So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?
Ready when you are.
So what does the vast majority of scientific literature say regarding the ice on Antarctica?
Who cares. The science you practice, using consensus, is not science.
Didn't see this anywhere. Maybe there's a feedback loop that lessens the effects of global warming. Guess we won't know til 2020.
NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower
Will likely take much longer than that to full grasp how cloud feedback's work.
If you look on the right side of the screen you'll see a graph of the anomaly. It correlates very well with ENSO cycles, which isn't much of a surprise but thats a huge part of why a decade isn't long enough to allow for the entire range of variability.
The reason you a range in temp model prediction is largely due to the uncertainty of feedbacks and which will "win out". If negative feed backs win out then you'll see more of a stable temp but if positive feedbacks are stronger then you could see a much larger increase. This type of feedback would be good news.
I'm taking a Paleoclimate class this semester and a lot of it has to do with how feedbacks in the past worked. Its really interesting and they don't always work they way you would assume. (IE - Ice ages may/can occur by making winters warmer/summers cooler and the feedbacks those two changes bring forth)
The issue of feedbacks is an area where there is a lot of disagreement and uncertainty. A lot of the models assume positive feedback, hence the so-called "tipping points".
Massive global climate change -- before fossil fuel burning -- no tipping points reached
I guess you weren't ready, after all.
Also, if you think you go in and out of ice ages without tipping points then I don't believe you quite understand what is meant by a tipping point.
Hint: The formation of an ice sheet is due to a tipping point.
Also, why do you go back to this? Is any argument of AGW theory that only humans can cause climate change through raising CO2? We study past climate change precisely so we can understand the mechanisms to which climate responds to. The only one of those mechanisms at work right now - which has been at work in the past as you yourself have posted about (somehow that eludes you) - is CO2.
And yet, here we are, not in an ice age (I believe they are called interglacials) and without any policy making the difference.
I'm not aware anyone said the we would be in an ice age without policy change in 2012 (or ever, for that matter). Maybe the Mayans, I guess.
Did you really just post this? I guess all the other mechanisms stopped working when Henry Ford created that evil contraption.
I get it, Darrin. I'm wasting time discussing this with you. You will never be ready to discuss the science. The biggest epic fail in this thread is not any of the hundreds of posts you've made with bad science or short shortsightedness but rather every one of my posts that were made with an actual intent to discuss things with you.
The industrial revolution didn't start with the car.
In any event, if you can attribute the current global change to orbital variations or solar output changes then your free too. , prove its either of those and you'll probably win a Nobel prize!
Whatever. The class sounds interesting -- the kind I would audit if I had the time. But I don't suppose my views would be welcome.
Well, I don't think most would give a about your views considering they are there learn from the guy with the PhD and decades of actual research in the field. I couldn't tell you a damn thing about what the students around me believe one way or another. (aside from the 2 or so graduate students in the class who's research I'm familiar with)
The professor himself doesn't agree with many of the commonly held beliefs in the field but he's made it a point to explain why when this is the case and give the baseline theory itself. These are usually very minor disagreements in the greater view of things, however (IE - details in how tree ring analysis is done).
Honestly, come to think of it I've never even heard him mention his views on AGW. I guess he's not indoctrinating us correctly.
=
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 02-29-2012 at 12:04 AM.
A lot of phd's didn't accept continental drift until fairly recently and it was proposed by a -- meteorologist.
I hope that you learn that volume of science doesn't necessarily mean good science. That's why I didn't respond to "what do vast majority say about Antarctica".
This is completely disingenuous. What makes the one study you supported somehow better than the others? You don't read the studies and make sense of them, Darrin. You simply pick the ones that happen to say what you want. You do this so poorly, that the studies then come back and bite you when you later want to argue something that contradicts them.
Explain to me why the studies you cite are good science and others aren't if you want me to believe this is the case. I'm not holding my breath.
Links to the others? I'll look them over.
One more thing I bet the AGW alarmists didn't count on. Wouldn't it be funny if what solar and soot didn't cause in warming, an unmonitored rise in average cloud height did... before they were measuring...
Why do you think the vast majority of literature agrees on Antarctica? Feel free to skip the conspiracy rant.
And thanks for not answering my question. Expected tbh.
What do the good articles say about Antarctica Darrin?
The ones he cites admit to warming just that there is increased precipitation at lower la udes.
Majority doesn't matter, especially when most are looking for things they are biased over. the true test is to have open Peer Reviews. There is something wrong when the skeptics aren't convinced after reading what should be conclusive.
If it isn't conclusive, it should net be taught as fact. Climate Science in the universities is a farce, because they are not teaching fact. they are teaching assumptions and agenda.
My How The "Science" Doth Change
The Fear-Mongering:
Tim Flannery, ABC Lateline, June 10, 2005:
Flannery: I’m afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . .
Maxine McKew: But. . . we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?
Flannery: . . . they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.
McKew: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with—if that’s right—back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
Flannery: That’s right.
The Fallout
ABC 7.30 Report, July 12, 2005:
MAXINE McKEW: As Australian cities have steadily watched their dam levels fall and amid predictions of continued irregular rain patterns . . . for NSW Premier Bob Carr that moment of truth has come with his surprise announcement to build a $2 billion desalination plant to remove the salt from the seawater.
The Reality
ABC 702, yesterday:
A FLOOD watch has been issued for parts of Sydney with continued heavy rain falling in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment expected to “fill and spill” over Warragamba Dam.
Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 said we’d never again get dam-filling rain, and Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide could need desalination plants by as early as 2009. Now, with the country awash, dams near full and desalination plants left idle, Flannery has fled:
A commission spokeswoman yesterday said Professor Flannery was in Germany, but said droughts were expected to become more frequent and ”just because it is raining does not mean we should not think ahead and prepare for a drier future.”
That is a classic. Just because it’s raining, doesn’t mean it won’t.
The Bureau of Meterology is still waiting for that drier future. They predict a wetter autumn for much of northern and eastern Australia. But... wasn't the science of climate change, and never-ending drought settled back in 2005? If that's the best that science can do over seven years, what chance to they have for 100, 200 years? The only thing that is settled is that they simply don't know. Perhaps they will agree to chip in some of the money from their current grants to pay for that $2 billion de-salination plant?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
