So what is melting the ice then if it is not global warming?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
Warm water coming up from the deep ocean which displaces the colder surface water which is sinking due to the fact that it is warming up to 4 degrees C.
No? Does that graph resemble a horizontal line to you, or isn't it true that the right side of the graph peaks much higher than the left side???
Coz if that IS true, that does indeed indicate a warming trend.
What's the logic behind this, if I may ask?
If you have a set of sample data, and most of the high values end up in one extreme of the timeline...how on earth does this indicate a non-changing state?
Again, based on what logic?
The logic of knowing that if you write something outrageous that people will be outraged enough to respond no matter how implausible the reasoning you use.
In response to Corduroy's stance that nature doesn't matter unless it showers him with gold and stacks of dollar bills: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/01/bumble-bees-done-in-by-a-fungal-parasite-maybe.ars
This is exactly WHY nature, the ecosystem, our biosphere matters to human beings. We're not apart from the rest of this globe, we rely on it to a great deal.
This is exactly WHY nature, the ecosystem, our biosphere matters to human beings. We're not apart from the rest of this globe, we rely on it to a great deal.
Who cares about bees, beeee happy. I mean what? It's only 1/4 of all food crops which rely on bee polination, hardly a concern when we have the other 3/4 to rely upon.
Just so you know, I was sarcastic both times!
Blazkowicz
Legend
soap is pretty affordable, it costs me about 1€ per month, then there's 1€ per month in one-blade razors ; shaving gel and toothpaste are longer term expense (about 1.5€ and 0.5€), then alum rock as a one-time 5€ expense.
thus I totally refudiate your analysis about dirtyness
.next thing I'd want and is the only good idea in private Bradley Manning's horrendous life conditions is a timed shower, I'm way too complacent in wasting both time and heated water there.
corduroygt
Banned
Anything by Hansen is suspect since he'd benefit from any AGW legislation. First of all, how are those temperatures calculated? How accurate are the measurements? Were they always this accurate 120 years ago? How is the distribution of all the sensors? Are they on a grid with equal size and shape for each point? Have the points always been the same over the years? Were they any mistakes made while analyzing and constructing the models such as these?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data
That whole graph spans less than 1C and there's all these questions and uncertainties about their methods and measurements. Also, there's really no telling if it's going to keep rising or falling with from the limited amount of available data. Therefore the alarmism is unwarranted.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data
That whole graph spans less than 1C and there's all these questions and uncertainties about their methods and measurements. Also, there's really no telling if it's going to keep rising or falling with from the limited amount of available data. Therefore the alarmism is unwarranted.
If you were on the NSF grant committee, and somebody came to you and asked for a bag of money so that he could carry out research on whether or not the earth is flat and whether or not it goes around the sun, would you approve of YOUR tax dollars going to his research?
The point is that there are more grant seekers than grants and hence money is given to those whose research seems most promising.
And just because people denying AGW have been denied funding doesn't mean there is a campaign out to get them. You don't conduct research with an agenda, you just do stuff, the results pop out for themselves.
Besides, the denial community has no shortage of research funds. Saudi Arabia and big fossils are sitting on piles of money waiting to find someone who can publish peer reviewed stuff debunking AGW. Where is that research?
You want answers to those, read IPCC reports, not some random jerk on the internet with no credentials.
1C in a century is a VERY BIG DEAL.
Only if you believe science haters. Really, tell us, how many of IPCC reports have you read? How much of science do you think YOU understand?
Your ignorance/stupidity is not an argument.
It is not alarmism. It IS warranted.
corduroygt
Banned
You mean the same IPCC, where University of East Anglia cliamte scientst Mike Hulme says that has run its course and became too political?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377
My links are based on actual e-mails, and there's also Frank's link which shows just how much massaging was going on with the existing data. It's proven that Hansen's data was screwed up in the past and they had to revise it. It can happen again. He's a one of those ecoMENTALists, with emphasis on MENTAL. Here's what he's predicted 20 years ago.
He also hangs out with people like this, and gets arrested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/james-hansen-arrested-wit_n_740887.html
Now in that story, I'm also against coal power and destroying a whole mountain, but you hippie folk are responsible for blocking nuclear plants. We need energy and we need vast quantities of it cheaply and sun and wind are just not gonna cut it.
Stop trying to control the planet, there's nothing we can do as we don't have enough of an energy source or the technology to climate control earth. I'm just going to live the same way I always had and it's not going to change a thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, the same IPCC, as it has the compiled the largest amount of latest peer reviewed research. Also, the East Anglia emails were conclusively shown to be a storm in a teacup, but you may have not noticed that, considering the kind of links you post here.
Stop spreading BS around. Find me modern (last ~ 3 yrs) peer reviewed research debunking AGW or shut up.
There's been progress in computational sciences over the last 20 years you, with moore's law and everything. You may have heard of it.
I DARE you to find a post of mine where I have opposed nuclear energy. No, check that, I double dare you. Stop assuming stuff.
corduroygt
Banned
No grants = no research. I'm also saying AGW is debunked, I'm just saying there's no need for alarmism. It's not a big deal since the temperature increases have been lower than what was predicted.
Maybe not you, but the majority of your team opposes it. I'd gladly give up oil based energy for nuclear in a heartbeat, as long as we had adequate storage technology for cars.
Quite a lot has been learned about the climate over the past 20 years. In particular, at the time it was believed that the CO2 forcing was stronger than it actually is. If you adjust those early climate model simulations to compensate for this error, you get a prediction that matches up extremely well with reality.Here's what he's predicted 20 years ago.
There are plenty of grants to go around if you can promise to not find AGW. Just ask the tobacco lobby.
Then why don't you publish your research in a peer reviewed journal? Hell, just publish a pre-print.
Chalnoth threw an open challenge to xxx to point out the biggest scientific flaw in AGW. You know what happened? He ran away. Would you like to take up that challenge, or would you like to just repeat bs ad nauseam without any scientific proof?
Yes, there is need for action.
Everybody make way, ignoratti coming through.
I don't have a team. You are the one who seems determined to put me in one.
One thing I do feel concern about though is the fact that AGW is being linked to any and all weather related natural disasters. On the one hand you have people saying that the snow outside peoples windows is just weather then on the other you have people using a somewhat tenuous link, such as in the case of the Australia floods to push their AGW agenda when the causal relationship simply doesn't support it. In the case of Australia the floods aren't as bad as recent historical floods and yet people are still waving the 'you burned coal I hope you drown in the coming floods' vitriol.
Im just saying the AGW crew aren't doing themselves any favours by remaining silent on these natural disasters when the tenuous link is being proposed.
Im just saying the AGW crew aren't doing themselves any favours by remaining silent on these natural disasters when the tenuous link is being proposed.
The "AGW crew" - which isn't one in reality since it's not a world-wide coordinated conspiracy of some sort* - knows there's not a direct causality link between AGW and a specific natural disaster.
Those that are trumping up stuff like that are media, who do it because they love big headlines that sell copies of their product - and ignorant people who don't understand what they're talking about.
* = expressions like "AGW crew" insinuate that scientists and other people are working in an underhanded, ZOG-like fashion to promote their agenda. That's conspiracist claptrap, and unless you have any proof that such is going on, I suggest you avoid expressing yourself in such a way if you want to be taken seriously. K?
- Status
Similar threads
