Not sure if it had anything to do with travel speed, per se.
Roald Amundsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Not sure if it had anything to do with travel speed, per se.
Roald Amundsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No...there was lots of ice back then. They didn't have open water to steam through. Amundsen had planned in advance that it would take multiple years.
And yet one more time ........ a local weather trend is not indicative of global climate. :tard:
How about the temp in the Gulf Stream at 30.5 C now (Florida). That is pretty warm for anytime of year. The Gulf Stream is not a local event.
Uh, yeah. You were confused about this? The definition of climate is an accumulated collection of weather patterns for a length of time, not just one little occurrence within one season. The definition of global is inclusive of the entire planet, not just one d|nky little area.
Uh, wrong. Last year it warmed.
.... and you need to accept what the evidence indicates. So far, you're stuck with your dogma instead.
Your opinion. In fact, it's been fluctuating fairly regularly.
Why? It won't happen overnight so we will have time to adapt. Or are you predicting sudden ice-ages?
Good joke. Thanks.
I have one, too:
Q: How many climate deniers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. Eventually the lightbulbs will light themselves.
I doubt it. I think there's a scientific law that states politicians cannot think that far ahead nor that comprehensively.
Much appreciated.Fixed it for you Les
It is when it's near Florida. The temp of the Gulf Stream is not a constant.
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/gulf-stream.html
Interesting article on the disappearance of Canada's arctic ice shelves. Apparently they have decreased in area by 90% of the last century. Doesn't look to me like that part of the world is getting colder.
Majestic Arctic ice shelves breaking up
Majestic Arctic ice shelves breaking up
You were referring to:
Climate Change is the rubber band of explanations. It is stretched to fit any and all occurrences.
It's no surprise that this comment was entirely wasted on you... There is none so blind as one that refuses to see.
Um, uhh, yeah, last month it cooled and 100,00 years ago it warmed and cooled too.
Evidence? What evidence are you pointing to? Do you even know what this issue is about?
Predicting a sudden ice age like your buddy Suzuki was screeching about a few years back?
You bet it's been fluctuating. As to the "why", it is the greenie brigade that is magically discovered that it's all about anthro CO2... Too bad that the you Truthers aren't able to apply that magic bullet to the many episodes that occurred in the past in the absence humanity... But that is no reason to refrain from hollering eureka followed by finger-stabs and little light-bulbs above the collective greenie heads, right?
Don't give up your day job.... I'd worry that you were going to lose your house and have to eat cat food.
Looks like someone did give up their day job...Top skeptic converts and is now declaring that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today"...
Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change | Environment | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile
Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change | Environment | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile
Last edited:
You really need to watch that presentation of Richard Alley's. The "magic bullet" as it were agrees incredibly well in the past. Watch and learn.
There used to be a lack of evidence linking carbon dioxide and past climate changes. Used to. That's why it's a talking point that is still parroted. But it's simply wrong. As more data comes in, there is increasing concordance between carbon dioxide and the climate. Events which used to stick out as anomalies no longer stick out as being anomalous.
You really ought to just watch it yourself. If you're too lazy to learn for yourself, then you can watch a Coles notes version. It's part of an ~10 minute montage of videos.
You really ought to just watch it yourself. If you're too lazy to learn for yourself, then you can watch a Coles notes version. It's part of an ~10 minute montage of videos.
Any anthro link in this paleo-data?.. That's what this is about, the anthro component.
The data set(s) that support CO2 as a driver on a paleo-basis confirm the completely, natural cyclical characteristics of this system.
I am highly aware of the issue. What you call "being lazy" is what I call not wasting my time with eco-ideology and indoctrination.
....shocker...you don't even watch it, but you already think you know what it is. He's talking about recent advances in scientific literature.
You continually ask inane questions about explaining the past ice ages, where there is no anthro component.
Yet, you keep insisting that that anthro CO2 is the cause of any/all changes in climate despite the reality that this has been occurring for millions of years.
If your aim is to assess definitive causation to a highly complex system, there is an expectation/requirement that you have a solid understanding of the system itself.
Evidence for global warming...
The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:
The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:
- Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
- The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
- Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
- The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
- There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
- A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
- Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
- Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section 4.7.2.3)
- Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
- Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
- Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
- Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
- Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
- Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)
- Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmesan 2003)
- The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmesan 2003)
- Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterflies (Kearney 2010)
- Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)
- Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008)
- UK Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years (Amano 2010)
- Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterfly: 1.6 days per decade (Kearney 2010).
- Decline in lizard populations (Sinervo 2010)
- Drop in primary productivity due to unprecedented warming at Lake Tanganyika (Tierney 2010)
No, I don't. That's a bald faced lie. I've never said such a thing.
Nobody in science aims to have a definitive answer, because having a definitive answer is not possible. Having a probable cause is what scientists look for, and when you have multiple probable causes, you can separate further by looking at other factors and forms of analysis.
Although I am glad to see you finally admit that we don't need to have a complete understanding of the system. It only took me pounding that point on you repeatedly for you to finally apparently agree.
That's progress.
Then, what exactly is your position?
As I've stated many, many times; the depth of understanding is no where near where it should be such that any "plausible or probable" causation can be assessed... On that note, as there is no plausible models that describe those (paleo) mechanisms that lead to the historical episodes, there is no way that anyone can suggest with any kind of confidence, that AGW exists in any way, shape or form.
That increasing the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation is causing the planet warm.
So then, since you seem to have some kind of insight, why don't you lay out what sort of understanding is needed to say that our burning of fossil fuels is resulting in more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, resulting in an energy imbalance and an acidifying ocean.
What kind of understanding are we lacking to assess this hypothesis?