I agree. It seems the whole solar system goes through these cycles and if our own ancient history is any indicator we aren't probably out of the last ice age yet.
Huge iceberg collapse threatens Antarctic shelf: British scientists
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
I agree. It seems the whole solar system goes through these cycles and if our own ancient history is any indicator we aren't probably out of the last ice age yet.
If you search through the Environment forum, you'll find many threads where I've commented. I know why my opinion is the way it is. I've said many times, my opinion will change when someone can replace the AGW theory with a hypothesis that has a) the predictive power that AGW has, and b) acquires considerable observations to become theory.
The entire Solar system isn't warming. That's an assertion that needs explanation. I've seen Mars, some moons on other planets, I think Jupiter and Pluto as well. The solar system has more planets than that, as I'm sure you're aware. So, where is the evidence that this warming is ubiquitous and unequivocal at present?
You can't answer my questions? How long have we had observations on Mars? What is the minimum period for defining climate? Why is that?
I suggest that you investigate the difference between signal and noise. As I'm sure you must know, the weather is variable. Over longer periods, the variability trends to zero or equilibrium, and signal becomes apparent.
Consider flipping a fair coin. We would expect an equal chance of heads or tails. If you flip 7 heads in a row, right off the bat, well our prediction is looking pretty crappy. But the longer you flip that coin, the closer the observations come to equality. In fact, if you do it long enough, it is inevitable that you will get 10 heads in a row or more.
When you increase observations, the random noise will be swamped by the trend.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
So, which aspects of the theory are absurd then?
I am not putting forward a theory. I am putting forward evidence that the current theory glosses over, ignores or is ignorant off. If a theory ignores evidence it can not be a correct theory. I am not postulating a new theory just new evidence.
The theory is fine but it needs to include all the evidence and if done will demonstrate that the current hysterical panic ceasing the world is unwarranted. That isn't to say changes aren't needed but it is to say we have more time than the current inaccurate theory suggests and also the changes aren't going to be as severe.
Don't worry Tonnington you'll have him close to reality by the nd of the week as his case becomes more wobbly than the orbit of Mars.:lol:
You called the theory absurd, and now you say you're fine with it, minus some things it is missing. Well that is standard science. It's not a law, it's a theory. And by the way, the theory includes solar interactions, Milankovitch cycles, volcanism, aerosols, a whole pile of support from other fields like thermodynamics and radiative physics. It is missing things, no serious person says the entire story is known. What is known, is that greenhouse gases warm. I'd like to see more ocean data, like ENSO(El Nino/ Southern Oscillation) and PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation). But just because it isn't known with greater certainty, doesn't make the current theory wrong.
Plate tectonics is pretty new, and is missing much detail. But it provides a plausible, testable, and falsifiable explanation, supported by observations.
Saying there are missing pieces, which is known by every researcher, is not falsification.
Maybe you could clarify, exactly which elements you'd like to see addressed, or that you have issues with.
Mars is a red herring. I explained why, lack of observations. It's especially funny, because here we have so many observations, and there is still more to learn, yet people think the theory is absurd, or lacking information enough to say we don't know jack. On Mars, we know much less, yet some people say...well I think you get the picture.
I just hope to show him that things aren't as cut and dry as the media makes things out to be, and that goes for all sides at the table.
Last edited:
I found a tide table for northern Canada and the tide is only a few feet, that wouldn't seem to be very high.
Having an ice free earth would open up more land than what was lost to flooding. The real trick would be capturing that fresh water so it is used before ending up as sea-water.
Having an ice free earth would open up more land than what was lost to flooding. The real trick would be capturing that fresh water so it is used before ending up as sea-water.
Close by to where I live is Parrsboro. The tidal range there is 45 feet.
Having an ice free earth has it's own problems. The air conditioning it performs for one. Not just the albedo, but the heat of fusion. When ice melts, the energy it absorbs is enough energy to heat an equivalent mass of water by 79°, or somewhere close to that.
Having an ice free earth has it's own problems. The air conditioning it performs for one. Not just the albedo, but the heat of fusion. When ice melts, the energy it absorbs is enough energy to heat an equivalent mass of water by 79°, or somewhere close to that.
It is absurd in that it doesn't take in all the facts. I do acknowledge that man is having an impact on the environment. Why is that so hard to understand?
It makes the theory inaccurate which means it's wrong. I'm sure it could be corrected easily enough.
Falsification only occurs when theories deliberately leave out evidence because it harms the theory - which the solar system warming certainly does in this case.
How many times do I have to repeat it?
How are our carbon emissions causing solar system warming?
Then the whole global warming theory is a red herring since it was proposed based on information about other planets that were hotter than they should be and what might have caused it. Someone then realized that the same model might apply to earth. Odd that a theory based on observations of other planets should now be threatened by the same evidence?
You can't show me anything because you are refusing to acknowledge that the rest of the solar system is warming up and that might play a role in our own planet warming up. If you left the panic button alone for a moment you would realize all I'm calling for is some calm and rationality! Your argument is that we should be hysterical and the sky is going to fall tomorrow. I think it's a little funny in the face of evidence that the entire solar system is warming. :lol:
I think I'll go and let my car idle for 10 minutes.
Perhaps because you've been talking out both sides of your mouth.
You've said it doesn't take in all the facts, but have so far only posted popular press. Well, that's not where you find facts. That's where you find facts which have been spun. Even academic journals get it wrong once in a while, but not nearly as often as the popular press.
No. Theories aren't static. They are amended as new information comes to light. That is standard. What you are asking of science is similar to some theists and their all knowing deities. Science is not an absolute; it is subject to statistical analysis, and all results and measurements contain uncertainty. Do you think germ theory was nailed by Pasteur on the first try? He certainly shed light on the folly that is spontaneous generation, but it required many more great men and women to advance the subject into a theory.
Do you even understand how science works? Falsification can be very simple. You're saying that the entire solar system is warming. That is testable, and falsifiable. Venus has not warmed. In fact Venus receives more radiation from the sun than Earth does, and is not warming.
Just for giggles, how about you post links to articles or an article that shows that the four terrestrial planets are all warming, that the four gas giants are all warming, that the three dwarf planets are all warming, and I'll be generous, that these selected moons are all warming. For to claim the warming of the solar system is unequivocal, you need to show that all bodies are warming.
You can repeat and scream all you want. The entire solar system isn't warming. Further, you should check out how we know some bodies have warmed, and to what it has been attributed to.
Umm, no it isn't. Greenhouse warming theory traces back to before we even had satellites. Maybe you've heard of Arrhenius?
Odd that people slam our models here for Earth's climate, yet jump to conclusions when they see models of other planets. Very telling.
I refuse to acknowledge that because it hasn't been shown, certainly not by you, and not in the journals where people who know what they're talking about publish results. I readily acknowledge that solar forcing perturbs the climate system. Though it has shown no secular trend, nor correlation to rising temperature since 1975. That doesn't mean it plays no part, just means it has very little to do with the 1975-2008 trend.
Which panic button? Where have I said we should be hysterical? I haven't even said one word about what we should do about it to you. How would you know what I think? Strawman...or maybe you have some god delusion. :lol:
I don't tell people how to burn their money. Knock yourself out, not literally of course, the carbon monoxide can be deadly.
Better luck next time. :lol:
This is as far as I got...
Now, if a theory is using all relevant information and is our best explanation then it is right. Yes it can be modified by new evidence or discoveries but for now it is the best we have and so is right.
If a theory ignores evidence but not only that, if it seeks to ignore or pass off evidence as inconsequential which could easily have a direct bearing on that theory, then it is quite right to be suspicious of the theory. Suspicion should quickly lead to condemnation of the theory if it can't even make truthful predictions! Such is the case with your precious global warning panic because it has failed to either predict the solar system warming up but also has made numerous false predictions. There is absolutely no way around it, the theory is WRONG!
I'm sure parts of it are fine and a lot of the research that went into it can and should be utilized when forming a new theory. As I have said before: I know people have impacted the climate and I do think some changes need to be made but it is insane, irrational and downright stupid to get into a huge panic because current trends indicate the climate is changing. We don't have a proper theory on why that is yet! We have past examples of when the world was this hot in the past. The fact is we don't know why the planet is warming up; we might have some good guesses; we might have a lot of the puzzle figured out, but we don't have all of it. The best non panic stricken predictions (I already posted a link) place both the threat and damage of "global warming" far below those of the hippies who are getting their panties in such a bind.
So to summarize, I'm panicky, the theory is suspicious, and it's wrong.
I've asked for your beefs. The best you have is solar system warming, which you claim is unequivocal, but yet have no proof of that. More to the point, you have no congruity between the planets where there has been an observed warming a la causation, some of which have very few observations to begin with, some of which are based on model output (far less than for our own earths GCM) but more importantly, even if you can somehow manage to find a single plausible explanation for all of the other planets, how does that explain some well known characteristics of our warming climate?
These would be, stratospheric cooling (which is a known consequence by the way of greenhouse gases), the decreasing diurnal temperature range(night temperatures rising faster than day temperatures), acidifying ocean (a warming ocean should be losing carbon dioxide, not gaining). The climate is warming, and these things are all consequences of increasing greenhouse gases.
We know why the planet is warming, more radiation is coming in than is going out.
I've asked for your beefs. The best you have is solar system warming, which you claim is unequivocal, but yet have no proof of that. More to the point, you have no congruity between the planets where there has been an observed warming a la causation, some of which have very few observations to begin with, some of which are based on model output (far less than for our own earths GCM) but more importantly, even if you can somehow manage to find a single plausible explanation for all of the other planets, how does that explain some well known characteristics of our warming climate?
These would be, stratospheric cooling (which is a known consequence by the way of greenhouse gases), the decreasing diurnal temperature range(night temperatures rising faster than day temperatures), acidifying ocean (a warming ocean should be losing carbon dioxide, not gaining). The climate is warming, and these things are all consequences of increasing greenhouse gases.
We know why the planet is warming, more radiation is coming in than is going out.
Panicky and reactionary - yes. The theory has errors so is wrong. It needs work.
And I have given them again and again.... why do you keep ignoring them but then keep asking?
Avro posted proof. (thank you Avro) If you read the article you'll see what I mean. Where the critics blame orbital fluctuation the rebuttal is about solar fluctuation. Where the solar system is warming up the rebuttal is that that couldn't be caused by the sun :?: huh?
Now this is why I say your being irrational and panicky!
Did I not acknowledge that humans have impacted the environment? Didn't I? Well, yes; yes I did as a matter of fact!
So why are you pretending that I didn't?
And why is it so difficult for you to entertain the idea that the theory of global warming needs some work. That its current form is wrong?
:-?
I know the dogma already.
No, that is part of the theory which does not explain why the polar caps on Mars are melting. It might partly (maybe mostly) explain why ours are melting but it isn't, OBVIOUSLY, the whole picture. If it was the whole picture it would also be able to account for the solar system warming - evidence we have but that the hysterical dingbats refuse to look at; for whatever reason. Perhaps it scares them the sky isn't falling as fast as first thought!?!?!
Which is worse, a new full-bore ice age or an ice free tropical resort type of climate.
What would the discussion look like if that much ice was being added over the years.
What would the discussion look like if that much ice was being added over the years.
'Calving' or breaking off of pieces of glaciers.. or an ice shelf (really just a large glacier).. is a normal aspect of advancing glaciers. It is caused by the shelf being weakened by water movement, or just the stresses of size as well as advancing into sea water that is just above the freezing temp.. It is more likely to be caused by advancing rather than retreating ice. A 400 square kilometre ice break is really not that large compared to the size of the ice shelves.
This kind of anecdotal evidence just shows how desparate the 'global warming' cult has become.. in the face of the coldest winter in decades in North America, and increasing proof that the planet is cooling normally due to periodic solar cycles.. and the utter lack of real science to back up the hypothesis of Global Warming. It is utter JUNK science, without an iota of credibility.
The real thing to fear is the 'solutions' to this fabricated phenomenon by environmental extremists, which will bring of major economic disruption and impoverishment.. as carbon forms the single most important element of the industrial economy. It is no surprise that the radical pagan enviro cult has chosen this as their target, as a preliminary attack on mankind and popululation in general as an evil interloper on pristine 'Mother Earth'.
This kind of anecdotal evidence just shows how desparate the 'global warming' cult has become.. in the face of the coldest winter in decades in North America, and increasing proof that the planet is cooling normally due to periodic solar cycles.. and the utter lack of real science to back up the hypothesis of Global Warming. It is utter JUNK science, without an iota of credibility.
The real thing to fear is the 'solutions' to this fabricated phenomenon by environmental extremists, which will bring of major economic disruption and impoverishment.. as carbon forms the single most important element of the industrial economy. It is no surprise that the radical pagan enviro cult has chosen this as their target, as a preliminary attack on mankind and popululation in general as an evil interloper on pristine 'Mother Earth'.
If we were in a warming period (and there were many in the pre-industrial ages, the climate has ALWAYS been in a state of flux), then we should see a calming and evening of weather patterns. Less storms, more predictability. Bad weather is caused by COLD weather, or more specifically by the intersection of cold fronts over warm. It is quite predictable that if we were in a cooling phase that the weather would become more extreme, as it seems to have over the last few years.
There is also a general problem of measurement of heat on the planet, over water, in water, over altitudes, which makes all the assertions that we are in the 'hottest' phase in recorded time complete nonsense. The GW gang know it, but they don't care. They also know that the primary engine of the earth's climate is the sun, which goes through periodic cycles of more or less intense radiation. True climatologists know that we are in for a period of less intensity, and lower temperatures for the next several decades. The cause and effect of these gases and warming has been utterly debunked.
The carbon man puts in the atmosphere is a fraction of that emitted naturally. We also know from geological evidence, published recently in respected scientfic journals, that carbon peaks in the atmosphere have happened AFTER not before warming periods. This essentially completely overturns the GW climate models, and their premise of man made 'greenhouse' gases having any measurable impact on the climate.
This is a political agenda not a scientific theory. The science is absolute bunk, the political agenda is very scary for the economic health of the world.
There is also a general problem of measurement of heat on the planet, over water, in water, over altitudes, which makes all the assertions that we are in the 'hottest' phase in recorded time complete nonsense. The GW gang know it, but they don't care. They also know that the primary engine of the earth's climate is the sun, which goes through periodic cycles of more or less intense radiation. True climatologists know that we are in for a period of less intensity, and lower temperatures for the next several decades. The cause and effect of these gases and warming has been utterly debunked.
The carbon man puts in the atmosphere is a fraction of that emitted naturally. We also know from geological evidence, published recently in respected scientfic journals, that carbon peaks in the atmosphere have happened AFTER not before warming periods. This essentially completely overturns the GW climate models, and their premise of man made 'greenhouse' gases having any measurable impact on the climate.
This is a political agenda not a scientific theory. The science is absolute bunk, the political agenda is very scary for the economic health of the world.
So you have said, and nary an example that makes muster. Can you not think of any?
Let's post all your arguments from this thread in one place then.
The North pole is warming, as expected. The South Pole is not, also expected. No problems there.
You haven't demonstrated that. Nobody on earth has demonstrated that.
You can still have a fever if you place an ice pack on your thigh.
Which part of the solar issue are you referring? Sun spots? Irradience? What about the sun is causing these climate swings?
Oh, so it's irradiance is it?
So, apparently an absence of a trend in solar makes the planet warm...
If the whole solar system includes Mars, Jupiter, a Neptunian moon, Pluto, and Earth, well you may have a debatable case. But we know the solar system includes more bodies than that. But that hasn't stopped you from claiming the absurdity that apparently Venus, Mercury, our Moon, Uranus, Neptune, and a pile of other moons and dwarf planets aren't in this solar system.
Further, you have yet to demonstrate that the same causation is happening on all planets. Instead you throw out a strawman that it's our greenhouse gases. Unreal.
There, the rest of your dreck is rehashed from this garbage. Anything else to add to this list?
I read it. What Avro posted was not proof of anything you have said here. It's an acknowledgment of observations, and an explanation for those observations. You'll notice there is no commonality except for an increase in Temperature. I'm wondering if you need to call Sylvan Learning centers.
Orbital fluctuation =/= increasing solar output. It only means more or less incoming irradiance is absorbed. Not all of those planets were explained by orbital fluctuations were they?
What was panicky about what I said? Facts aren't panicky. This is a poor attempt by you to discount what is known, or what I've said.
I'm going to slow this down for you.
You said the theory needs tweaking. I understand very well that you have said more than once now-without needing to, that humans have impacted the environment.
Then you say, it's the sun, and the whole solar system is warming, which obviously it isn't, or at the very least, there is no evidence of a ubiquitous and unequivocal warming.
Then I explain to you that it can't be the sun-which by the way is included in the theory, included in the models, and is a known forcing- at least not in the last 33 years. The trend doesn't match.
Like so many others, you hold the body of evidence to a level of scrutiny that theists do for proof against their god. Then, without using that same scrutiny for an argument which fits your seemingly pre-conceived notions, you call the theory a sham. This despite the fact that in these past 33 years, the argument has evolved like this:
- There is no global warming
- There is global warming, but human emissions are too small
- There is global warming, but it's negligible
This is getting long, and pretty much useless. I might as well be talking to my fish.
Needing work doesn't mean wrong. It simply means it isn't getting the whole picture. I have said already it isn't a complete picture.
Maybe we should throw out all economic models, used for hedge funds, social security projections, budget shortfalls/surpluses, and other projections. None of them have been 100% accurate. No models are 100% accurate. What a horrendously stupid line of reasoning that would be. Models are supposed to be reasonable, not exact.
It's not dogma, it's reality. I see you're sufficiently removed that you might not recognize it.
Sure it does, more radiation is coming in than is going out on Mars. There are a number of ways this can happen.
Again this whole picture crap. Read some more. There is no solar system warming. There are some planets and moons that appear to have warmed. Not all of them have. Are you really that dense?
Last edited: