Prince Charles Calls Climate Deniers "Headless Chicken Brigade"

[darkbeaver]

Yes. Beav. I guess you missed my point. I meant that despite the temporary cooling period, the Earth continues to warm. Simply because I can understand what was said? I think not. I don't have the formal education.
Perhaps if you would study the issue objectively and with a clear head (sans the pot smoke and whatnot), you could understand what was said, too.

I guess you missed my point that you can't proclaim a temporary period of cooling until it actually stops cooling. I don't think my suspension of pot smoking would make faulty logic acceptable, but you might be right because you have already predicted the temporary nature of the now happening cooling as temporary and you don't smoke any weed. You must be a prophet er sumthin.

Worse than that you are on record as believing it's cooling and warming simultaneously. I'm slow man but you got to give me a break with yer new fangled science stuff.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's changed drastically just in our life time. I don't see any kids today walking up hill to and from school in 4' of snow. -

lol I never did that either. My first school year was walking to and from school along the railroad to a school which used to be right about where the copshop in Penticton is now. We lived beside Penticton Creek.
My father and his 2 brothers rode to school on horseback, as did my mother and her sis.

I guess you missed my point that you can't proclaim a temporary period of cooling until it actually stops cooling. I don't think my suspension of pot smoking would make faulty logic acceptable, but you might be right because you have already predicted the temporary nature of the now happening cooling as temporary and you don't smoke any weed. You must be a prophet er sumthin.

Worse than that you are on record as believing it's cooling and warming simultaneously. I'm slow man but you got to give me a break with yer new fangled science stuff.

Almost a nice spin. The surface might still be cooling but if the rest is warming, the overall effect is warming. So it can be cooling and warming at the same time. Ya might wanna read (or reread) the stuff in the link I posted.

 

[darkbeaver]

Almost a nice spin. The surface might still be cooling but if the rest is warming, the overall effect is warming. So it can be cooling and warming at the same time. Ya might wanna read (or reread) the stuff in the link I posted.

Might this overall warming effect also be temporary? If we allow for the fact of temporary cooling mustn't we accept that temporary warming must also be a fact? And if that is to be the case then we have established the normalcy of climate variation based on fluctuating heat values. Now since that energy is in the water as potential and we cannot say with certainty that it will convert to heat it cannot yet be considered in any extra heating configuration until and if the conversion obtains, can it? And as this energy cannot yet be measured then we have no case for declaring it as extra heat when it has not presented as such. This leaves us with the very real lack of heat recorded in the last decade and a half so my guess is the cooling aspect of the subject is firmly established as fact and the heating aspect as potential and projected only. You maintain that the overall effect is warming at the same time as record ice production is advancing across the Antarctic continent and the Arctic suffers no lack of ice as well so I'm bewildered by your seeming groundless claims and where you may have happened upon them because it surely is not scientific as we understand the word.

 

[JLM]

Might this overall warming effect also be temporary? If we allow for the fact of temporary cooling mustn't we accept that temporary warming must also be a fact? And if that is to be the case then we have established the normalcy of climate variation based on fluctuating heat values. Now since that energy is in the water as potential and we cannot say with certainty that it will convert to heat it cannot yet be considered in any extra heating configuration until and if the conversion obtains, can it? And as this energy cannot yet be measured then we have no case for declaring it as extra heat when it has not presented as such. This leaves us with the very real lack of heat recorded in the last decade and a half so my guess is the cooling aspect of the subject is firmly established as fact and the heating aspect as potential and projected only. You maintain that the overall effect is warming at the same time as record ice production is advancing across the Antarctic continent and the Arctic suffers no lack of ice as well so I'm bewildered by your seeming groundless claims and where you may have happened upon them because it surely is not scientific as we understand the word.

I guess this subject has been beaten to death over the past few years. I don't think there is any doubt that the earth is warming but what we don't know is what factors are contributing what amounts. Man is evidently contributing to the net gain in temperature, but other factors are also likely contributing. Whether the present trend is going to continue is another question. Starting tomorrow a natural cooling trend could start that is much greater than man's contribution to the warming trend. We just don't know.

 

[darkbeaver]

A Catastrophic Cooling 5,200 Years Ago Was Preceeded by a Few Decades of Warming and Low Sunspot Activity: Sound Familiar? | The Daily Sheeple




The 2004 annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union saw evidence that proved beyond doubt that a devastating and abrupt change in climate happened 5,200 years ago. Now when I say abrupt I really do mean abrupt. A massive and profound global cooling event happened 5,200 years ago, and one of the leading scientists in the field of ice core analysis thinks it’s about to happen again.
Not much was said about this outside of scientific circles, certainly nothing was said by the government. Even the words and research of a world renowned expert count for nothing. As far as the warmist government is concerned, we are all to believe we will die of heatstroke in the next 50 years.
- See more at:

Professor Thompson sums up his concerns:

“This would suggest a very large-scale, abrupt event occurring at this time in the past, due to natural events that had huge scale impacts. We need to understand what caused that, because 5,200 years ago, there may have been 250,000,000 people living on the planet. We’ve now got 6.5 billion, most of then living in the latitudes where this abrupt event is recorded.
I think the natural system has had abrupt changes in the past, which just tells us that this system is capable of changing over a very short period of time, and we have been very fortunate that our civilization has developed over a time when we haven’t had large-scale changes in climate.” (source)
​

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-ca...ty-sound-familiar_022014#sthash.pmCEBvay.dpuf

 

[Tonington]

Digging into Professor Thompson's concerns a little further, that is to say to continue with his thoughts that DB's source cut prematurely:

I think the natural system has had abrupt changes in the past, which just tells us that this system is capable of changing over a very short period of time, and we have been very fortunate that our civilization has developed over a time when we haven’t had large-scale changes in climate. But now, as we enter the 21st century, and we’re changing the composition of the global atmosphere; we’re changing the surface of the plant through our clearing, and we’re changing water resources. The human impact is so large in so many different ways, we couldn’t help but change the climate of the planet. I think we need to be concerned about thresholds. These more recent observations of the very rapid changes taking place in glaciers, the loss of that ice, I wouldn’t be surprised that we don’t look back 25 years from now, and see this as the beginning of an abrupt change taking place.​

my emphasis

And as for solar cycle 25? Nobody is predicting zero sunspots, you can see that by clicking on that conspiracy site's own link to itself! :lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

Might this overall warming effect also be temporary? If we allow for the fact of temporary cooling mustn't we accept that temporary warming must also be a fact?

Yep and yep.

And if that is to be the case then we have established the normalcy of climate variation based on fluctuating heat values. Now since that energy is in the water as potential and we cannot say with certainty that it will convert to heat it cannot yet be considered in any extra heating configuration until and if the conversion obtains, can it?

If the heat is in the oceans as potential we can't declare it to be heat. lmao That's a funny one, Beav.

And as this energy cannot yet be measured then we have no case for declaring it as extra heat when it has not presented as such. This leaves us with the very real lack of heat recorded in the last decade and a half so my guess is the cooling aspect of the subject is firmly established as fact and the heating aspect as potential and projected only. You maintain that the overall effect is warming at the same time as record ice production is advancing across the Antarctic continent and the Arctic suffers no lack of ice as well so I'm bewildered by your seeming groundless claims and where you may have happened upon them because it surely is not scientific as we understand the word.

Either the oceans are warming or they aren't. They are. Either the net effect of all the forcings are making the planet warm or they aren't. They are. Twist n aspin n warpa alla you wanna, roditore scuro, ita not changea da facts, capisci?

 

[darkbeaver]

Yep and yep.If the heat is in the oceans as potential we can't declare it to be heat. lmao That's a funny one, Beav.Either the oceans are warming or they aren't. They are. Either the net effect of all the forcings are making the planet warm or they aren't. They are. Twist n aspin n warpa alla you wanna, roditore scuro, ita not changea da facts, capisci?

THE FACTS support climate change, I'm completely floored by the revelation. Is the oil in your tank heat, is the gas in your lawn mower heat, is the maple still in the ground heat, NO. What warming are you talking about where is it, lets have a look at it. Oh you've misplaced it you say ,but you're sure it will turn up next tuesday. Ok show me the heat when you find it.

 

[Tonington]

Levitus et al. 2012

 

[darkbeaver]

Thanks for the link.

What does this mean.

Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available,

 

[Tonington]

What does this mean.

Declassified Navy data. Merchant shipping data. All sorts of new data, previously unavailable. You can find it all in the 2009 updated World Ocean Database. (large pdf!)

 

[darkbeaver]

Piers Corbyn, MSc (astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS Director WeatherAction


http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WaNews14No05.pdf

This guy is the best weatherman in the solar system.

And below in the black and blue corner a one time contender for the belt, desperatly hoping to make a comeback after a devastating first round knockout by the Sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Idea, strong winds drive the heat DOWN into the oceans.
It is time to beat the heat


Research finds that strong trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans



There may be an abrupt rise in global average temperatures in about a decade, scientists have warned. New research finds that strong trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans.
But when those winds slow, that heat would rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
The dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.
"Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear," said Matthew England, chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
"But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal - as it inevitably will - our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere," he added.
So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade, he cautioned.
We are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures, said the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change.


It is time to beat the heat | Business Standard

The United Kingdom is Flooding. 150 mph winds. 45 foot waves. and it’s only going to get worse.


February 10th, 2014

The most rainfall since 1760.
It is bad.
Wow.


Read more at The United Kingdom is Flooding. 150 mph winds. 45 foot waves. and it’s only going to get worse. | InvestmentWatch​

Nothing to be alarmed about it's just weather.

 

[pgs]

Piers Corbyn, MSc (astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS Director WeatherAction


http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WaNews14No05.pdf

This guy is the best weatherman in the solar system.

And below in the black and blue corner a one time contender for the belt, desperatly hoping to make a comeback after a devastating first round knockout by the Sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Idea, strong winds drive the heat DOWN into the oceans.
It is time to beat the heat


Research finds that strong trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans



There may be an abrupt rise in global average temperatures in about a decade, scientists have warned. New research finds that strong trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans.
But when those winds slow, that heat would rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
The dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.
"Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear," said Matthew England, chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
"But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal - as it inevitably will - our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere," he added.
So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade, he cautioned.
We are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures, said the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change.


It is time to beat the heat | Business Standard

The United Kingdom is Flooding. 150 mph winds. 45 foot waves. and it’s only going to get worse.


February 10th, 2014

The most rainfall since 1760.
It is bad.
Wow.


Read more at The United Kingdom is Flooding. 150 mph winds. 45 foot waves. and it’s only going to get worse. | InvestmentWatch​

Nothing to be alarmed about it's just weather.

Yup. sounds good we can keep our funding if we just convince them to give us about ten years .
Too funny ,where have I heard that [ about ten years ] before. By then most of these quacks will be ready for their pensions and smiling all the way to the bank .

Yup. sounds good we can keep our funding if we just convince them to give us about ten years .
Too funny ,where have I heard that [ about ten years ] before. By then most of these quacks will be ready for their pensions and smiling all the way to the bank .

P.S .
The same people that rail on about the evils of organized religion are the ones that jump so solidly on the bandwagon of environmentalism .

Yup. sounds good we can keep our funding if we just convince them to give us about ten years .
Too funny ,where have I heard that [ about ten years ] before. By then most of these quacks will be ready for their pensions and smiling all the way to the bank .

P.S .
The same people that rail on about the evils of organized religion are the ones that jump so solidly on the bandwagon of environmentalism .

 

[EagleSmack]

P.S .
The same people that rail on about the evils of organized religion are the ones that jump so solidly on the bandwagon of environmentalism .


P.S .
The same people that rail on about the evils of organized religion are the ones that jump so solidly on the bandwagon of environmentalism .

You can say that again.

 

[darkbeaver]

Also the lack of education that gets others "into trouble". If they don't understand the science yet make claims, they're bound to look a bit silly.
Anyway, the trend is warming. It'd be pretty silly to not expect fluctuations within the trend, though, as well as pretty silly to pick a period within a trend to argue against the trend.

Who can count the scientists who don't mind one bit looking silly as long as their paid. Is a trend what stopped a decade ago still a trend?

 

[Zipperfish]

'Science' hasn't come close in any way, shape or form in being able to explain the past let alone the massive failure in predicting the future.

Not sure about that conclusion. Compared to all other methods of predciting the future, science has a pretty good record. It correctly predicts--thousands of times each hour--that heavier-than-air objects with aerodynamic wings going at a certain velocity will become airborne. It preidcts hurricanes and snowstroms quite well, saving thousands of lives every year. It predicts the impact of penicillin on bacteria cell walls saving millions of lives. It predicts the way electricity will travel through semi-conductors, allowing us to chat right now.

The 2004 annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union saw evidence that proved beyond doubt that a devastating and abrupt change in climate happened 5,200 years ago. Now when I say abrupt I really do mean abrupt. A massive and profound global cooling event happened 5,200 years ago, and one of the leading scientists in the field of ice core analysis thinks it’s about to happen again.
Not much was said about this outside of scientific circles, certainly nothing was said by the government. Even the words and research of a world renowned expert count for nothing. As far as the warmist government is concerned, we are all to believe we will die of heatstroke in the next 50 years.
- See more at:

Professor Thompson sums up his concerns:

“This would suggest a very large-scale, abrupt event occurring at this time in the past, due to natural events that had huge scale impacts. We need to understand what caused that, because 5,200 years ago, there may have been 250,000,000 people living on the planet. We’ve now got 6.5 billion, most of then living in the latitudes where this abrupt event is recorded.
I think the natural system has had abrupt changes in the past, which just tells us that this system is capable of changing over a very short period of time, and we have been very fortunate that our civilization has developed over a time when we haven’t had large-scale changes in climate.” (source)
​

You've already stated that teh science is completely unreliable, therefore, from a logical persepctive, you shouldn't be using it to bolster your claim.

If, as you say, the science is (edit) unreliable, then the best you can say about the future is either "read the Bible" (or other predictive mechamism besides science" or "I don't know."

 

[L Gilbert]

Who can count the scientists who don't mind one bit looking silly as long as their paid. Is a trend what stopped a decade ago still a trend?

What trend are you referring to?
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?
BTW, thanks for the cut n paste. It supported my last link.