The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
but because it's warmer than all the science tells us it should be.

Stop.

KISS with no allusion to you for the last acroynm.

Is it warmer than April 5, 1,000,000,56 BC?

How warm SHOULD IT BE?

We know it's supposed to be warming up but the RATE OF CHANGE is greater than what the data says it's supposed to be.

Compared to WHAT OR WHEN?

Thats the beef of any thinking human being...compared to WHAT OR WHEN.....

No GW chickenlittleite ever answers that...

WildiwouldloveitifitgotwarmerAlaska ™
 
redworm
Is this a serious question?

Yes, it is a serious question and an easy one. You seem to be having trouble with the complex ones so I thought I would throw you a softball. Swing and miss, of course,

Look.... redworm, I realize that by me saying Global Warming does not exist, it is like someone saying to a Christian that Jesus does not exist. However, there is no consensus, there was never any consensus and there never will be consensus on the issue. The facts just do not support it. The earth's climate has not warmed in 10 years, but still people scream GLOBAL WARMING.

By the very theories which you believe in, that is, increased CO2 in the atmoshphere = increased temperatures, then the earth's temp should have warned in the previous 10 years. But it hasn't. Thus, the theory you believe in is not accurate. It never was, and besides, to the people who trumpet Global Warming as a serious issue, it has never been about the environment. It is about taxation and redistribution of wealth. That is all.

GW and those whom believe in it is a prime example of insanity and hysteria all rolled into one.

Hmmmm.... all that and my tinfoil hat didn't even budge once.
 
Nonsense. The data is not finely tuned enough to make finely tuned predictions of change over decades. Millenia maybe. Decades, no. I call BS on it.

Actually, it's not like you're snide comparisons at all. It's more akin to someone licking their finger ever day for a week and saying they can predict the windspeed tomorrow. Poppycock. The proper place for this science to be published is the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Call BS all you want but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. My comparisons are quite appropriate; I could use a better example in my own field but it's a taboo topic around here. :D

Stop.

KISS with no allusion to you for the last acroynm.

Is it warmer than April 5, 1,000,000,56 BC?

How warm SHOULD IT BE?
Again, you can't point to a single date and make a conclusion based on that. We're talking about climate cycles. Predictable cycles. You can't "keep it simple" in this issue because science is not simple.

Compared to WHAT OR WHEN?

Thats the beef of any thinking human being...compared to WHAT OR WHEN.....

No GW chickenlittleite ever answers that...

WildiwouldloveitifitgotwarmerAlaska ™
Compares to the previous cycles of change that we have evidence for.

Really? How many have you asked?
Yes, it is a serious question and an easy one. You seem to be having trouble with the complex ones so I thought I would throw you a softball. Swing and miss, of course,
It only an easy question if you don't understand the issue.
You do realize that this is impossible since "long term future change in climate" refers to THOUSANDS OF YEARS, right? You realize that the field has only been heavily studied for a couple of generations, yes?

Predictable climate doesn't mean we can find stone tablets of egyptian climatologists predicting what our weather will be like next year, it means looking at all the evidence of the past - of which there is A LOT - and realizing that the climate fluctuates in predictable patterns.
Look.... redworm, I realize that by me saying Global Warming does not exist, it is like someone saying to a Christian that Jesus does not exist.
Actually it's quite different. There's zero scientific evidence on the divinity of anyone by that name. There's quite a lot for global warming. One group bases its beliefs on pure faith, the other on science. Huge difference.
However, there is no consensus, there was never any consensus and there never will be consensus on the issue.
Yes there most certainly is. On that page you will find links to the statements by a couple dozen of the top scientific organizations on the planet and they're all saying the same thing.

A consensus by the unqualified masses is not required for there to be a scientific consensus because popular opinion means jack diddly squat to science.
The facts just do not support it. The earth's climate has not warmed in 10 years, but still people scream GLOBAL WARMING.
Yes they do and yes it has. The temperature spiked in 98, dropped a bit and then continued to rise to 2005.
By the very theories which you believe in, that is, increased CO2 in the atmoshphere = increased temperatures, then the earth's temp should have warned in the previous 10 years. But it hasn't. Thus, the theory you believe in is not accurate. It never was, and besides, to the people who trumpet Global Warming as a serious issue, it has never been about the environment. It is about taxation and redistribution of wealth. That is all.
Ah yes, when your analysis of the science falters you fall back the claim that this is just a socialist plan for taxation. Stop oversimplifying the issue and realize that buzz words and quips from news articles do not inform you on the data.
 
Again, you can't point to a single date and make a conclusion based on that. We're talking about climate cycles. Predictable cycles. You can't "keep it simple" in this issue because science is not simple.

No. Basic scientific facts are simple. Add H2O to K and get a predictable and simple reaction. Ever hypothesis must have a starting point, and comparison hypothesis, no matter how complex, must have a benchmark.

OK I'll play your game. What were the climate cycles between 10,000 BCE and 8500 BCE? How about the evidence of flooding in the 5,000 BCE era...what was the cylce then. How long did Krakatoa affect the climate cycles?

What climate cycles are you comparing the present cycle to?

You need a benchmark...and the hysterics don't have one.

WildistillwinasyoudancearoundtheissueAlaska TM
 
No. Basic scientific facts are simple. Add H2O to K and get a predictable and simple reaction.
Wonderful. However climate cycles are not a "basic scientific fact" by any stretch of the imagination. They are very complex systems so you cannot examine them with simplicity.
Ever hypothesis must have a starting point, and comparison hypothesis, no matter how complex, must have a benchmark.
And this one has a benchmark. The eons worth of data on previous cycles that tells us these cycles are predictable.
OK I'll play your game. What were the climate cycles between 10,000 BCE and 8500 BCE? How about the evidence of flooding in the 5,000 BCE era...what was the cylce then. How long did Krakatoa affect the climate cycles?
How the frak should I know? I'm an evolutionary biologist with a psychology minor and transitioning into engineering. I'm not a climatologist. I am a scientist that understands the basic principles of the scientific method and how science is reviewed; I DONT DO CLIMATE RESEARCH. If you want answers to specific questions - and I guarantee you there are agreed-upon answers because a lot of anthropology is based on examining the climate during that period - then do the research yourself.

Please don't tell me that if someone on an internet forum can't answer a question that you'll think it's unanswerable by the scientific community.

What climate cycles are you comparing the present cycle to?

You need a benchmark...and the hysterics don't have one.

WildistillwinasyoudancearoundtheissueAlaska TM
You complain about ad hominems yet your response to the argument is "I WIN!"? Who is committing the more egregious error in logic, the guy frustrated with people questioning how science works because they read news articles and watch the history channel or the guy giving the equivalent of "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you"?
 
firemax
However, there is no consensus, there was never any consensus and there never will be consensus on the issue.
redworm
Yes there most certainly is.

That is an outright fabrication. There are thousands of respected scientists worldwide who have not drank the Koolaid called human attributed Global Warming. They don't believe the UN study was correct (in fact, they say the results are being purposely skewed to fit an agenda).

Surely, as a pragmatic person of science, you would not "skew" the fact that there is no consensus..... or would you?

Like I said, GW.... it's not science..... it's a religion.... a cult.
 
The facts your overlooking are that the scientists are NOT of a vast majority opinion and that there is NOT a steep rise in temperature currently going on. We are in a 7-11 year COOLING period right now depending on the references you find credible.

Peer review has not been accomplished (unless only peers that agree count) and the ONLY report that comes down on the side of GW has been debunked. Credible scientists are NOT in any way at a consensus. Words like 'very likely to potentially effect the climate' are as close as pro-GW scientists will go.

Start quoting some of the references given in the past 3-4 pages. Quote those and comment. 'Eons' and 'vast majority' are hyperbole that you may buy but are not factual and not compelling. The use of hyperbole in fact reveals lack of substance in an attempt to gin up a case.

Address these please or just admit this is just something you WANT to believe.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2792494&postcount=255
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2800263&postcount=333
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2800322&postcount=337
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2800496&postcount=338

Your fond of quoting posts but very opposed to addressing the facts in them. Let's get some references from you, let's hear a rebuttal to the facts presented. And no, 'those are activists' won't fly because the pro GW folks are activists.

Get to addressing the facts presented Red. If God's not real because you can't prove it scientifically then GW isn't either. GW is resembling religion more then science. It's understandable that humans rejecting God will need to find something to fill that spiritual void.
 
It's understandable that humans rejecting God will need to find something to fill that spiritual void.
baaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha spiritual void

oh that's rich. oh man. I'm gonna have to remember that. I have a spiritual void. I thought I was just hungry!


We are not a straight period of cooling and 7-11 years is a small fraction of the time in question.

I've already responded those at least one of those. It's not my responsibility to address every issue in the debate over climate change. If you want me to support and explain the theory of evolution then I would be thrilled to school you and every other skeptic but I am not a climatologist. I have to rely on my limited understanding of the field along with my extensive understanding of the scientific method and how the peer-review process works. If you want to keep believing otherwise, go right ahead. It's no sweat off my back because you don't make policy, nor does anyone else here including me.

There is a consensus as has been shown by the opinions of dozens of scientific organizations. You're acting as if my inability to address every point is representative of the scientific community. WA did the same damn thing as did Tuttle. Well guess what: if you want answers then ask a damn climatologist. Or better yet, start researching it yourself. Go to school, get your doctorate and become an expert and then you'll be qualified to make an argument against a case that is supported by the majority of the scientific community.

The IPCC report has not been "debunked" and there are other reports - including those from the institutions listed in the wiki article (with links to their own websites) - supporting the case. That you don't want to read them doesn't change the fact that they exist nor does it change the fact that they've been peer-reviewed and are supported with an overwhelming majority.


That is an outright fabrication. There are thousands of respected scientists worldwide who have not drank the Koolaid called human attributed Global Warming. They don't believe the UN study was correct (in fact, they say the results are being purposely skewed to fit an agenda).

Surely, as a pragmatic person of science, you would not "skew" the fact that there is no consensus..... or would you?

Like I said, GW.... it's not science..... it's a religion.... a cult.
What's a fabrication is this idea that the Oregon Petition is in any way an honest indicator. It was not only distributed dishonestly with misleading information but many of the supposed "signers" are unverifiable or even non-existent.


I'm off to fill my spiritual void with a cheeseburger and a beer. Maybe some freedom fries. I'll try to convince a climatologist to join this forum and pass along a little knowledge to the masses. ;) Double-bonus if I can get him/her to go shooting with me!
 
Your still dancing Redworm.

Plain english...Whats the Benchmark?

100 years ago?....if so,

I win.:p

Not an ad hominem a statement of fact:D

WildgiveitupAlaska ™
 
http://www.climatepolice.com/Co2_report.pdf
Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum
it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm.

Accurate measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm 1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934 alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany, medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition science, biochemistry and ecology.

Modern climatology ignored their work till today even though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results:

1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a variing CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.

2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2-
concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338 ppm. 3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2-concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.

4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period. 5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without having dealt with its chemical basis.

6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere.
Debunked.......

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...ng-truth.thtml
There is now unequivocal evidence that the temperature of the planet is dropping like a stone. As the DailyTech site reports:

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.
Here’s some other data you may not have seen. The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either, which has got this poor NPR reporter scratching his head, poor chap:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them. This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
And here is Ross McKittrick (who exposed the fundamental flaw in the research underpinning the whole of MMGW theory, the hockey-stick curve whose upward warming trend was achieved by omitting several hundred years of global climate history) revealing that there is an error in groundstation measurements such that past warming as measured by near-surface air has been over-estimated by 100% for over 20 years to 2002 (since when there has been cooling). While at Climate Audit, John Goetz says that the temperature record for 2005-2007 has actually been falsified to produce an upward trend. Crumbs!

Now look at this curious development. The British government, as we know,has swallowed the predictions of man-made global warming and is busily trying to persuade us that it is committed to reducing carbon emissions to counter the threat that we’re all about to fry. Yet HM Treasury has posted on its website a paper about solar cycles, which says:
Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.
And it also concludes:
A rural US temperature data set shows that recent and current temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century.
If the Treasury thinks it is worth putting up on its website a paper forecasting global cooling, why is the British government adopting policies, including green taxes and intrusive lifestyle prescriptiveness, to deal with precisely the opposite eventuality?

Now, you may not know about this sudden deadly chill in the MMGW atmosphere because the BBC hasn’t told you. To be more precise, it did try to report this — but then appears to have altered its report under pressure from a global warming activist. This story by Roger Harrabin, headlined 'Global temperatures “to decrease,” ’ was captured a few hours after it appeared on the BBC website on April 4. Later that day, strange things happened to this story. The headline changed from ‘Global temperature “to decrease” ’ to ‘Global warming “dips this year”; so did the content; but then the headline changed back again to ‘Global temperature “to decrease” ’.
Cooling....Got any refences that use the works "unequivocal evidence " as these scientific organizations have?

Give us some substance. Address the facts. Where is this 'vast majority'.
 
When it comes to science, YES. If you're not qualified in the field then you have no say on the consensus.

So you have a colledge degree of some sort in a related field, right?

ETA:

One more thing. If Global Warming is real why have 4 different meterolgists on 3 different national TV networks said that the Ocean temp is colder this year then is years previuos?
 
From Gunter Faure, 1998, Professor of Geochemistry from Ohio State University

The extent of global warming depends significantly on the response of the C-cycle to the release of greenhouse gases. If the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 stimulates the growth of marine organisms, the increase in the oceanic biomass will result in the burial of a portion of the carbon in marine sediment, thus taking it out of circulation for long periods of geologic time. Therefore, the anthropogenic greenhouse warming of the Earth may be a short lived episode on the geologic time scale, producing an “anthropogenic super interglacial” epoch to be followed by the next glaciation mandated by celestial mechanics (Broecker, 1987). However, this long range prediction provides little comfort to humans who must cope with the effects of global warming and increased sea level in the next several centuries.

For those of you who are for or against the GW conundrum, please read carefully and then revisit your biases.





Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
They are very complex systems so you cannot examine them with simplicity.

Yet you snidely dismiss the mention of chaos theory which was hypothesized from a climatological model, and applies to how unpredictability introduced by small, perhaps imperceptible, changes or interactions into a complex system will radically change the outcome. We could be on million year cycles, which we certainly do not completely understand, and for which "measurement" or conjecture about past weather is crude at best. From this blunt data, we are going to short term predictions and base hundreds of billions of dollars of changes on something that we may not have the slightest control over. That is insane.
 
Quoted by Redworm:
godsdamnit, I know you're not this dense. you're doing the same stupid oversimplification of the issue that nutjob creationists do when they demand to know why there are still monkeys.

So...not only breaking forum rules but doing it in style. Nutjob Creationist? Using The Diety's name in vain that the VAST MAJORITY of the population of America believes in?

Lets' get a few things straight REDWORM. It doesn't matter what YOU believe is truth, fact, or fiction. Just because YOU don't believe certain issues doesn't give you ANY privelage to disrespect others that do.

You'll notice that I've not called you that but if you insist on doing so yourself I'm not gonna stop you. The world does need fewer knuckle-dragging hillbillies but I think even the most back-asswards of rednecks can be taught the basics of the scientific method.

You didn't need to. You finally showed your true colors and my hunch was entirely correct. I may be a dense nutjob Creationist, but I also have a bit of street smarts with a dash of common sense. You can look down on me and others that just don't have the merit to be graced with your presence. But, in this issue I know I'm the bigger man to definitely turn the other cheek and allow yourself to dig your own grave...

Yes they do and yes it has. The temperature spiked in 98, dropped a bit and then continued to rise to 2005.

No, it went down from 98 to 2005. It rose in 2005 ONLY so it didn't CONTINUE to rise because the subsequent years showed cooling according to the graph....

There is a consensus as has been shown by the opinions of dozens of scientific organizations.

...on for and against the issue of GW...

You're acting as if my inability to address every point is representative of the scientific community.

Wow. I guess I should have said this so that my lack of addressing every point that's representative of the scientific community would have been acceptable to you as a response...

WA did the same damn thing as did Tuttle. Well guess what: if you want answers then ask a damn climatologist.

Yep, he sure did. He asked a simple question that cannot be answered because you can't answer it nor ANY VAST MAJORITY GROUP OF SCIENTISTS because they know once they do, the branding iron will come out...

Or better yet, start researching it yourself. Go to school, get your doctorate and become an expert and then you'll be qualified to make an argument against a case that is supported by the majority of the scientific community.

So, we subjects...I mean...citizens that aren't so highly edumakated like you have no valid opinions because we think the earth is flat?

That you don't want to read them doesn't change the fact that they exist nor does it change the fact that they've been peer-reviewed and are supported with an overwhelming majority.

...And the "overwhelming majority" is constantly questioned by others. Mountainclimr as well as others have brought up valid cases that you continually brush aside and say look it up yourself. There's quite the pattern here from page one...

Bruxley said it best. You just don't want to give any forthright answers.

Like sands in the hourglass...
 
Last edited:
The Socialists have always tried to control the means of production. This means use of energy. Until they factor this into the UN computer games the predicted answer will continue to be produced (exponential GW and doom). It does not matter if the computer games don't match the satellite data, ice core data or the solar activity proxies if you can win the political battle for public opinion. This is just another front in the battle for freedom. I know all about simultaneous equations and tailoring variable coefficients for curve fitting. When it works backward and not forward it implies coefficient tailoring and that is all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top