Over the past few weeks I've browsed through the spin room and have seen the various threads of the temperatures around the globe. One side effect of the ice caps melting is the amount of fresh water that goes into the polar regions. Saltier water is heavier water. So when this heavier water sinks it is replaced by warmer waters from the tropics. It is known as the thermo haline convection current. Great Britain has enjoyed typically warmer winters and the Western Scandanavian countries have enjoyed open sea ports side because of this.
This cold snap is manna from heaven at an opportune time for the global warming deniers political fortunes but unfortunately these cold winters actually show up in models. I see Britain has actually recieved a great deal of snow this winter. Highly unusual.
But it is as simple as "no warmer weather means no climate change."
We're still waiting on the evidence for AGW.
In the meantime, evidence contradicting the theory is mounting.
NO ONE CLAIMS THAT CLIMATE DOESN'T CHANGE. It did in the past, it does today and it will tomorrow. It does daily. Always has, always will.
Only thing new is that suddenly, what has always happened, is going to kill all of us.
Do we have to go through this again? If any scientist, any society, any BODY presented ANY evidence of contradicting the theory of global warming, It would no longer be a theory. To get through to the STATUS of a theory it has NEVER been disproven. Give me ONE scientific society that has presented any evidence to the contrary. I'll save you the time. You won't find any because it is still a theory.
A theory means that it has not been proved or disproved. Its existence as a theory means that other theories may also be advanced, until they are either proved or disproved.
There are groups with substantial credentials that have presented evidence to the contrary. Those groups have not made it through to the peer-reviewed literature, because the peers doing the gatekeeping are all in the global warming camp. Keep in mind that Copernicus and Galileo could not have gotten their theories published in the peer-reviewed literature of their day.
It does appear to me that we are in a warming trend, but it is not as clear how much of it is caused by man, or how much we can do do to reverse it. Given the uncertainties, I think the prudent thing is to do what we can to limit and ultimately eliminate any man-made actions that may add to the problem. That doesn't extend to letting the third world extort billions or trillions.
That position puts me in the middle, between the extremists on both sides. And that gives me some perspective to skewer the really stupid ideas advanced from both fringes.
Sorry Owl. I don't make a habit of disagreeing with you because I'd probably end up on the wrong side of the stick, but on this one. I'm right. A theory has never been proven. It doesn't work that way. It's not the nature of science. Science NEVER PROVES. It only disproves.
Owl,
I'm not really sure what really stupid ideas are being advanced from the so-called "denier" fringe. We simple don't believe there is enough evidence that we should destroy our own economy. Those on one side believe their religion is true. If you don't agree with them, I don't think they believe there is any room for agnostics. To them you are just another denier who must be converted into a tithing member of the congregation.
(01-13-2010 09:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Do we have to go through this again? If any scientist, any society, any BODY presented ANY evidence of contradicting the theory of global warming, It would no longer be a theory. To get through to the STATUS of a theory it has NEVER been disproven. Give me ONE scientific society that has presented any evidence to the contrary. I'll save you the time. You won't find any because it is still a theory.
What are you rambling about?
FIRST, if some society poses a theory, THEY have the obligation to provide evidence. Stop demanding someone to "disprove" the theory. That's ignorant.
Second, there
is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
You previously asked for objections, I provided names, MIT, UC Boulder, Canada, Australia.
And there is no obilgation for a "society" to present it. That's ridiculous. Stop treating science like it's a gnostic religion guarded by some high priests.
And if you really want to look at the evidence, you can start at a number of places including,
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
or here
http://climateaudit.org/2010/
Where they don't have Phil Jones and Michael Mann threatening researchers and fraudulently manipulating data (all been demonstrated!)
(01-13-2010 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Owl. I don't make a habit of disagreeing with you because I'd probably end up on the wrong side of the stick, but on this one. I'm right. A theory has never been proven. It doesn't work that way. It's not the nature of science. Science NEVER PROVES. It only disproves.
You keep repeating the same fallacies over and over.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_proo...experiment
We know you're going to offer the same illogical arguments, despite reams of contrary evidence. Maybe you could save us time cataloguing your objestions and simply offering posts that read, "I disagree based on Silly Reason #7".
In the face of anything that is contradictory to what one just insists on believing no matter the inconvenient truths to the contrary, it it simply to easy to close ones eyes, put your fingers in your ears and chant na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,na,...
The global warming people are now claiming that they have said all along that warming would lead to cooling. I don't see a problem then if it is self correcting.
(01-13-2010 10:36 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]The global warming people are now claiming that they have said all along that warming would lead to cooling. I don't see a problem then if it is self correcting.
Let's see, so it goes like: warming, cooling, warming, cooling...
Wow, how much money has been spent on this?
Well since you guys asked....................... The problem is when the cycles happen faster than evolution. For instance. Let's say "species A" hatch time evolved over time to coincide with "Species B" migration. Let's say A is the secondary level consumer that feeds on insect B. Well with warming Species B hatches two to three weeks earlier and life cycle completes just as Species A come to town. This is a recipe for ecosystem collapse. These types of interactions are now happening.
Trying to act intelligent Mach? 'Cause it ain't working.
Man-made GW is BS.
and it's cooling in places that were once warmer and it's getting hotter in places that were once cooler. I would bet a wooden nickel The equitorial countries are experiencing minor heat waves with the slowing down of the THCC.
(01-13-2010 09:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Do we have to go through this again? If any scientist, any society, any BODY presented ANY evidence of contradicting the theory of global warming, It would no longer be a theory. To get through to the STATUS of a theory it has NEVER been disproven. Give me ONE scientific society that has presented any evidence to the contrary. I'll save you the time. You won't find any because it is still a theory.
I can't quote the scientific society because I'm not going to do the google, but I'm 100% certain that some well respected scientists have disputed the theory of global warming. I've seen headlines/papers about "600 scientists dispute global warming"... so while it may not be common thought, they have certainly presented evidence to the contrary on the theory of global warming. Their theory is that this theory is crap... and you can't disprove them either.
(01-13-2010 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Owl. I don't make a habit of disagreeing with you because I'd probably end up on the wrong side of the stick, but on this one. I'm right. A theory has never been proven. It doesn't work that way. It's not the nature of science. Science NEVER PROVES. It only disproves.
In the abstract this is somewhat true... but we don't live in the abstract. MOST scientific theories start debate and conversation... but they also take steps to prove their theory. They postulate that planets or electrons exist, and then design experiments or develop technology to observe, prove or disprove their theories. If they prove or disprove them, THEN we react to them... but not before. Scientists might ask us to fund research which is absolutely fine, but they don't ask taxpayers to spend trillions of dollars to combat something that they simply can't disprove. Politicians do. Why? Because controlling money means power... not to mention the chance to turn some of that money into their OWN money. Politicians have the burden of proof.
As a scientist I could say that in 10,000 years we will have evolved into two societies... one above and one below... the one above will be like sheep to the cannibals below. Maybe we should pass laws that we all turn vegan in order to combat this theory because you can't prove me wrong. I could show you charts and graphs about the total consumption of meat in the world... then I could show you that human populations have grown at a faster rate than cattle population and extract global population growth to the point where humans look below to find more space... and yet still above, start squeezing out cattle for space. We will pollute our waters to the point where fish aren't a viable option for food. Those below will have greater control over water and the earth so those above will become subserviant, and the greatest source of meat will be man. There is absolutely no way to prove my theory wrong, other than to peer into the future... but that doesn't mean we should spend trillions of dollars to combat my fears... even if I can get millions of people to support my theory. More importantly, It irritates the living hell out of me to thing that now the rest of the world who has certainly benefited from technological advances of "the developed world" in many ways, now suddenly is owed a massive debt.
Besides, we've set the bar so low for demanding buckets of money that the basic argument NOW is that man impacts the environment... give me billions... well no crap. So do sea slugs and cows. I don't see THEM spending trillions of dollars to reduce their carbon footprint.... and I REALLY don't see them attempting to "shame" the other slugs and cows because they aren't (in the other slugs and cow's opinions) doing enough to combat this unproven theory.
Global warming... but temps are down... more violent weather.... but fewer storms than in the past... melting ice packs in the north, but the south is growing... See, Climate change!!! When the only REAL proof is that the earth has been going through phases forever.
(01-13-2010 10:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]This is a recipe for ecosystem collapse. These types of interactions are now happening.
and they have always happened. Look at the period from roughly 1920-1970. Scientists similarly postulated global cooling that would "end" us... certainly, if that trend had continued for 100-1000 years, species would have collapsed.... guess what??
EVENTUALLY, ONE of these theories is going to be right.
The areas that I would look at would be the Eastern Coast of Equitorial Africa and the Eastern Carribean near the equator. Kenya would be too influenced by the African Land mass.