Anyone who Cares to Think See's that Man has Little/Nothing to do with Climate Change

The glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since white men first saw them, and likely long before - go there like I did and review the National Park Service's own information.....really doubt the native Americans caused it with their SUV's....

Greenland's ice sheet is the last remnant, of the last glaciation, of the CURRENT Ice Age. Yes we are in an ice age, its called the Quaternary glaciation (been four others). 12,000 years ago the latest warm spell (inter-glacial period) began. There have been 8 others, over the past 740,000 years. 12,000 years ago is when the ice started melting (this time). If you greenies are really upset about Greenland's ice sheet just wait until it starts to GROW again (and it likely will - no reason it will stop at 8 cycles). You are wanting to freak out over 3 inches of seawater over Manhattan? What about 3 MILES of ice.......

Climate change, brought to you by nature, the sun, God, whatever....but I assure you it wasn't my 2005 Yukon that did it.

No charge for the science lecture.

 

False. Lewis and Clark came within 50 miles of Glacier National Park in 1806, and French and English trappers were in the region soon afterward. The glacier retreat didn't start until the late 1850s.

Or, you can review the National Park Service's own information online, here, which supports what I just said, and you can also review the published literature like this paper:
Carrara PE, McGimsey RG. 1981. The late-neoglacial histories of the Agassiz and Jackson Glaciers, Glacier National Park, Montana. Arctic and Alpine Research. 13:: 183-196.

... which also supports what I just said.

So do I. But since that's not what science really proposes, that entire sentence is nothing but a dishonest strawman. Par for the course in Denierstan.

Either one of those events would cause the collapse of civilization, which is apparently what the denizens of Denierstan are rooting for.

Since forest fires were here before man, therefore man cannot cause forest fires? Since landslides occured before man, therefore humans cannot cause landslides? Since chemical reactions occured before man existed, therefore humans cannot cause chemical reactions?

Do you have any clue how dismally stupid your argument sounds?

Science? Where?

 

I was wrong about the first white men to see the glaciers. But my point remains the same.....how did our coal fired power plants and gas burning SUV's begin climate change in 1850?
You are dodging the issue.

You are saying that I am claiming that since man did not cause the past climate events that man is not causing it now. I am not....

YOU and the greenes want use to change/wreck our whole economy, over current climate change. YOU assume it is man caused. It is incumbent upon YOU to PROVE all these theories:

1) the current climate is somehow unusual
2) Man is causing it
3) It is a threat to our existence
4) We can stop it
Greenies can prove none of these
It is not up to "deniers" to prove they are not true.

 

I want o know how one particular spot on the planet can be used as a proxy for what is happening elsewhere

 

I think man has a great deal to do with the losses on northern hemispheric ice.

It's called soot on ice.

[video=youtube;8C3wh5M-3Oo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C3wh5M-3Oo[/video]

 

It can't, but the greenies love to point to it and say as they do with the fall of every sparrow, that MAN caused it......

The onus is on you BB to prove your claims, not me to disprove them. All I have to do is show greenie proofs invalid, most of the time that is obvious.

 

How dare you suggest that as the planet has warmed and cooled prior to the invention of SUVs glaciers have grown or shrunk? While there is massive evidence to show and quantify all these changes it is only acceptable to pretend the leading new age religion of all-human, all-the-time cause and effect matters.

Bad free thinking human! No cookie for you!

 

Coal burning began on industrial scales with the invention of the steam engine in 1750. By the 1830s coal-burning railroads had spread across most of the eastern US. Coal, when burned, creates black carbon soot. When that black soot falls on a white glacier, the albedo (refectivity) of the glacier is lowered, the glacier absorbs more heat from the Sun, and summer melting accelerates.

No charge for the science lecture.

Please specify exactly how I have dodged the issue, or withdraw your false statement.

So you now agree that man can indeed cause climate change? In that case, why did you post such a ridiculous argument? Are you trying to fool somebody? Trying to sucker the rubes?

Strawman #2. Does it make you feel all intelligent to "win" and argument by flat-out lying about your opponents' position? Because I can assure you, it only makes you look exceedingly dishonest.

Nothing is ever proven in science. But what we can say is that the mountain of evidence we do have is so overwhelming that any reasonable person would be convinced by it. Obviously that criterion excludes the residents of Denierstan.

Illogical nonsense. I don't have to show that at all. All I have to show is that the cost of unmitigated climate change is greater than the cost of mitigation. And it is, by several times:
Stern.
Watkiss.
Kemfert.

Follows logically from item 2 above, and from item 3 above.

 

Are they natural? We really don;t conclusively know, do we. You have to keep in mind that the proxies used to construct past temperature and extent areas see an average of 50, 100, 200 years etc. If our last few decades of ice extent and temperatures were averaged on a 50+ year scale, they would be smoothed out to withing the high/low of the past proxy data. That's one thing so laughable about Mann's reconstruction.

 

Proxy temporal resolution is improved by using multiple proxies, as in this case. Marcott's combined temporal resolution is 20 years; Anderson's combined temporal resolution is 1 year, derated to 20 years for the graph posted; and HADCRUT's temporal resolution is 1 month, derated to 20 years for the posted graph. Hence all data on the graph has the same 20 year resolution.

Still laughing, your lordship?

 

Yes.

That limits the number of proxies, most of those used are unreliable anyway.

Using proxies is gust a "best guess." To achieve such resolutions, you have to give more weight to them, which then invalidates the others.

Care to continue telling us the flaws that Mann's study has?

Why use graphs that stop at 2000? Sea ice extent has increase and in the last 9 years is relatively stable for an average of around 9 million.

Warming hiatus anyone?

 

Are you basing that opinion on peer-reviewed science, or is it just wishful thinking guided by your political beliefs?
If the former, please provide a citation. Otherwise, we will assume you're just blowing smoke.

False. Using proxies is "best data".

Also false. Weighting proxies does not invalidate anything. Which you would know if you had studied statistics.

 

Believe as you wish Poor Debater.

 

E

actually no the onus is on you to show how this particular spot is representative of what is happening elsewhere

 

You either can't understand or wish to pretend you do not.

No matter.....

 

You always know when the opposition has run out of arguments - they launch the ad hominems

 

So when will you stop doing that?

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!!

We have had this argument before. You cant get resolution beyond the physical resolution of the proxy. Ice cores do not have a 20 year resolution.

Marcott said flat out that his reconstruction lacked the resolution to make any statements about the present temperature relative to the past.

Resolution > 300 years. You know this. You've read this. Yet you continue to insist that you can get 20 year resolution out of Marcotts reconstruction. Sorry you cannot.

 

Misinformation is common among the AGW alarmists.

What gets me is the followers don't even understand how badly they are being duped!

 

The images aren't from Marcott or any other study. PD applied a 20 year average to marcotts study and tries to call that 20 year resolution. The average of an average is still the average you haven't increased the resolution at all. PD should really publish if he has actually found a miracle way to increase the 300+ year resolution of ice cores to 20. But he wont he knows he is wrong. Its just good fodder for forums. He doesn't expect it to fool anyone who knows better.

I've called him on it plenty of times. He complains and runs away but that doesn't stop him from posting them again and again.

 

Doing what? Pointing out that the opposition has no data and no support for their arguments? It was the OP that claimed one set of Glaciers in were representative of climate change across the last century. He has yet to show how that is so.

 

Which

Which is why multiple proxies are used to reconstruct past data and even then there is a lot of unknowns. That does not stop the denialiats from making whatever claims they like though

 

Adding other low resolution proxies doesn't increace the resolution. Especially when those proxies are far more suspect and speculative than oxygen isotopic ratios. You dont make a soup better by just adding more ingredients.

 

What do you mean I have no data? I have plenty of data. I wait for you and yours to post your nonsense, and I call you out on your nonsense. Again, you claim all the nonsense with no data. so your lack of data is my data. See like the missing experiment that shows adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature increases. See how that works? you can't supply it, I deny it exists, you don't show any and my data is then shown to be true! It's quite simple!

 

Which is why no scientist worth a hoot has made that claim

Denialists on the other hand,,,,,,,

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am afraid just saying "Neener neener" is not refuting science