2014 was one of the 3% coldest years in the last 10,000

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by longknife, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dr Ball hits the nail on the head when he says that the quality for the surface temperature record is terrible. Hence people on both sides can cherry pick all they want and act innocent. There are dozens of proxies available for temperature inferences back in time, but many of them disagree greatly. Alarmist have chosen the ones they want and ignored the rest - which are equally valid (or equally invalid, if you like).

    The problem with the alarmist argument is that the burden of proof is on them. They are the ones wanting drastic and costly changes to be made so they must prove they are correct, and they cannot. Too many times they stated screaming that if we don't believe climate change we must prove it is NOT changing...that is bass ackwards....You can reject the climate change hypothesis simply on the basis that it is not proven. They claim it is proven ("the science is settled") and hold up their cherry's. But since there are at least the same number of cherry's on the other side, it is definitely not proven.
     
  3. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A retired geology professor who earns his living speaking about climate change denial. Excellent source of scientific evidence.

    Exactly the same pattern as creationists with lots of non-scientists not understanding basic science but are absolutely qualified to deny that which they choose not to believe. Who knew there were so many laypeople so much smarter than the people who devote their lives to science.
     
  4. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Any question?

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What utter nonsense. Greenland is not the whole globe, and Greenland temperatures are not global temperatures.
     
  6. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right, he is not a accredited professional like Al Gore or Pachauri (Politician and railway engineer...)
     
  7. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, not at all like the tens of thousands of actual scientists and the vast preponderance of evidence that quacks like Dr. Ball attempt to discredit.
     
  8. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is simply not true. You are pulling it out of you backside. Next you will make some mindless statement like "Well everybody knows that the science is settled......."

    That is called reverting to tribal knowledge, useless in a debate.

    Every time an alarmist posts "evidence" here, 3 or 4 denilists (as you call them) post something contrary. Have you not be watching?
     
  9. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let us just assume the AGW promoters are NOT in it for the money and the global climate IS warming.

    1. What can be done about stopping the planet from heating up?
    2. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be so we know when to stop reversing/increasing the average temperature?
     
  10. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh how much I love it when threads like this get everybody going. :smile:
     
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tens of thousands of QUALIFIED scientists support the hypothesis of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. That ain't pulling it out of my arse, but your denial sure as hell is covered in excrement.

    I agree the science isn't settled. More and more evidence is being amassed that supports the hypothesis, while denialists are left with attempting to either -re-interpret the evidence or denounce evidence or take things out of context. Taking a page from the creationists no doubt.

    I also agree that alarmists are in many cases as off the wall as denialists. When one looks at the extremes of the spectrum, there is little to differentiate the attitudes of the polar opposites, merely the subject of their inanity.
     
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As others have pointed out, grabbing one spot on earth is a very dishonest cherrypick. That's the first problem.

    Meanwhile, here are the more complete and recent Greenland temps, instead of Tim Balls's cherrypick from an old 1998 paper.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/full

    Clearly, current average temperature on that one spot on the Greenland ice sheet is above the average of the past 4000 years.

    One could honestly say that the current warming at that spot is not outside of the natural variation. One can not honestly say "coldest 3%". Tim Ball is just making stuff up, and the cultists lapped it up.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll do you the same favor, and make the crazy assumption you're not just openly falsifying data to line your own pocket. I hope you don't find the implication insulting, that the default assumption should be you're lying. If you do find it insulting, you should probably cease making such implications yourself.

    Reduce CO2 emissions. That was easy.

    The same temperature that human civilization evolved around. Again, that was easy. I find it funny that people think it's some kind of gotcha question.
     
  14. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What temperature was that? There is evidence that the Polar regions were tropical at one time, based on the "fossil record" of plant and animals found in those regions.

    It would seem we have to warm the planet up a few degrees.

    Do you propose sealing the volcanoes with a big catalytic convertor? Or should we plug them with concrete? We can always put a cover over the oceans at night too. Yeah, that would help.

    Do you see now how stupid AGWers are?
     
  15. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We can stop burning fossil fuels, and use the many alternatives instead.


    Earth has dozens of climate niches, each with its own temperature, so there is no one ideal temperature. There is, however, one ideal climate forcing, and that is when the net of anthropogenic forcings is zero. When we get to that point, that's when you'll know.
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A touch cooler than it is now.

    You put "fossil record" in quotes? Looks like we got us a creationist as well as a denier. That is, a double complete failure at logic and science.

    That would kill millions. Unless that's your goal. Is it?

    You're proposing plugging up volcanoes and covering the ocean? That's an example of why nearly the whole planet laughs at your cult.

    I see you really shouldn't be interrupting the grownups when they talk about grownup stuff.
     
  17. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about my other questions? You ignored them and they refute the answers you gave.

    How do you plan to stop the burning of fossil fuels within all active volcanoes in the world, which spew megatones more carbon aerosols in a day than man produces in a year*?

    You dodged my question. Since the mantra is, the average global temperature is warming (cooling), there must be an average global temperature the Earth you would be satisfied with. What is that temperature, and why? Was the Earth at it's proper average temperature when the polar regions were more tropical? When Ohio was covered with ice? Have some courage and answer these questions also.

    * my estimated quantities from memory
     
  18. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    really? Do you have an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures? Please provide that ahead of any further lying posts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Lying post after post bubba! Not allowed here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    so why isn't that happening?why is Germany buying coal? ah come on man you know nothing!
     
  19. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!

    why is it that denialists of every stripe use exactly the same tactics while accusing everyone else of lying? But then again, they all seem to know much more than scientists who have devoted their lives to their studies.

    Perhaps you can first tell me what qualifies you to be a denialist, other than a penchant for obstreperousness and an ill informed opinion based on the narrow knowledge base of cherry pickers?
     
  20. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, what temperature is the Earth supposed to be? It was obviously a lot warmer in the past as evidenced by the fossils found in the Arctic Circle of tropical plant life. Why are you advocating to artificially suppressing the Earth from returning to it's natural climate?

    If CO2 is the problem, why not address the primary sources of CO2 emissions?
    How would you stop volcanoes and land and marine plant life from emitting so much CO2?
     
  21. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Running from the answers I already gave you because you have no response doesn't reflect well on you, NaturalBorn.

    Face it, your questions are nonsense, and reveal that you shouldn't be bothering the grownups until you educate yourself more.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. You have posted no other questions on this thread. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.
    2. A question cannot refute evidence. Only evidence can refute evidence.

    Your estimated quantities from memory are totally and completely wrong. Humans emit about 100 times more CO2 into the air every year than volcanoes do. Another example of education in Denierstan?

    That is both incorrect and illogical. It's not any particular average temperature that is dangerous, it is the rate of change which is dangerous. Currently we are warming the earth about 10 times faster than the fastest global warming in the geological record. And that is dangerous.
     
  23. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong, all of this response. Just flat out wrong. more silly posted from the left, who still haven't provided the experiment that verifies and confirms the entire montra. here that flushing sound? That is your theory being flushed away. WiNniNg

    Oh, one more thing.......NoPe
     
  24. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you KNOW is is dangerous? Maybe the Earth is returning to equilibrium. It is only your guess, based on pseudo-science and profit motive of the promoters.

    I have not idea what is meant by proper pronoun you referenced Maybe some thorn in your side?

    "The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux?

    It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been."

    See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.eL5E6hGo.dpuf

    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause aCO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)
     
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see you're unfamiliar with the concept of an equilibrium system.

    If I make $100 a week and spend $100 a week, my bank account remains the same.

    If I make $110 a week and spend $100 a week, my bank account grows, even though it's "only" a 10% increase.

    CO2 works the same way. If humans "only" make a 4% increase, that increase still builds up.

    And we also _know_, with 100% certainty, that the increase is human-caused because of isotope measurements. If you don't know what those are ... go educate yourself. Preferably on something besides a denier blog that claims everything is a fraud.
     

Share This Page