Climate change announcement delayed by blizzard

[Shastafarian]

Recorded being the operative term.

So there has been a change with respect to numbers in recorded history. Thanks.

I don't know, are we? Onsets of ice ages and warming periods are measured in the 10's of thousands of years. Meteorologists have trouble with tomorrow's weather and you want to hang your hat on IPCC liars and "recorded" history?

Another person who has trouble distinguishing weather from climate.

You know, it's pretty egocentric to think that just because we happened upon this planet and eventually "learned" to record history that extraordinary occurrences recorded during our relatively brief existence are either abnormal or extraordinary for a planet that has cycled through several climate extremes in the 4 billion or so years it's been around.

Tell me, Shastafarian, what is ideal climate for planet earth? What is normal?

What's ideal or normal? It's all irrelevant. This whole debate is about how this climate change will affect human populations. I find it hilarious you guys continue to ignore this simple fact.

[Yonivore]

So there has been a change with respect to numbers in recorded history. Thanks.

A very short period of time in climatological terms.

Another person who has trouble distinguishing weather from climate.

Actually, weather and climate are inextricably related. Cause and effect and all that.

You want to see someone clueless on the debate...

Brilliant: 'Vagina Monologues' Creator Tells Palin to Look at 'Earthquakes and Tsunamis' for Global Warming Proof

ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn't believe in global warming is bizarre.

BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn't believe in it.

ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
BEHAR: Right.

ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn't believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.

BEHAR: It's unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.

ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.

Earthquakes and Tsunamis? Those two are on your team. And, oh the irony of their stupidity while proclaiming Sarah Palin stupid.

What's ideal or normal? It's all irrelevant. This whole debate is about how this climate change will affect human populations. I find it hilarious you guys continue to ignore this simple fact.

Actually, the debate is about whether or not man is contributing to climate change and if we can intentionally alter it to "rectify" said anthropogenic climate affects.

[Shastafarian]

A very short period of time in climatological terms.

Which gives more credence to it being significant.

Actually, weather and climate are inextricably related. Cause and effect and all that.

They're not the same. Something you seemed to be unable to distinguish earlier

You want to see someone clueless on the debate...

I've already seen jack in the political forum

Actually, the debate is about whether or not man is contributing to climate change and if we can intentionally alter it to "rectify" said anthropogenic climate affects.

Determining the cause is implied in what I said.

[Yonivore]

Which gives more credence to it being significant.

Why?

They're not the same. Something you seemed to be unable to distinguish earlier

I'm not the one blaming blizzards on global warming.

Determining the cause is implied in what I said.

I've already told you the cause. Major player - The Sun. Next; biosphere. Finally, geology.

Can we affect the Sun? Don't think so.

The biosphere? That seems to be the crux of the debate. I say no. IPCC consensus says yes. I haven't spent decades hiding data that refutes my claim. IPCC yahoos can't make that claim.

I think we both know the answer to whether or not we can affect volcanic activity. Yeah, neither could the Pompeiians...Pompeiites?

[Winehole23]

Pompeiians.

[Phenomanul]

The Solar Cycle has always been the primary driver behind Earth's weather patterns and our subsequent climate. Major disturbances to this pattern occur in the event of volcanic eruptions - but this effect is governed by the release of ash (soot), and SO2 into the atmosphere moreso than the release of CO2.

Those who suggest that human industrialization is to blame for climatic shifts simply don't understand the massive forces that we would have to overcome to do just that.

Minimization of CO2 emissions is probably a good idea long term, but hardly a cause to go "chicken little" on global politics. The "alarmist" at ute is what truly bothers me. They take a known, solid, principle like the "green-house effect" and extrapolate its effects beyond relevance. They don't understand that other far more dominant forces regulate CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere (sea temperatures, again driven by the sun and not the other way around; by CO2 concentrations ). They don't even mention that water vapor (H2O) has a forcing factor on the greenhouse effect that's 50x more potent than that of CO2 (that's right FIFTY times greater!). Because ultimately, the moment that this realization hits you, the notion that CO2 is the root cause behind climatic shifts becomes all the more ridiculous. Are they going to regulate the formation of clouds as being anti-green? Clouds are composed from water crystals are they not? If GW proponents were consistent with their stance they would have to start pushing that ridiculous notion as well. It's all a scam intended to levy more taxes - it's always been about the money. That's also why academic ins utions have followed suit - otherwise their research grants dry up and disappear...

Furthermore, anthropomorphic-climate-change proponents downplay the amounts of CO2 that are released by nature and willfully downplay the effects of volcanic emissions, forest fires, and global bio-respiration. The fact that several organizations have recurred to meddling with the data in order to push their veiwpoint on the masses is utterly reprehensible. I would arrive at higher average global temperatures too if I kept removing high al ude and high la ude measurements from the array-pool year after year.

Banning of CFCs? That was good legislation based on solid science and reproducible lab experiments. The same can't be said for the dogma behind the effects of 'carbon-footprints'... and how that relates to our climate.

The solar cycle began to recede from it's crest in late 2008... it's no wonder that our global temperatures have followed, or that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow this year (/sarcasm)...

[Wild Cobra]

Phenomanul, we will be 10 years into this current cooling, and the lib s will still be invoking "Global Warming." I've just about given up on them. They seem to be lost causes.

[DarrinS]

You ever notice how board AGW fear puppies always get pissed when you post anecdotal evidence like the recent record-breaking snowfall in DC as a case for skepticism?


Isn't the entire AGW theory based on anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?


I think climate change is real, I just think it is the norm, rather than something unusual. If climate stopped changing, wouldn't it be for the first time in the history of the Earth?

[Wild Cobra]

You ever notice how board AGW fear puppies always get pissed when you post anecdotal evidence like the recent record-breaking snowfall in DC as a case for skepticism?


Isn't the entire AGW theory based on anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?


I think climate change is real, I just think it is the norm, rather than something unusual. If climate stopped changing, wouldn't it be for the first time in the history of the Earth?

Yep, it is mostly natural cycles. Funny how the increase in CO2 starting 7,000 years ago didn't seem to change the temperature fluctuation at all:

[jack sommerset]

They should blame Bush one more time.

[Wild Cobra]

They should blame Bush one more time.

I agree. That way they can stay true to form.

[Banzai]

[Marcus Bryant]

I didn't realize there were so many resident meteorologists and climatologists here.

[Marcus Bryant]

And, yes, I'm generally a skeptic. So you can dispense with your standard rebuttal.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...29Dyson-t.html

[DarrinS]

Can anyone tell me what the ideal/steady-state/optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

I can't seem to find this in the literature.

Thanks.

[Shastafarian]

Can anyone tell me what the ideal/steady-state/optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

I can't seem to find this in the literature.

Thanks.

We've already established it's irrelevant and likely doesn't exist.

Thanks.

[DarrinS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...29Dyson-t.html

Interesting article. Did the author intend to insult old people?

Dyson’s books display such masterly control of complex matters that smart young people read him and want to be scientists; older citizens finish his books and feel smart.

[DarrinS]

We've already established it's irrelevant and likely doesn't exist.

Thanks.

Well, if something is changing or warming, doesn't it have to be changing or moving away from something?

[Shastafarian]

Well, if something is changing or warming, doesn't it have to be changing or moving away from something?

Doesn't mean that something is an ideal with respect to the planet. Now if you want to discuss an ideal climate with respect to humans, then you'd have a conversation.

[DarrinS]

From the NYT article posted by MB:


And I thought all along that climate-change "deniers" were a bunch of radical right-wing oil company shills.

Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus.

[DarrinS]

Doesn't mean that something is an ideal with respect to the planet. Now if you want to discuss an ideal climate with respect to humans, then you'd have a conversation.

Ok. You brought it up. What is that ideal climate?

[Shastafarian]

Ok. You brought it up.

No, I didn't.

What is that ideal climate?

For humans to survive?

[DarrinS]

No, I didn't.

For humans to survive?

Since you seem to be a true believer, let me ask you a question.


Say the average global temperature had a downward trend for a 30-year period, while at the same time, CO2 conentration had an upward linear trend. How would you reconcile that?

[Shastafarian]

Since you seem to be a true believer, let me ask you a question.


Say the average global temperature had a downward trend for a 30-year period, while at the same time, CO2 conentration had an upward linear trend. How would you reconcile that?

I wouldn't since I'm not a scientist.