I agree a few can screw things up royally for many.
Someone else can sort out the politics; I'll stick to perusing the data and let it speak for itself.
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Someone else can sort out the politics; I'll stick to perusing the data and let it speak for itself.
Pretty much. Humans in general seem to have a particularly bad sense of priorities.
The real reason for "climate change":
Geomagnetism
Long Term Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
In-depth
See also: Introduction
The change in velocity of the North Magnetic Pole since the early 1970s has been remarkable – 9 km/yr to 41 km/yr. This is clearly seen in the accompanying plot which shows the average rate of motion between observations as a function of time. The acceleration has also increased from 0.22 km/yr2 to 2.21 km/yr2. A change in the velocity of the North Magnetic Pole must be reflected in a corresponding change in both the inclination and the horizontal component of the magnetic field (H). Data from Resolute Bay Observatory, the nearest to the North Magnetic Pole, show that the annual change in H has increased from roughly -10 nT/yr to almost 70 nT/yr during the past half century (top panel of diagram). The increase has not been uniform, but as a series of steps that have occurred in approximately 1970, 1979 and 1990.
Changes in the magnetic field characterized by an abrupt change in the secular variation have been named "(geo)magnetic jerks" or "geomagnetic impulses". Six jerks of global extent have occurred during the past century: in 1901, 1913, 1925, 1969, 1978 and 1992. The last three jerks can be seen clearly as abrupt changes in the slope of the annual change in H at Resolute Bay. The 1969 jerk corresponds to the start of the increase in the speed of the NMP and the two subsequent jerks, especially that near 1992, appear to correlate with additional increases in the speed.
In contrast to its present-day acceleration, the Magnetic Pole showed little apparent motion between 1831 and 1904. It seems highly unlikely that the Pole actually remained stationary for 73 years, but there are no direct observations from which we can determine its motion during that time period. However, we can use spherical harmonic models produced for this time period to infer the track of the North Magnetic Pole. The accompanying plot shows North Magnetic Pole positions at 20 year intervals between 1820 and 1920 calculated from the spherical harmonic models produced by Jackson and colleagues. The model positions are slightly displaced to the north-west of the observed positions. If we adjust the track to best match the observed positions we find that the Magnetic Pole reached its southernmost latitude, 68.8°, in 1860. The year is significant since 1860 is the year of a possible magnetic jerk.
Spherical harmonic models can also be used to estimate the position of the North Magnetic Pole back to approximately 1600. Prior to that time there were too few observations from which reliable models can be produced. It appears that the North Magnetic Pole moved southeast a distance of approximately 860 km between 1760 to 1860. Prior to that is was located in a relatively confined area near 75° N, 110° W.
I've spoken to a number of people that believe polar migration is a significant contributor relative to this issue... I'm a little curious as to why you don't hear much reference to it.
So, show me that all other planets and rocks are warming, and once you've established that, establish that the same cause of Earth's climate change is the same cause for those other planets.
I say he has a reluctance because he specifically asks questions which are answered in links I've already provided. So, I figure the most plausible explanations are that he's either not reading them because he has a closed mind, or he is and doesn't understand them because he has a weak mind.
And you, you're just out to lunch without posting notice at your shop door. I eagerly await the research which shows that which you claim above to be true.
No, it isn't. The driver is a strawman. There is a difference between the major forcing on our climate, and the forcing causing climate change.
Who said anything about sole factor? This is a strawman. You're asking about an explanation now which can explain the past. Well I gave you Richard Alley's talk, and I explained to you how there are multiple factors which can and do cause climate to change. Recent climate change is driven predominantly by one factor, but certainly not solely.
They are explainable...what is it that you aren't understanding?
Watch the video...
Anthropogenic sources cannot and should not explain glaciation, unless we were producing sulfate aerosols at the same rate as say carbon dioxide. Why would you even think that they should? What reason do you have to think this should be corollary? They are completely different in signature, in observed physical and biotic changes, in feedback...however the principles are the same.
Because there is no plausible mechanism to explain the link between polar migration and our observed climate change? That would be why. Though I'm sure you'll find some website on the net devoted to it...
Really? When the MNP was at 55N and the ice was 2km thick over Canada it was just coincidence that Siberia was supporting grazing 2t mammals?
Yuuuuup. Nothing there at all. Look the other way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Attentive readers will note that he gave me no possible mechanism to explain how it could cause climate change. And yes, it is a coincidence...unless you can show me how it isn't.
I'm not looking the other way. You haven't given me anything to look at. Provide something for your claim. Sheesh.
I'm not looking the other way. You haven't given me anything to look at. Provide something for your claim. Sheesh.
The paleo and geological evidence of Siberia's warm climate and diverse species isn't enough to lead you off into questioning geomagnetism and climate further?
What would you like? Biological? Chemical? Statistical? Pleistocene? Holocene? A time line of other coincidences?
How about something you can relate too like migratory species? Can a geomagnetic event change the chemistry of a spawning watershed? How about the chemistry of oceans? Can geomagnetism create a nutrient spike and and plankton blooms capable of long term alteration of Arctic water albedo, surface temperature and thus the climate above that region?
Let me know what you find out and we'll compare notes.
What would you like? Biological? Chemical? Statistical? Pleistocene? Holocene? A time line of other coincidences?
How about something you can relate too like migratory species? Can a geomagnetic event change the chemistry of a spawning watershed? How about the chemistry of oceans? Can geomagnetism create a nutrient spike and and plankton blooms capable of long term alteration of Arctic water albedo, surface temperature and thus the climate above that region?
Let me know what you find out and we'll compare notes.
The driver is a strawman? Do you believe that humanity is having a significant impact - and therefore is a cause - of global warming/climate change or not?
So, the IPCC is promoting anthropegenic global warming as a "strawman" in this debate?
I am not prepared to invest the time on the Richard Alley video. Ultimately if this man's theories/explanation was so highly compelling, then the IPCC et al would have leveraged it and I would have heard.
On the multiple factors component. AGW is all about humanity being a highly significant factor - so much so that curbing relative small volumes will save the planet.
Seeing how the pro-GW "scientists" are making claims that the science is settled and there are no questions that anthropegenic sources are creating the situation, then that's exactly what I'm asking for. This should not be a problem for a movement that makes such strong claims and states that they have models that prove their position, right?
Any functional model (or theory) must be able to explain the past and offer some form of insight into the future otherwise it's a useless contribution. We've all heard the dire predictions of the future but nothing that can explain the past.
See above re: modelling
Differential exposure of polar glaciers to the sun. Factor in the reflective/absorptive qualties is a starting point.
I never said anything about that. I responded to another posters musings about a lack of coverage on this topic. I suggested that it is a lack of physical explanations. Others have suggested cosmogenic isotopes, but those results haven't proved fruitful in the literature.
I like mechanistic and physical explanations when someone asserts something is the cause of an event. Which is why I asked you for it ;-)
Possibly.
Possibly.
1992 and 2003 were both exceptional years for tectonic, solar, tidal, migration issues of beachings of aquatic mammals and flocks of birds being off course etc etc etc and both years are linked to "geomagnetic jerks".
Do an overlay of the CO2/temp graphs with the "geo jerks" graph since 1970 and the correlation is obvious.
Maybe just maybe a butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil can lead to martial law and several thousand of black people corralled into the super dome without food and water if you are broad minded enough to accept Occam's razor and what is staring you in the face.
Do an overlay of the CO2/temp graphs with the "geo jerks" graph since 1970 and the correlation is obvious.
Maybe just maybe a butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil can lead to martial law and several thousand of black people corralled into the super dome without food and water if you are broad minded enough to accept Occam's razor and what is staring you in the face.
Yes, but I do not believe it is the sole cause, which is what you were talking about. It's a strawman. Nobody has found evidence that it is one single cause, I don't assert that it is driven by a single factor, and intelligent discussions should never be so exclusionary...
No. They also find that one factor is more important than others, but they don't say there is one sole factor at play. That may seem trivial in distinction but it is not.
This is flawed logic. The last IPCC report was in 2007, and with data cutoffs for inclusion, their modelling runs went to 2000. Observations a little later, but it's out of date compared to the new studies. For paleo-climate, half a decade is a big step in improving methods, building more datasets, and growing the base of knowledge.
Richard Alley's presentation has much new science which is younger than the latest IPCC report.
Please provide one reference of a 'pro-GW' scientist claiming all science on this topic is settled. One, a direct quote.
Yet you have not produced a single question from the attribution studies I linked to. Reading will provide you with smarter questions, rather than your present attempts which are akin to asking how a snowball can be a blowtorch.
What is it you're not grasping? It's physics. What causes glaciation is not the same as what is causing our current climate change. We know that small orbital changes have "tipped" the energy balance so that the planet will progress in and out of glaciations. Feedbacks are involved.
I mean what do you want? There is nothing inconsistent about greenhouse warming, and orbital inducement of ice ages. They alter the energy budget in different manners, but the systems and the underlying physics are the same.
Let me get this straight... do you think that a pole reversal means the Earth physically moves, and changes it's orientation with respect to the sun? You think that pole migration alters polar insolation?
Ridiculous. A non-starter. :lol: LMAO
As I clearly stated in my last post: A cause and a significant factor.
You are deliberately ducking the question as you realize that you painted yourself in a corner. If you refuse to recognize that earlier comment and ask the question, all one can expect is a deflection of the issue as you clearly have done above.
See above.. On that note, considering that you are assuming a position that seeks to include multiple factors, can you possibly state which factors are more impacting than the others? Clearly, the pro-AGW position places great emphasis on man-made contributions and have advertised as such. IF this is the case, is it reasonable to expect that a prioritized list be delivered that outlines the significance of the individual (identified) variables.
To my knowledge, no such objective, non-partisan list exists.
That's great, but means very little considering that the same old song has been sung by the IPCC and pro-AGW groups all throughout this event. At any given time, there was "solid" understanding and "conclusive" results... Sure, 3 years have passed and techniques, theories, models, etc have improved, but when we hit 2012, we will also ve able to say the same.
I predict that this will be the same excuse used then too.
Are you seriously asking this?!... You must be joking.
I have produced broad questions - so basic that these would have (should have) been the primary areas addressed... Perhaps you'd benefit from attempting to seek the perspective from 30,000 feet as opposed to 3 inches.
I see your logic as so specific that it is akin to analyzing a corpse, finding a mole and declaring thatthe death is due to a malignant tumor (the mole) and not paying attention to the fact that the person was cut in half.
Considering that our conversation is focused on AGW, I too will respond with sarcasm.
Lets take this one step at a time: A multiple choice question may help here.
Glaciation occurs because?
- The cooler/cold temperatures (below 0 degrees C).
- The warmer/hot temperatures (above 0 degrees C).
- The glaciation pixies.
And here we are right back where we started, no where have I ever stated, suggested or otherwise that warming isn't or hasn't occurred. My position is that it is part of the natural cycle - that is to say - while many factors will contribute, the cycle will display warming and cooling trends over time regardless of any form of existing or known anthropogenic sources.
So, what's your position on this. You've ducked making a solid statement.
You think pole reversal... I think polar migration (just in case you're still confused Gomer - it has nothing to do with the N or S pole flying to warmer climes)
Sigh...you said:
Ducking nothing. Nobody ever stated it's a solitary factor. It's a tactic deniers use to try to frame the debate around one sole factor causing climate change, which the IPCC does not say, which no studies find, and which no observant reader of this issue could possibly come to the conclusion of.
It's a strawman because it's very easy to refute that what has happened has been caused by a single factor only, and because no serious person claims this to be true.
Holy crap, for the last time yes! I linked to attribution studies which do precisely that, and I commented multiple times now how the questions you are asking can be answered. I don't link to things becasue I like the colour of the hyperlink text.... The IPCC has an entire subsection in WG1 on attributing climate change. You can remove variables from models and look at how the system changes. Not just temperature, but other factors as well.
The cooling stratosphere for example. Only possible with greenhouse warming. The observed temperature change, consistent with radiative transfer theory, consistent with thermodynamics, consistent with observations of climate sensitivity...
Yes, it is possible to distinguish amongst multiple factors. Experiments do this all the time, not just in climate studies...
It's clear that you haven't actually read any scientific documents about climate change, and you are most likely repeating what you see on other websites, or making this all up as you go along.
If you want to start somewhere, try here:
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History
This is the website of a scientist/historian, who has told the story of how this branch of science began, and how it has evolved. You will find answers there, if you choose to educate yourself...
My position is, that you don't have any evidence, except to say that climate change has happened before, and man wasn't involved, so you think it's more likely that natural cycles are dominating the climate forcings. This despite the fact that we have ample evidence that natural cycles were bringing us toward another glaciation. Ample evidence that naural cycles are not strong enough to have caused this change. Ample evidence that the fingerprint, would lead any detective to conclude that the observed phenomena are consistent with a greenhouse induced warming.
My position is that you cling to an idea which has no support in the face of an idea which has support from multiple independent lines of research.
Oh, I know exactly what it means. A pole reversal is still pole movement. I used that as the extreme example of your hypothesis.
Please explain how magnetic pole movement changes exposure to the sun.
Perhaps you might consider diverting a portion of your research time towards understanding the english language. I notice that you emboldened the word solitary and not the word "this". the importance being that "this solitary factor" refers to man-made sources that are the largest focus by the IPCC and associated greenie groups.
Now, with this new understanding, do you still feel the same or shall I expect you to duck the issue further.
On a side note: Funny that you should accuse me of tactics; I was thinking the very same of you in that when confronted with the core issue - the greenie tactic is to obfuscate the discussion and deflect the direction of the conversation... Clearly this is your preference.
See above re: your omission of the word "this" and especially in context of the discussion... You still aren't able to point and definitively prove in any reputable manner that AGW represents causation in a significant and meaningful manner can you?
You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk
There are 2 fundamental problems with your referrals:
- Corrupted sources.
- Singular focus on one (or a few) components that insult this entire disucssion in an attempt to over-simplify it.
Also possible with alterations in the radiative input from the sun... Oh, that's right, the IPCC has clearly stated that they won't consider that factor... How convenient.
Also convenient is that water vapor is by far and away the biggest green house contributor, but seeing how the IPCC can't reccomend a tax on evaporation, the "approved" whipping-boy defaults onto carbon.... Makes ever so much sense considering most, if not all life-forms on the planet are carbon-based.
Then we chould have a base understanding of this, correct?.. Where are the references to these contributing factors?.. I'll tell you where; these factors are recognized by the skeptics and ignored by the greenies (there ain't no public funding available for non anthrpopgenic sources).
Wow! they can actually pinpoint when global warming was discovered?.. The multiple periods of glaciation and warming never keyed them onto the phenomenom?
Are you sure that the article shouldn't be entitled The Discovery Of Global Warming Funding - A History
No evidence other than it has happened before, throughout all history, on multiple occassions, in dramatic fashion and is constantly changing, evidenced during periods where man was both absent and present.
I like the bit regarding the ample evidence that the natural cycles are not strong enough despite the fact that North America (Canada) had over a kilometer thick sheet of ice covering it.
Funny.. See previous comment regarding natural cycles not being strong enough.
What part of polar migration is lost on you?
So... No contribution to refute any of these claims - just boring?
What a compelling argument
What a compelling argument
- Status