Electoral Member
Posts: 689 
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
March 11th, 2008, 02:18 AM
But you do have a point. Such geologic time scales are so extensive that the little blip that represents our existence is insignificant. Perhaps it's a matter of using the wrong semantics. After all, the topic at hand is the imminent return of an ice age which has a 100,000 yr. rotation, considerably less than the geologic time frames you mentioned.
They predicted it would grow? I always thought they said it would melt.
Quoting Tonington
The term "geologic time scale" only means that we are referring to an immensely long time frame. Just because it isn't of a fixed duration doesn't mean it can't compare. After all, a human time scale is also not of a fixed length.
No, a second and an hour are units of time. Geologic time scales of course are made up of units of time, but they aren't differentiated by set time periods, they are unequal in their distribution of time. They are separated by events, mostly the arrival of new fossil assemblages. The time scales are millions of years and more, and we haven't been here more than 200,000 years. Even less time as recorded history. Saying we live in a geologic scale is meaningless, as geologic scales create sedimentary rock, fossilize animals, create petroleum and other minerals. They aren't being replaced as we use them.
But you do have a point. Such geologic time scales are so extensive that the little blip that represents our existence is insignificant. Perhaps it's a matter of using the wrong semantics. After all, the topic at hand is the imminent return of an ice age which has a 100,000 yr. rotation, considerably less than the geologic time frames you mentioned.
Quoting Tonington
Yes, I know, you mentioned that before. I contend that there is such evidence. That's what we're discussing.
Look, I'm not saying there will never be an ice age, I'm saying there is no evidence that we're on the cusp of anything close to what would be considered an ice age.
Quoting Tonington
As would be expected until the next ice age actually begins. I didn't say that it was here, just that it was coming soon.
The ice sheets and glaciers are still in retreat, some show signs of speeding up,
Quoting Tonington
Really?
the Antarctic sheet is behaving exactly as was predicted by some of the very first climate models back in 1981,
They predicted it would grow? I always thought they said it would melt. Quoting Tonington
Due to unusual winds that moved it into currents that took it south. And not necessarily the smallest ever, they've only been measuring since 1978, the tail end of a 30 year cooling, so the decrease would be expected.
and the multi-year ice in the Arctic was the smallest ever last summer.
Quoting Tonington
And this winters sea ice cover is greater than any time since 1980, right close to the end of that 30 year cooling. And 20% thicker than last year as well. Not to mention that Antarctic sea ice cover last winter was greater than ever measured before.
Of course it grows back in the winter, that's what happens, but it isn't replacing the thick multi-year ice.
Quoting Tonington
Your mistake is in using current trends to extrapolate an event that may not arrive for 10, 100 or even 1000 years. You won't find them predictive until the actual event occurs. My contention is that based on past events and patterns, we're due.
Species are progressing Northward in our hemisphere, not south.
No signs of an ice age on the horizon.
No signs of an ice age on the horizon.
Electoral Member
Posts: 689
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
March 11th, 2008, 02:22 AM
Quoting Cobalt_Kid
Why, that would be Tonington himself.
[...] people who have an amazing ability to ignore overwhelming evidence.
Electoral Member
Posts: 689
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
March 11th, 2008, 02:26 AM
Al Gore was invited to speak at the conference. They even offered his standard $200,000 fee. He refused.
Quoting smac972
One weatherman????
Man, I've written pages about this already. So, I'll be quick.
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman.
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman.
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
Quote:
www.climatescienceinternational.org
MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
ICSC
International Climate Science Coalition
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
ICSC
International Climate Science Coalition
Al Gore was invited to speak at the conference. They even offered his standard $200,000 fee. He refused.
March 11th, 2008, 12:38 PM
Quoting Extrafire
For all intents and purposes, it is, in comparison to geologic boundaries.
The term "geologic time scale" only means that we are referring to an immensely long time frame. Just because it isn't of a fixed duration doesn't mean it can't compare. After all, a human time scale is also not of a fixed length.
Quote:
It's not insignificant on our scales, which is the whole point.
But you do have a point. Such geologic time scales are so extensive that the little blip that represents our existence is insignificant. Perhaps it's a matter of using the wrong semantics. After all, the topic at hand is the imminent return of an ice age which has a 100,000 yr. rotation, considerably less than the geologic time frames you mentioned.
Quote:
So, again I'll ask for that evidence, as I have a few times already.
Yes, I know, you mentioned that before. I contend that there is such evidence. That's what we're discussing.
Quote:
That's a pretty brave assumption. Do you know what the forcing was that caused the shift from warming to ice age? Is it more or less than our anthropogenic forcing?
As would be expected until the next ice age actually begins. I didn't say that it was here, just that it was coming soon.
Quote:
Nope. That only enforces the idea if a lie is told often enough, people will accept it as truth. In 1980, Martin I. Hoffert, et al. found that more water, such as the Southern ocean, would delay the warming response by decades. Then in 1981, Stephen H. Schneider and S.L. Thompson found that the delay would be longer than initially thought, that if we only used simple equilibrium models, that we would still be mislead in this decade(2000-2010). Then in 1988, Kirk Bryan et al. showed that there would be a slight cooling for 50 years, even while the rest of the planet warms. The models since then have all found the same thing, though with some changes. The models have, for instance, predicted that the Western Antarctic peninsula would warm. It's actually the fastest warming location on the planet.
Really? They predicted it would grow? I always thought they said it would melt.
They predicted it would grow? I always thought they said it would melt.
Quote:
So now changing winds aren't to be expected, even though climate is long term weather patterns? Funny, the predictions have mentioned changing wind patterns. Sea surface temperatures were also warmer that summer. But it does appear to be anomalous. That happens with seasonal weather
Due to unusual winds that moved it into currents that took it south. And not necessarily the smallest ever, they've only been measuring since 1978, the tail end of a 30 year cooling, so the decrease would be expected.
Quote:
Again, two anomolies back to back. The overall trend is still one of decreasing Arctic ice, and increasing Antarctic ice.
And this winters sea ice cover is greater than any time since 1980, right close to the end of that 30 year cooling. And 20% thicker than last year as well. Not to mention that Antarctic sea ice cover last winter was greater than ever measured before.
Quote:
One thousand years away, could be even longer than that. Funny though how your ilk has suggested that current trends mean we're switching to a cooling phase, despite the long term trends.
Your mistake is in using current trends to extrapolate an event that may not arrive for 10, 100 or even 1000 years. You won't find them predictive until the actual event occurs. My contention is that based on past events and patterns, we're due.
Council Member
Posts: 1,822 
March 14th, 2008, 06:15 AM
Major Highlights
Major Highlights
NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
March 18th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Icebergs Melting, Seals Disappearing, Arctic Warming
by <A href="http://amerpundit.com/">AmerPundit |
This just in from the Washington Post:
That was one of the original alarms, before people decided the problem was actually global cooling, then all of a sudden again decided the problem is warming. How long before the next man-made global warming/cooling scare changes?
“No, seriously! We’re sure this time…uh, we think.”
1922. Must’ve been the year of the SUV.
Icebergs Melting, Seals Disappearing, Arctic Warming
by <A href="http://amerpundit.com/">AmerPundit |
This just in from the Washington Post:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.Wait a second…Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd…1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
That was one of the original alarms, before people decided the problem was actually global cooling, then all of a sudden again decided the problem is warming. How long before the next man-made global warming/cooling scare changes?
“No, seriously! We’re sure this time…uh, we think.”
1922. Must’ve been the year of the SUV.
Electoral Member
Posts: 205
March 19th, 2008, 07:37 AM
It really doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not anyway. The climate has always changed and always will no matter what we do. There is nothing we can do that will stop or reverse it as the planet is a dynamic and changing system. Anyone who thinks that we can go back to another time is just not thinking, the problem is whether or not as a species we can adapt to a new environment. If we do not change or adapt then we will go extinct and something else will become dominant as nature will not tolerate a static non changing process( remember evolution). We cannot stand there Canute like trying to hold back the tide and those who say we can stop or reverse climate change are just plain wrong and doing more damage than good. The natural process for life is extinction as most species only last about 2 million years and over 98% of all life that preceded us is now gone. Failure to change or adapt and we will go the way of all those others anyway no matter what the climate is like. I mean we don't have a God given right to exist forever do we............
It really doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not anyway. The climate has always changed and always will no matter what we do. There is nothing we can do that will stop or reverse it as the planet is a dynamic and changing system. Anyone who thinks that we can go back to another time is just not thinking, the problem is whether or not as a species we can adapt to a new environment. If we do not change or adapt then we will go extinct and something else will become dominant as nature will not tolerate a static non changing process( remember evolution). We cannot stand there Canute like trying to hold back the tide and those who say we can stop or reverse climate change are just plain wrong and doing more damage than good. The natural process for life is extinction as most species only last about 2 million years and over 98% of all life that preceded us is now gone. Failure to change or adapt and we will go the way of all those others anyway no matter what the climate is like. I mean we don't have a God given right to exist forever do we............
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
March 20th, 2008, 06:32 AM
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
Stuart Westmorland
Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · 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.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
Stuart Westmorland
Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · 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.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
Electoral Member
Posts: 689
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
March 20th, 2008, 03:42 PM
You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.
They present no evidence or reasoning for that claim because they have none. Their problem is that they've invested so much of their credibility in AGW hypothesis that they don't feel that they can backtrack now.
However, the global cooling is entirely consistent with the claims and predictions of the scientists who study the sun.
Quoting Tonington
So, again I'll ask for that evidence, as I have a few times already.
Sigh. I have already given you that evidence, but you refuse to accept it. I'll try again.So, again I'll ask for that evidence, as I have a few times already.
You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.
Quoting Tonington
OK, I'll play along. I'll pretend that AGW is true, just this once. Again, look at the temperature drop of an ice age. Now compare that to the slight increase in temps feared by the alarmists, not even half as much as the themps for most of the holocene. Which do you think is stronger? That's a pretty brave assumption. Do you know what the forcing was that caused the shift from warming to ice age? Is it more or less than our anthropogenic forcing?
Quoting Tonington
All kinds of weather are to be expected. However, while they were natural in the past, now that we have "AGW", all weather is a result of global warming. Drought or deluge, windy or calm, hot or cold, it's all caused by global warming. So now changing winds aren't to be expected, even though climate is long term weather patterns? Funny, the predictions have mentioned changing wind patterns. Sea surface temperatures were also warmer that summer. But it does appear to be anomalous. That happens with seasonal weather
Quoting Tonington
Could be anomalies. The warming (and the cooling too when that's the trend) isn't a steady straight line, but an erratic trend, with ups and downs all the time. But this isn't just a matter of weather. We had unusual and record cold over the southern hemisphere (their) last winter followed by the same in the northern hemisphere this (our) winter, and at the same time, an unusually cool summer in the southern hemisphere. Hmmm....northern hemisphere plus southern hemisphere....that's global. Something not predicted by the alarmists. A global cooling which could be an anomaly if it was caused by solar fluctuations. At first the alarmists said it wasn't happening. Then they said it was just weather anomalies in localized areas, which was predicted. Now the evidence is so overwhelming and so public they can't deny it any more, and so they've admitted that it does appear to be a cooling globe, but they hasten to assure us that this current global cooling is caused by....global warming! Again, two anomolies back to back. The overall trend is still one of decreasing Arctic ice, and increasing Antarctic ice.
They present no evidence or reasoning for that claim because they have none. Their problem is that they've invested so much of their credibility in AGW hypothesis that they don't feel that they can backtrack now.However, the global cooling is entirely consistent with the claims and predictions of the scientists who study the sun.
Quoting Tonington
Well, my ilk isn't suggesting that. What we have suggested is that it's a long term warming trend, consistent with past warming patterns and solar variations. That it's an erratic warming trend because it's comprised of two cycles of differing durations. That the solar evidence indicates we're about to enter a cooling period similar to the last one from the '30's to the '70's. (Some of them suggest it may be similar to the LIA, but we aren't anywhere near that part of the cycle yet.) That the long term trend is global warming, caused by the sun.
One thousand years away, could be even longer than that. Funny though how your ilk has suggested that current trends mean we're switching to a cooling phase, despite the long term trends.
March 20th, 2008, 05:26 PM
I never said anything about more likely, I simply said you have no evidence to state that an ice age is upon us, except to say that some interglacials lasted about as long as our current interglacial. That is not evidence, nor is it a hypothesis. How do you test that hypothesis? Wait and see doesn't fly in science. Maybe you can find evidence of the Milankovitch cycles coming around, or maybe you've seen models of the future solar cycles. I haven't seen it, nor have you stated such a fact. That would be an entirely different story altogether. That is after all why I asked you for forcings.
I'll eat my toque if the temperature record isn't broken in the next ten years(due to differences in datsets, let's define that as GISS dataset has a new record based on their warmest year, and Hadley has a new record based on their warmest year). I'll eat my favourite t-shirt if the Arctic isn't 90% ice free during one summer before 2020.
What will you do when these things do happen? Will you admit that your predictions of similar cooling to the 40's were based on incorrect theory, and consider the AGW theory? I'm obviously confident they will happen. I will revise my views if things turn out differently.
Quoting Extrafire
I agree there will be another ice age. I agree there have been past interglacials of about 12,000 years. The evidence is in the same place you're incorrectly using to infer that a new ice age is upon us. Why is it incorrect to assume as you are now? The same place that tells us that there have been 12,000 year interglacials also shows us that there have been much longer interglacials. Marine isotope stage 11 lasted from roughly 420 to 360 ka before present.
Sigh. I have already given you that evidence, but you refuse to accept it. I'll try again.
You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.
You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.
I never said anything about more likely, I simply said you have no evidence to state that an ice age is upon us, except to say that some interglacials lasted about as long as our current interglacial. That is not evidence, nor is it a hypothesis. How do you test that hypothesis? Wait and see doesn't fly in science. Maybe you can find evidence of the Milankovitch cycles coming around, or maybe you've seen models of the future solar cycles. I haven't seen it, nor have you stated such a fact. That would be an entirely different story altogether. That is after all why I asked you for forcings.
Quote:
Move goal posts much? I asked about forcings, the perturbations that cause change, in this particular case glaciation, and you give me a temperature graph from Greenland. Temperature is not a forcing, it is a response to a forcing. I'm not saying anything remotely related to one temperature increase being larger than another. We could have a huge positive forcing from greenhouse gases, but be dwarfed by an even larger magnitude negative change in solar irradience, or aerosols. I'm asking you for your evidence of an oncoming glaciation, as caused by changes in the radiative balance.You're failing miserably.
OK, I'll play along. I'll pretend that AGW is true, just this once. Again, look at the temperature drop of an ice age. Now compare that to the slight increase in temps feared by the alarmists, not even half as much as the themps for most of the holocene. Which do you think is stronger?
Quote:
That's a foolish statement that many ignorant folk make. As foolish as the fools claiming global cooling lately during this cold winter.
All kinds of weather are to be expected. However, while they were natural in the past, now that we have "AGW", all weather is a result of global warming. Drought or deluge, windy or calm, hot or cold, it's all caused by global warming.
Quote:
We're in a solar minimum, and in a strong La Nina. Solar fluctuations aren't strong enough by themselves to give us this cold winter. The two warmest years on record (2005,1998) occurred during the low tails of solar cycle variability. I'm not saying solar variability doesn't effect temperatures, just that by themselves, they don't account for the magnitude of changes. As the solar cycle ramps up again in the next 5 years, and they coincide with El Nino's, I expect the 1998/2005 record temperature anomalies to be broke.
Could be anomalies. The warming (and the cooling too when that's the trend) isn't a steady straight line, but an erratic trend, with ups and downs all the time. But this isn't just a matter of weather. We had unusual and record cold over the southern hemisphere (their) last winter followed by the same in the northern hemisphere this (our) winter, and at the same time, an unusually cool summer in the southern hemisphere. Hmmm....northern hemisphere plus southern hemisphere....that's global. Something not predicted by the alarmists. A global cooling which could be an anomaly if it was caused by solar fluctuations.
Quote:
Deny what? That weather is variable? You're hacking a straw man. The globe isn't cooling. Neither NASA GISS or Hadley or the IPCC or RSS or UAH have said anything of the sort. They haven't said this is caused by global warming. They present no evidence, and don't say that because you're right, there is no evidence of that. AGW is not a hypothesis, it's a theory. What is your hypothesis? Is it anything like your ice age claims? :lol:
At first the alarmists said it wasn't happening. Then they said it was just weather anomalies in localized areas, which was predicted. Now the evidence is so overwhelming and so public they can't deny it any more, and so they've admitted that it does appear to be a cooling globe, but they hasten to assure us that this current global cooling is caused by....global warming!8O They present no evidence or reasoning for that claim because they have none. Their problem is that they've invested so much of their credibility in AGW hypothesis that they don't feel that they can backtrack now.
Quote:
As I said earlier, the two warmest years on record happened in the low tails of solar forcing. And the changes are regular, and showing no trend of increasing decreasing over this warming trend of the last 30 odd years. Not at all a useful prediction. You seem to be making the mistake that AGW means no sun involvement. That's false.
However, the global cooling is entirely consistent with the claims and predictions of the scientists who study the sun.
Quote:
Solar variation doesn't explain it.
Well, my ilk isn't suggesting that. What we have suggested is that it's a long term warming trend, consistent with past warming patterns and solar variations.
Quote:
The warming trend doesn't match the solar trend. What's the difference between your predicted long term warming trend, and your predicted ice age? Just curious, when "some of them suggest" the ice age will begin. Time for you folks to make some predictions with your hypotheses. Lets see how they match up.
That it's an erratic warming trend because it's comprised of two cycles of differing durations. That the solar evidence indicates we're about to enter a cooling period similar to the last one from the '30's to the '70's. (Some of them suggest it may be similar to the LIA, but we aren't anywhere near that part of the cycle yet.) That the long term trend is global warming, caused by the sun.
I'll eat my toque if the temperature record isn't broken in the next ten years(due to differences in datsets, let's define that as GISS dataset has a new record based on their warmest year, and Hadley has a new record based on their warmest year). I'll eat my favourite t-shirt if the Arctic isn't 90% ice free during one summer before 2020.
What will you do when these things do happen? Will you admit that your predictions of similar cooling to the 40's were based on incorrect theory, and consider the AGW theory? I'm obviously confident they will happen. I will revise my views if things turn out differently.
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
March 21st, 2008, 09:52 AM
More persuasive arguments from John Coleman
THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
As presented on March 2, 2008
At the Marriot Marquee in New York City
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James Brown, "WOW. I feel Good."
I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it. But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side, the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out, "Wow, I feel Good."
Complete article: http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...AN+FINAL6c.pdf
More persuasive arguments from John Coleman
THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
As presented on March 2, 2008
At the Marriot Marquee in New York City
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James Brown, "WOW. I feel Good."
I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it. But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side, the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out, "Wow, I feel Good."
Complete article: http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...AN+FINAL6c.pdf
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
March 23rd, 2008, 06:52 AM
Bloody facts keep getting in the way of the theory.
ABSTRACT:
Bloody facts keep getting in the way of the theory.
ABSTRACT:
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright: 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright: 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
Complete paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
Council Member
Posts: 1,822
March 24th, 2008, 06:32 AM
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.
