Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Author Message
usmbacker Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,677
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 1320
I Root For: Beer
Location: Margaritaville
Post: #21
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Al Gore needs Global Warming to scam for dollars and the left needs it for everything. If 1000% proof came out that couldn't be denied, that Global Warming/Climate change is not a real threat, the left would deny it because fear and panic is their way.
02-13-2014 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,822
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #22
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 07:04 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Al Gore needs Global Warming to scam for dollars and the left needs it for everything. If 1000% proof came out that couldn't be denied, that Global Warming/Climate change is not a real threat, the left would deny it because fear and panic is their way.

Gotta get there first. As it stands, there isn't a significant body of literature that runs contrary AGW or proposes an alternative. By that, I mean that less than .002% of peer reviewed papers are explicitly anti-global warming.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2014 07:40 PM by dmacfour.)
02-13-2014 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #23
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Yes, I believe the world will balance itself out, that not to say that balance will be a climate we been in the last 9,000 years.

But there WAS no 'net' major shift. There was an event that caused the world to cool, and the earth corrected it.

Question...

Do you dispute the temperature chart that (I believe) clarion panther posted in this thread?

If you do, do you have another to offer?

If you accept it, what happened in 1100 BC, because we know it wasn't man-made... and if anything, don't we seem to be trending towards a COLDER earth? Not saying that pollution is good by any measure... but best I recall, it has always been FREEZES that have lead to a decline in civilization in earth's history... and wouldn't these actions, while 'worse' on the warm side actually be BETTER on the cold side?

I understand that it is 'convenient' that our warming trend began around the founding of this country... but that ended an INCREDIBLE cooling period that I suspect climate scientists would have been forecasting a cataclysmic 'end game' (or at least I'd HOPE they would, just as feverishly as they have this one.)

Why the reversal in 95? Why the decline since 98?

Do these things not beg for an answer when your own example shows the earth 'correcting' what you yourself describe as a dramatic shift.

I think we all agree on clean earth... it's just a question of how much theory we're willing to accept to be 'scared' into bad decisions
02-13-2014 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #24
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 02:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Yet a single Volcano can decrease the earth's temperature by .25 degrees for a year and an earth quake, the Boxing Day quake the started the tsunami in the indain ocean caused the earth to move a 1/2 degree of it's axis.

None of that is relevant to this discussion. Yet you pretend to care about science.

Quote:He is not looking at the issue with an unbiased mind considering all possibilities. His "research" specifically geared to discredit one theory. He is seeking out data to support his preformed conclusions. This field of science is less than 100 years old, there is a lot left to learn.

That's totally false. Completely untrue. So, I'm calling you a liar. You're not interested in good science, or even the environment, you're all about pushing an agenda. Regardless of the consequences. An agenda that you believe b/c you're too simple-minded to examine the evidence.

Quote:But, if you don't believe we negatively affecting the environment go to China and breath deep.

This was initially about climate, now you've tried to change it to the environment. That's a lame effort, but probably effective on simpletons.

Quote:Weather it is "Global Warming" an old term scientists used early on and media used and still uses, though now scientists refer to it as Climate Change, IDK.

I do find it funny he focuses on a short term period 15 years rather than 100 years. Shifts on a Global scale take longer than 15 years.

Really? That's funny? Because he's using satellite data and addressing the issues brought up by others. Most the global warming crowd has ignored data longer than 40 years, yet you make no comment.

Why is that?

Quote:In any case, all of these are scientific theories, not Scienctific Law. But, here is what NASA it self says,

No, they're hypotheses. You don't even know the basic terminology.

Quote:Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Quote:I just want clean air and clean water.

bull****. You're a liar and I'm happy to point that out. This is the SOP for the left. Pretend they just want some small, reasonable goal that we all agree to.

CO2 is not a pollutant. We have clean air and water. If that's all you want, then STFU now b/c you've got it.

First, you can lose the condescending attitude and discuse an topic like an adult or you act like a little child through a fit in crowded room and I'll just skip right over your posts. The choice is yours.

Second, your last comment, we have clean air and water,

Oh yeah?

[Image: la-china-smog10.jpg]

[Image: los-angeles-smog-1.jpg]

[Image: mexicocitysmog.jpg]

[Image: original.jpg]

[Image: pacific_ocean_garbage_patch_pollution_pl..._48898.jpg]

[Image: citarum-river.jpg]

[Image: img_10091.jpg]





Come down here to NC and go swim in the New River and drink the water, oh wait there signs telling you not to, that's it's unsafe and toxic.

Now, the science part for the OP.

Yes, his study show only a minimal increase in average global temperature over the past 15 years. Mind you that's the global average and says nothing of the arctic and Antarctic temperature averages over the same time period, which have increased at much higher rate. Then why the minimal increase in the average temperature you ask. Well, when the topics and sub-tropic areas are averaging cooler temperatures than the total global average doesn't increase much. Then where the issue, sure it's warmer at polls, but cooler in the tropics you ask. Well, that skates over the problem that is clear to anyone looking at then polar regions. Average Global temperature hasn't increased much, but polar ice melt is still increasing despite the apparent "slowing" or "pause" in temperature increases. Why? What is causing the polar ice to melt at a faster rate and not be replaced in winter months? Solar output hasn't increased, in fact is at a low period, nothing in nature has been found that is causing the warming in the polar regions. What has changed over the century that could cause this, something that is still increasing? CO2 emissions. It does occur naturally, but it is a greenhouse gas, that traps solar radiation in the earth atmosphere warming it, coupled with thin area of the ozone layer over both poles magnifies it's affects there leading to increased ice melt, it is also leading to greater ocean acidification, because it dissolves in water creating carbonic acid. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth and its concentration in Earth's pre-industrial atmosphere since late in the Precambrian eon was regulated by photosynthetic organisms. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas; burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution and the reduction of forrest lands reducing overall plant coverage has rapidly increased the concentration and the increase in carbon monoxide from burn carbon based fuels is leading to global warming and increased polar ice melt. Which if they continue will lead to increased sea levels and could disrupt oceanic currents and plung us into another ice age as the earth finds a balance and corrects an imbalance. What isn't known is will this take a hundred plus years, hundreds or thousands of years.

Now if you want to debate this, fine we can, but only if you will act like an adult and be civil. Otherwise I'm done.
02-13-2014 07:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #25
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 07:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Yes, I believe the world will balance itself out, that not to say that balance will be a climate we been in the last 9,000 years.

But there WAS no 'net' major shift. There was an event that caused the world to cool, and the earth corrected it.

Question...

Do you dispute the temperature chart that (I believe) clarion panther posted in this thread?

If you do, do you have another to offer?

If you accept it, what happened in 1100 BC, because we know it wasn't man-made... and if anything, don't we seem to be trending towards a COLDER earth? Not saying that pollution is good by any measure... but best I recall, it has always been FREEZES that have lead to a decline in civilization in earth's history... and wouldn't these actions, while 'worse' on the warm side actually be BETTER on the cold side?

I understand that it is 'convenient' that our warming trend began around the founding of this country... but that ended an INCREDIBLE cooling period that I suspect climate scientists would have been forecasting a cataclysmic 'end game' (or at least I'd HOPE they would, just as feverishly as they have this one.)

Why the reversal in 95? Why the decline since 98?

Do these things not beg for an answer when your own example shows the earth 'correcting' what you yourself describe as a dramatic shift.

I think we all agree on clean earth... it's just a question of how much theory we're willing to accept to be 'scared' into bad decisions

Question for carifaction, which are meaning 1100 BC, the Hekla 3 eruption and 18 year cooler northern climate or the Younger Dryas 11,000 BC, the dramatic climate shift that ended around 10,000 BC.
02-13-2014 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #26
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 07:54 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Yet a single Volcano can decrease the earth's temperature by .25 degrees for a year and an earth quake, the Boxing Day quake the started the tsunami in the indain ocean caused the earth to move a 1/2 degree of it's axis.

None of that is relevant to this discussion. Yet you pretend to care about science.

Quote:He is not looking at the issue with an unbiased mind considering all possibilities. His "research" specifically geared to discredit one theory. He is seeking out data to support his preformed conclusions. This field of science is less than 100 years old, there is a lot left to learn.

That's totally false. Completely untrue. So, I'm calling you a liar. You're not interested in good science, or even the environment, you're all about pushing an agenda. Regardless of the consequences. An agenda that you believe b/c you're too simple-minded to examine the evidence.

Quote:But, if you don't believe we negatively affecting the environment go to China and breath deep.

This was initially about climate, now you've tried to change it to the environment. That's a lame effort, but probably effective on simpletons.

Quote:Weather it is "Global Warming" an old term scientists used early on and media used and still uses, though now scientists refer to it as Climate Change, IDK.

I do find it funny he focuses on a short term period 15 years rather than 100 years. Shifts on a Global scale take longer than 15 years.

Really? That's funny? Because he's using satellite data and addressing the issues brought up by others. Most the global warming crowd has ignored data longer than 40 years, yet you make no comment.

Why is that?

Quote:In any case, all of these are scientific theories, not Scienctific Law. But, here is what NASA it self says,

No, they're hypotheses. You don't even know the basic terminology.

Quote:Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Quote:I just want clean air and clean water.

bull****. You're a liar and I'm happy to point that out. This is the SOP for the left. Pretend they just want some small, reasonable goal that we all agree to.

CO2 is not a pollutant. We have clean air and water. If that's all you want, then STFU now b/c you've got it.

First, you can lose the condescending attitude and discuse an topic like an adult or you act like a little child through a fit in crowded room and I'll just skip right over your posts. The choice is yours.

You can go **** yourself. I condescend b/c you're a know-nothing liar. You show pix of foreign countries and talk about "we"? QED, along w/ your other points.

Quote:Now, the science part for the OP.

Yes, his study show only a minimal increase in average global temperature over the past 15 years. Mind you that's the global average and says nothing of the arctic and Antarctic temperature averages over the same time period, which have increased at much higher rate.

The debate is over "Global" warming. You think moving the goal posts counts as "science"? I don't doubt you do. Nevertheless, the CAGW crowd has been lying for decades, only this time they picked something that most of us can see outside our own front doors.

So run along, I'm sure you have a neo-KKK rally to attend to.

Quote:Now if you want to debate this, fine we can, but only if you will act like an adult and be civil. Otherwise I'm done.

Done? No problem to me. This issue has been settled by the empirical data. There is no debate any longer.

You want to disparage an honest man however, and I will call you on it.
02-14-2014 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #27
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 08:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 07:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Yes, I believe the world will balance itself out, that not to say that balance will be a climate we been in the last 9,000 years.

But there WAS no 'net' major shift. There was an event that caused the world to cool, and the earth corrected it.

Question...

Do you dispute the temperature chart that (I believe) clarion panther posted in this thread?

If you do, do you have another to offer?

If you accept it, what happened in 1100 BC, because we know it wasn't man-made... and if anything, don't we seem to be trending towards a COLDER earth? Not saying that pollution is good by any measure... but best I recall, it has always been FREEZES that have lead to a decline in civilization in earth's history... and wouldn't these actions, while 'worse' on the warm side actually be BETTER on the cold side?

I understand that it is 'convenient' that our warming trend began around the founding of this country... but that ended an INCREDIBLE cooling period that I suspect climate scientists would have been forecasting a cataclysmic 'end game' (or at least I'd HOPE they would, just as feverishly as they have this one.)

Why the reversal in 95? Why the decline since 98?

Do these things not beg for an answer when your own example shows the earth 'correcting' what you yourself describe as a dramatic shift.

I think we all agree on clean earth... it's just a question of how much theory we're willing to accept to be 'scared' into bad decisions

Question for carifaction, which are meaning 1100 BC, the Hekla 3 eruption and 18 year cooler northern climate or the Younger Dryas 11,000 BC, the dramatic climate shift that ended around 10,000 BC.

I mean the period on the graph presented that depicts the incredibly sharp and deep decline into the coldest period on the chart... FAR more extreme (away from the norm) than any warm period presented... but your reply is actually my point...

There was a natural event that caused severe changes in our climate... followed by a natural event that caused a severe reversal of that change...

all without any 'help' from man.

Which begs the question... would the warming in (using your examples) 1082 or 10,000bc have happened if the cooling in 1100 and 11,000 BC hadn't happened? Was one event CAUSED by the other... meaning was the cooling reaction one to the volcano and the warming reaction two... or was the warming a reaction to the cooling and not the volcano that caused the cooling.

If it was the former, then man's impact on the environment would require a similar related 'reversing' action... which may or may not exist... and closer study of the causes of the recent 'hockey sticks' would be warranted... because obviously there is some cooling response to what man is doing as well as the warming response (just as in 1100 BC)... OR, the earth is dynamic and is reacting to counter man's 'eruption' just as it has things like volcanoes before.

I say man because we all agree man impacts the environment... we are certainly not the ONLY impact, and we can debate that... but if the earth adapts to these changes regardless of the cause, then there really isn't much of a point in that debate.

Making a dumb 'for instance'... because i'm not a climatologist... if the emission of CO2 acts as a blanket warming the earth... but a warmer earth acts as a heat sink reversing this trend... (a theory that I just made up based on the postulate that the deep oceans are acting as a heat sink to explain the hockey stick we are seeing.... then irrational fears of melting polar ice caps and global flooding are just that... so we can end that debate and focus on the fact that clean air (as in the picture of the dirty city) is plenty of reason enough to want to look for ways to reduce these emissions.

The bottom line to my position is that when people act like there is an absolute and imminent threat (the sky is falling) and any evidence to the contrary is ignored or shouted down... it naturally causes skepticism. When that skepticism is met with derision, it causes lines to be drawn in the sand. That is what is happening here. Unless they can absolutely prove it (by observation, not theory) then the climate change people need to focus on the 'dirty air'... reduce c02 emissions where we can and plant more trees to absorb more to take care of those areas where we can't... and not get into this 'carbon credit trading' money grab.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
02-14-2014 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #28
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Yet a single Volcano can decrease the earth's temperature by .25 degrees for a year and an earth quake, the Boxing Day quake the started the tsunami in the Indian ocean caused the earth to move a 1/2 degree of it's axis.

Ok a Volcano lowers temps by 0.25 degrees. That is way smaller than the measured warming but i Digress...

So one year later that 0.25 degree drop is gone...

Does that not sound self correcting to you?

They would call that proof of global warming.

No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Which, in this case, corrected itself in the time the earth went once around the sun..

I'm not saying that I buy the "do whatever you want the earth will be fine" but damn if you did not pick a terrible example.
02-14-2014 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #29
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

What happened to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets since 2005? It' seems like that data is taken from an insignificantly small period of time to show a decrease in ice to support a desired outcome.
02-14-2014 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #30
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Bet Greenland wouldn't mind growing food.
02-14-2014 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #31
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 09:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Yet a single Volcano can decrease the earth's temperature by .25 degrees for a year and an earth quake, the Boxing Day quake the started the tsunami in the Indian ocean caused the earth to move a 1/2 degree of it's axis.

Ok a Volcano lowers temps by 0.25 degrees. That is way smaller than the measured warming but i Digress...

So one year later that 0.25 degree drop is gone...

Does that not sound self correcting to you?

They would call that proof of global warming.

No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Which, in this case, corrected itself in the time the earth went once around the sun..

I'm not saying that I buy the "do whatever you want the earth will be fine" but damn if you did not pick a terrible example.

And BIE demonstrates what logic looks like.
02-14-2014 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #32
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 10:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

What happened to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets since 2005? It' seems like that data is taken from an insignificantly small period of time to show a decrease in ice to support a desired outcome.

What has happened since, still receding at an increased rate as it has been since the early 1900's. The quoted passage is from a single experiment conducted by NASA.

But, keep ignoring the evidence that right in front of your face,

The Larsen Ice shelf, actually 3 of them, Larsen B had been stable for atleast 12,500 years or since before the end of the last ice age.

The Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated in January 1995. The Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in February 2002. The Larsen C ice shelf appeared to be stable in 2008, though scientists predict that, if localized warming continues at its current rate, the shelf could disintegrate at some point within the foreseeable future.

The Larsen disintegration events were unusual by past standards. Typically, ice shelves lose mass by iceberg calving and by melting at their upper and lower surfaces. The disintegration events are linked to the ongoing climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, about 0.5 °C per decade since the late 1940s, which is a consequence of localized warming of the Antarctic peninsula.This localized warming is caused by anthropogenic global warming, according to some scientists through strengthening of the Antarctic annular winds.

[Image: Fragments_of_Larsen_B_Ice_Shelf_Lingered_Until_2005.gif]

[Image: Larsen_B_Collapse.jpg]

[Image: Larsen_B_collapse.jpg]

During 31 January 2002–7 March 2002 the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick disintegrated, meaning an ice shelf covering an area comparable in size to the US state of Rhode Island collapsed in a single season. Despite its great age, the Larsen B was clearly in trouble at the time of the collapse. With warm currents eating away the underside of the shelf, it had become a "hotspot of global warming." What especially surprised glaciologists was the speed of the breakup, which was a mere three weeks. A factor they had not anticipated was the powerful effects of liquid water; ponds of meltwater formed on the surface during the near 24 hours of daylight in the summertime, then the water flowed down into cracks and, acting like a multitude of wedges, levered the shelf apart, almost in one fell swoop.

Although the remaining Larsen C region, which is the furthest south, appears to be relatively stable for now,[12] continued warming could lead to its breakup within the next decade.[13] If disintegration should occur with this last major sector, which is larger in size than the US states of New Hampshire and Vermont will largely be gone in just over a century after its discovery.

Also, The speed of Crane Glacier increased threefold after the collapse of the Larsen B and this is likely to be due to the removal of a buttressing effect of the ice shelf.[15] Data collected in 2007 by an international team of investigators through satellite-based radar measurements suggests that the overall ice-sheet mass balance in Antarctica is increasingly negative.

And this on the North-West Passage,

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observ...in_history


2007 Envisat mosaic of Arctic Ocean
14 September 2007
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level this week since satellite measurements began nearly 30 years ago, opening up the Northwest Passage – a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable.

In the mosaic image above, created from nearly 200 images acquired in early September 2007 by the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument aboard ESA’s Envisat satellite, the dark gray colour represents the ice-free areas while green represents areas with sea ice.

Leif Toudal Pedersen from the Danish National Space Centre said: "We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.


Mosaics of Arctic Ocean for 2005, 2006, 2007
"The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected and that we urgently need to understand better the processes involved."

Arctic sea ice naturally extends its surface coverage each northern winter and recedes each northern summer, but the rate of overall loss since 1978 when satellite records began has accelerated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...13924.html

But it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age.

So what has changed that has caused the record ice melt in both the north and south poles, especially the north which hasn't been free of ice for anyone to able to sail for the last 125,000 years? The first time was 1906, but now opens on a yearly basis and longer and longer periods every year, dissipate the apperant pause in tempature increases globally the ice is still disappearing at a record rate. Why? Answer that question.
02-14-2014 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #33
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 09:51 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 02:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 12:56 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Yet a single Volcano can decrease the earth's temperature by .25 degrees for a year and an earth quake, the Boxing Day quake the started the tsunami in the Indian ocean caused the earth to move a 1/2 degree of it's axis.

Ok a Volcano lowers temps by 0.25 degrees. That is way smaller than the measured warming but i Digress...

So one year later that 0.25 degree drop is gone...

Does that not sound self correcting to you?

They would call that proof of global warming.

No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Which, in this case, corrected itself in the time the earth went once around the sun..

I'm not saying that I buy the "do whatever you want the earth will be fine" but damn if you did not pick a terrible example.

It wasn't a "correction" it was just natural weather patterns that filtered the ash out of the air over time, there was no marked increase in storms for the following year, as to take a corrective action.

It's a good example, a single event, limited measurable impact, with measurable recovery time. What scienctists that support Gobal Warming and Climate sift are saying, is our world wide CO2 emissions aren't a single event that starts and then ends, it is continuing and increasing as the human population increases and more countries industrialize themselves. And, is now a major driving force in Gobal warming. There thousands of studies showing that man is a major factor now in Gobal warming. Now, simple question, prove with multiple scources, from multiple scientists that have conducting hundreds of peer reviewed experiments that show man isn't doing this or that the earth will auto-correct without an extreme shift.
02-14-2014 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #34
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Going on 17 years now of no warming.
02-14-2014 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #35
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Were in the hell did all the global warming causing CO2 go?
02-14-2014 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #36
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 09:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 08:12 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 07:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(02-13-2014 06:36 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  No, I would call a sign of how delicate the climate is balanced and how small pushes and cause major shifts.

Yes, I believe the world will balance itself out, that not to say that balance will be a climate we been in the last 9,000 years.

But there WAS no 'net' major shift. There was an event that caused the world to cool, and the earth corrected it.

Question...

Do you dispute the temperature chart that (I believe) clarion panther posted in this thread?

If you do, do you have another to offer?

If you accept it, what happened in 1100 BC, because we know it wasn't man-made... and if anything, don't we seem to be trending towards a COLDER earth? Not saying that pollution is good by any measure... but best I recall, it has always been FREEZES that have lead to a decline in civilization in earth's history... and wouldn't these actions, while 'worse' on the warm side actually be BETTER on the cold side?

I understand that it is 'convenient' that our warming trend began around the founding of this country... but that ended an INCREDIBLE cooling period that I suspect climate scientists would have been forecasting a cataclysmic 'end game' (or at least I'd HOPE they would, just as feverishly as they have this one.)

Why the reversal in 95? Why the decline since 98?

Do these things not beg for an answer when your own example shows the earth 'correcting' what you yourself describe as a dramatic shift.

I think we all agree on clean earth... it's just a question of how much theory we're willing to accept to be 'scared' into bad decisions

Question for carifaction, which are meaning 1100 BC, the Hekla 3 eruption and 18 year cooler northern climate or the Younger Dryas 11,000 BC, the dramatic climate shift that ended around 10,000 BC.

I mean the period on the graph presented that depicts the incredibly sharp and deep decline into the coldest period on the chart... FAR more extreme (away from the norm) than any warm period presented... but your reply is actually my point...

There was a natural event that caused severe changes in our climate... followed by a natural event that caused a severe reversal of that change...

all without any 'help' from man.

Which begs the question... would the warming in (using your examples) 1082 or 10,000bc have happened if the cooling in 1100 and 11,000 BC hadn't happened? Was one event CAUSED by the other... meaning was the cooling reaction one to the volcano and the warming reaction two... or was the warming a reaction to the cooling and not the volcano that caused the cooling.

If it was the former, then man's impact on the environment would require a similar related 'reversing' action... which may or may not exist... and closer study of the causes of the recent 'hockey sticks' would be warranted... because obviously there is some cooling response to what man is doing as well as the warming response (just as in 1100 BC)... OR, the earth is dynamic and is reacting to counter man's 'eruption' just as it has things like volcanoes before.

I say man because we all agree man impacts the environment... we are certainly not the ONLY impact, and we can debate that... but if the earth adapts to these changes regardless of the cause, then there really isn't much of a point in that debate.

Making a dumb 'for instance'... because i'm not a climatologist... if the emission of CO2 acts as a blanket warming the earth... but a warmer earth acts as a heat sink reversing this trend... (a theory that I just made up based on the postulate that the deep oceans are acting as a heat sink to explain the hockey stick we are seeing.... then irrational fears of melting polar ice caps and global flooding are just that... so we can end that debate and focus on the fact that clean air (as in the picture of the dirty city) is plenty of reason enough to want to look for ways to reduce these emissions.

The bottom line to my position is that when people act like there is an absolute and imminent threat (the sky is falling) and any evidence to the contrary is ignored or shouted down... it naturally causes skepticism. When that skepticism is met with derision, it causes lines to be drawn in the sand. That is what is happening here. Unless they can absolutely prove it (by observation, not theory) then the climate change people need to focus on the 'dirty air'... reduce c02 emissions where we can and plant more trees to absorb more to take care of those areas where we can't... and not get into this 'carbon credit trading' money grab.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Oh, the second graph, okay, we'll that one is a bit deceiving, that extreme cold period your talking about "the little ice age" starting at about the same time as Helka 3's massive eruption and seemingly extended with some 90 other major volcanic eruptions was only about 3 degrees average Gobal tempature of the mean on the graph and only 5 degrees off from the average tempature recorded in 1998. That screams volcanic winter, extended by the sher number of eruptions 90 major eruptions.

Also, edit needed from other posts, it was 1991, Mt. Pintubo and cooled world wide tempatures for 2-3 years.

The effects of volcanic eruptions on recent winters are modest in scale, but historically have been significant. Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887-1888 included powerful blizzards.Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the "Year Without a Summer" of 1816.
02-14-2014 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #37
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
No kid in high school today has experienced any appreciable global warming.

Every kid in elementary school has only experienced a slight global cooling.

They still teach AGW as fact though.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2014 07:10 PM by Paul M.)
02-14-2014 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecumbh1999 Offline
Keeper of the Code
*

Posts: 11,888
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 255
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #38
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 07:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Were in the hell did all the global warming causing CO2 go?

Can you not read? It hasn't gone anywhere. The average Gobal tempature maybe somewhat stable, but the graph still clearly shows warming. The effects are greater at the poles. The topics are somewhat cooler due the El Niño and La Niña cycles. Average Gobal tempature even going back to the last ice age wasn't too much cooler than today.

Answer the one of the questions I proposed, if the Gobal tempature is stable and nowhere on earth as has gotten warmer in 17 years, then why are polar ice sheets STILL melting and have increased their rate of melting over that said 17 years?
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2014 07:14 PM by ecumbh1999.)
02-14-2014 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #39
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 07:13 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-14-2014 07:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Were in the hell did all the global warming causing CO2 go?

Can you not read? It hasn't gone anywhere. The average Gobal tempature maybe somewhat stable, but the graph still clearly shows warming. The effects are greater at the poles. The topics are somewhat cooler due the El Niño and La Niña cycles. Average Gobal tempature even going back to the last ice age wasn't too much cooler than today.

Answer the one of the questions I proposed, if the Gobal tempature is stable and nowhere on earth as has gotten warmer in 17 years, then why are polar ice sheets STILL melting and have increased their rate of melting over that said 17 years?

I read fine. I'm well aware the CO2 hasn't gone anywhere. That was the point.

Now as for your reading skills, where did I say global temps are stable? Where did I say nowhere on earth has it gotten warmer?

If you put an ice cube in the oven, it still might be colder than yesterday outside.
02-14-2014 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #40
RE: 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
(02-14-2014 07:13 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  
(02-14-2014 07:01 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Were in the hell did all the global warming causing CO2 go?

Can you not read? It hasn't gone anywhere. The average Gobal tempature maybe somewhat stable, but the graph still clearly shows warming. The effects are greater at the poles. The topics are somewhat cooler due the El Niño and La Niña cycles. Average Gobal tempature even going back to the last ice age wasn't too much cooler than today.

Answer the one of the questions I proposed, if the Gobal tempature is stable and nowhere on earth as has gotten warmer in 17 years, then why are polar ice sheets STILL melting and have increased their rate of melting over that said 17 years?

The polar ice sheets are melting? You mean including Antarctica?
02-16-2014 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.