allegations

    Proof? Linky?

    Are you aware that there were HUNDREDS of VOLUNTEER scientist working on the IPCC reports?
    Ad Hom - usually the mark of someone losing an argument
    Yeah? Well, when you find a respectable "sceptic" site please share it - I have yet to find one that is not full of outright blatant lies and cherry picking - OBVIOUS lies and cherry picking. Even when proven wrong they continue to post the same misinformation

    Good glad you have - now prove that you have read any of it because your posts do not exactly support this e.g. no links, no references and only broad based allegations and comments repeated from right wing radio shock jocks

    Here is a thought - instead of complaining about the other posters on this thread you actually debate the SCIENCE

    If you feel people are being dishonest about the science - demonstrate where it is at fault
     
  16. NotAmused

    NotAmused New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect Bowerbird; this may indeed be so for the few very hot countries, for the majority, solar panels are not cost effective at all.

    The reason why many governments offer subsidies is because of the high cost of installation. Offering subsidies was the only way to get householders and companies to install them. Solar panels have been demonstrated to be one of the least cost effective methods of combating climate change.

    I see; as long as he's turning it into a guest house it's fine; you completely fail to see what I'm referring to here. Stop making ridiculous excuses to justify the fact that those who dictate to the rest of us how we must change our lifestyles and behaviours have absolutely no intention of making the same sacrifices themselves. The argument being used in this respect is pathetic.

    Do your own research. Are you seriously implying that the HadCRUT3 data set has not crucially underpinned the IPCC assessment reports and other crucial scientific studies?

    Ok, lets debate the 'science'. Demonstrate to me inequivicably that modern Climate Change is anthrpogenic in nature, using only science.

    Beats me how exactly you are going to do this. If you are indeed projecting your unshakable insistance upon others based on scientific data alone, you should agree that scientific method relies on repeatable observational data?

    The thread asks a question regarding observational data; in that the scientists who are responsible for seriously influencing much of the policy making in place today, have grudgingly admitted that since approx: 1996/7 there has been no discernable warming.

    If you; and other anthropogenic CC advocates genuinely believe in the wisdom of scientific method, you would also agree that solar activity has to be fully investigated before any scientific body can state that anything is fact, rather than belief. You already stated that "yes, man is responsible" and yet you are wholly unable to demonstrate it; that's ridiculous.

    There is a huge elephant in the room, the elephant being that observational data has demonstrated that whilst the Earth was warming so were other planets, this trend cannot continue to be ignored.

    Now that here on Earth we have seen a cooling effect over the last one and a half decades, observational data trends of other planets and whether they are also cooling is imperative.

    By the way; at no point during our conversations have you so much as attempted to debate the science; sorry but your brightly coloured pictorial just doesn't do it for me.

    As for skeptic sites being full of lies and cherry picking; I wouldn't know I don't visit them. Regarding links; what do you want me to do, put up worthless pictorials like yourself, because they look impressive but tell you nothing, or perhaps give you links to sites you have already deemed full of lies and cherry pickers?

    You might want to start with the Danish Meteorological Institute; and maybe some of the work carried out by Friis Christensen and Lassen.
     
  17. injest

    injest New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    0
    observations of what? a small section of a vast planet? for how long? a hundred years? two hundred? and the planet is millions of years old? and fossil fuel production has been going on for a infintismal amount of time geologically.

    this is where I have a real problem with the egos of the climate change fools...they really think that they can look at data from yesterday to predict what's going to happen a hundred years from now. They really think they can control the world. Remove all risks, 'Save the Planet'...from itself..they think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature herself..they think their computers have all the answers when all the computers have is what THEY put into them. GIGO: anyone remember that phrase? You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

    Oh, and I noticed your celebrated enviroceleb there was wearing clothes with man made fibers...
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not simply promote and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States? Discovering more perfect knowledge of structures can actually solve most of our problems in modern times, instead of just transferring resources without actually solving the problem.
     
  19. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow a whole field of strawmen.
    Climatologists make projections; they do not predict. Learn the difference

    "Climate change fools" do not want to control the world; we want to limit the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.

    "Climate change fools" do not want to remove all risks; we want a policy with the least amount of risk

    "Climate change fools" do not want to 'Save the Planet' from itself; we do not think the planet is in any danger.

    "Climate change fools" do not think they are bigger and better and smarter than Mother Nature; we do not want to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Mother Nature.

    "Climate change fools" do not think computers have all the answers; we think that computers are a tool to help us understand the math and physics involved in climate change.

    Climatologists understand GIGO; only confirmed data, no speculation ('it might be an unknown causing warming') is ever used.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good that we agree on POP's .. that is fantastic. This is the number on problem that needs to be addressed (IMO) .. and the opinion of every scientist I have ever talked to that has knowledge on the subject matter.

    This includes mercury. The murcury levels in the Ocean are increasing. A fisheries spokesperson in this article claims that mercury levels in fish have not risen in 30 years (study tests the water but not the fish) .. but then the article goes on to talk about how tuna have high man made mercury levels.

    http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ocean-mercury-increasing

    Some articles do falsly claim that mercury levels in Tuna are rising.

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/tuna-mercury-47050102

    My stance is that we should stop putting mercury into the oceans !
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, supply side economic should be supplying us with better governance at lower prices.
     
  22. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no they are cost effective, it's just hat fossil fuel are less expensive so more attractive alternative.


    take the choice factor way and it becomes the norm...just as governments regulated the auto industry demanding better fuel economy and less emissions, prices went up, we adjusted and paid them because there was no other choice given. Auto performance suffered but once forced to improve the auto industry re-engineered and as a result we have better vehicles than we ever did in the past. The green energy industry will be the same, technological advances will produce a viable power source.

    it's been done over and over you choose to ignore it, 97% of the planets scientists have seen enough to convince them but you apparently know more even though you have never looked at the evidence.


    that's the nice thing about math/data it doesn't lie...physicists are able to predict events and the unknown purely on the math, observable testable data comes much later verifying their models....computer models for climate change projections work the same way, projections for change have been very accurate if anything too conservative.


    another lie there is no doubt there is still warming but it's deliberate dishonesty on your part and that of other deniers to cherry pick data and spin that data...including the freakishly warm el Nino year, by starting the data from (96/97) is a deliberate spin to to give the impression the warming has stalled(it hasn't) and it certainly hasn't cooled...then the totally dishonest cherry picking of short term data to determine a long term event, dishonest or completely lacking knowledge in the application of data.

    solar activity has been fully investigated and ABSOLUTELY ruled out, this not even debatable, solar activity is the lowest it's been in a hundred years and yet average temps continue to rise. When all other known sources have been eliminated the only thing left is man made emissions.

    the elephant in the room is ignorance, some planets are cooling, by what magical solar process do some planets heat while others cool?

    there has been no cooling of the earth over the last 15years, you're making s*** up.

    your lack of scientific knowledge is very apparent, even a minimal of effort on your part would have answered your questions. You have your belief and look for no evidence that may upset that belief.

    everything you claim is right from the pages of skeptic sites...cooling planets, data cherry picking, deliberate obscuring of data and process.

    ya good idea go have look at what Friis-Christensen has to say about solar activity...that although solar activity is linked with global temp(obviously), recent temperature increases are not the result of solar activity...but then if you were scientifically objective and would've known
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A lot of things that save money in the long run come with a high upfront cost. Any house comes with a high upfront cost. So you're saying it is a waste of money to save money? That makes no sense.

    So we agree that people should have smaller carbon footprints. Chalk up one for the good guys.

    What people gripe about in private email, and what they actually do, are two different things. If in fact these guys were trying to break the peer-review system, how do you explain the fact that the two papers Phil Jones was complaining about in his e-mail were actually cited and referenced in the IPCC report? Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that any actual suppression of anything really occurred, anywhere?

    As usual, when asked for evidence, you will provide none.

    What sources? You have yet to provide any sources to support your arguments.

    So you've read it and rejected it, and you still won't tell us why. Do you understand why your argument is unconvincing?

    From your posts, there is no evidence that you have read and understood any data. Because you refuse to cite any data, or address the data in any way.

    In other words, no amount of data supporting the consensus will convince you; while zero data from the skeptical side is totally convincing to you. How illogical is that?

    I'm not trying to censor your opinions. I'm trying to find out what your opinions are based on. And so far, the answer seems to be: smoke and mirrors.
     
  24. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, you don't believe that Earth's orbit can be predicted a hundred years into the future? How do scientists accomplish that impossible trick? Just tell me how, so I know what in science works, and what doesn't.

    Or, more precisely, how you decide what part of science fits with your worldview, and what parts of science your brain demands must be rejected.

    Nothing can remove all risk. But the risk here is (a) huge; and (b) mostly avoidable, if we act rapidly. What's wrong with avoiding avoidable risk?

    Every law of science is a model. If you don't like models, you don't like science.

    1. You could tell that from a Youtube? How, pray tell?
    2. So what? We don't have to give up modernity, we just need to change our energy consumption habits.
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am. HADCRUT3 is only one of three global surface temperature datasets, and of those three it is the one with the fewest number of source stations. In particular, HADCRUT3 is seriously deficient in Arctic stations, a region that is the fastest-warming region on Earth. So where HADCRUT3 disagrees with GISS and NCDC, I'd put my money on the other two.

    Beyond that, the only thing surface temperature records show is that the planet is warming, and there are dozens of other indicators that also show that the earth is warming. Glaciers are melting, Greenland is losing ice mass, Antarctica is losing ice mass, sea level is rising, animals are migrating upward and poleward, Arctic sea ice is melting.

    But most importantly, oceanic heat content is continuing to rise, and that's where the vast majority of global warming actually goes.

    [​IMG]

    That little pink wedge is surface temperature. Total global warming is the blue part.

    I can't demonstrate unequivocally that the Earth revolves around the Sun. If that's your bar, you have set it too high. If you want certainty, go to church. Nothing in science is ever proven. There is always room for new data. That's why skeptical scientists are always allowed to publish.

    What I can do is show that anthropogenic causes are a far better explanation than any other hypothesis to explain the observed climate data.

    What I can do is show that all other hypotheses have huge holes that do not fit with observations, while the greenhouse hypothesis does not.

    Will that be good enough for you?

    Yes.

    Which scientists are those? Relying on what data?

    Solar activity must be, and has been, investigated, and found not responsible for the current warming. For direct effects, see Foster & Rahmstorf 2011, and Lean & Rind 2008. For indirect effects (UV) see Shindall et. al. 1999. For cosmic ray effects, see Kazil et. al. 2006, Sloan & Wolfendale 2008, Kristjansson et. al. 2008. For Dansgaard-Oscher events, see Bond et. al. 1999, Rahmstorf 2003, and Braun et. al. 2005.

    If the Sun were responsible, then all solar system bodies should be warming. If other factors are responsible, then half of all solar system bodies should be warming and half should be cooling (and a large number should be impossible to judge either way).

    So let's look at the data:

    MARS: After weather effects are removed, there is no evidence that Mars is warming at all. See Swast 2006 and Richardson 2007.

    JUPITER: No warming observed. Climate models predict warming at the equator and cooling at the poles. But (a) that's not global; and (b) you don't believe the models on Earth, so why are you going to believe them on Jupiter?

    SATURN: No observed change.

    TITAN: No observed change.

    URANUS: Cooling in the stratosphere, but may be due to seasonal effects. See Young et. al. 2001.

    NEPTUNE: Getting brighter, which may or may not indicate warming. May just be a seasonal effect.

    PLUTO: Warming, but consistent with seasonal effects. See Sromovsky 2003.

    The elephant in the room turns out to be a churchmouse.

    Why are you basing your belief on one dataset, which shows no cooling in spite of your claims to the contrary, while (a) ignoring GISS, which shows warming; (b) ignoring NCDC, which shows warming; (c) ignoring UAH, which shows warming; (d) ignoring RSS, which shows warming; (e) ignoring Levitus, which shows warming?

    It's because you're cherry picking the data: picking the least reliable dataset because it supports your pre-existing views.

    In that case, I'm sure you're familiar with Lassen 1999, in which he states that, contrary to his earlier work (Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991), "since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature".

    In other words, it was a good try twenty years ago, but it is clearly no longer a good hypothesis. It is almost like something else is interfering with the normal solar cooling that we should expect to see. Hmmm. I wonder what that could be?
     

Share This Page