Reply With Quote
Well, the ICEsat wasn't launched until 2003, so it isn't really an arbitrarily short period.
worldwide data from 1000s of scientists going back decades or way more show AGW. Where's your proof from non-BigCarbon scientists of the contrary?
Well, the ICEsat wasn't launched until 2003, so it isn't really an arbitrarily short period.
I'm not going to search for it. If you want to say there's been no natural warming now then ok you're the expert. I don't enjoy debating the weather.
lol Who's acting if Time is a scientific opinion? The point was both sides use single events to try and further their argument. You can disagree if you want but this summer we'll see plenty of "It's hot" global warming threads and you'll chime in with a link to a study showing that it never used to get hot in summer.
I didn't say there had been no natural warming. I didn't say all the warming had been natural either. Its not either or. A small portion has been natural, the large majority has not. Consult the IPCC reports for the breakdown if you want. I certainly have never even given the allusion most of the warming has been natural.
YOU are acting like Time is a scientific opinion when you post a cover from it to make your point about the science. I've never made a post conflating any weather event with global warming at all, so the next time I bring up heat in the summer as an indicator of global warming will be the first time. If I have a point to make on climate change I use actual studies of long term trends to back up my assertions. You certainly won't catch me posting covers of magazines to try to make any points. I don't know what you mean by side, but I'm on the side of science and aside from isolated cases we certainly aren't making the case for global warming in Time or using isolated events to prove points.
You're cracking me up Manny.
This is what I posted
Where is the attempt to make a scientific claim? Is it the lack of blue font that's got you confused?
Nobody mentioned science until you jumped in. It was just a thread making fun of dumbass climate scientists...oh maybe that's what has your panties wadded up.
Who else is making the argument for climate change if not climate scientists? Time magazine? I guess if your point was that portions of the media use single events to make a case OK but frankly who gives a flying about what magazines like Time do? I'm frankly not even convinced that was what Time was doing there but apparetly you have ascertained that from looking at a stupid cover image. Not that anyone skeptical of climate change would ever be guilty of superficial analysis. I figured that you were actually a bit more open minded than posters like Darrin but your repeated fall back to the same position and inability to correctly categorize the arguments I've made in the past (this isn't the first time - you've accused me of all kinds of in the past that I've never said) pretty much points to that not being the case.
But anyway, I'm far from upset. If you think that me correcting the idiocy of this thread with actual facts is me being upset, then I guess I'm upset and the planet isn't actually warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nobody mentioned science until you jumped in.
Well, that's pretty much the problem with climate change "discussions" in this forum.
It wasn't a climate change discussion. It was making fun of some stupid scientists.
I'm actually surprised you disagree with the articles point...
In that lies a hard lesson for those who persistently exaggerate the impact of global warming. We believe in man-made climate change and are no less concerned than others about it. But the cause of sensible policy is ill-served by exaggeration; there is a need for recognition of the science, which shows there are variations in how climate is changing and what the impact is, or will be.
Since you want to be scientific and informative...can you look at the recorded average annual temps for San Antonio and Boerne and tell me why I should be so concerned? Also, from a scientific perspective of course, is their any significant difference in the warming trend seen in San Antonio over the past couple of decades versus just outside the city limits in Boerne?
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 01-03-2014 at 12:43 AM.
You want to look at 2 arbitrary points and say you're being scientific? Ha, that's funny. From looking at those two points, what I can tell you is that the Boerne instrument is likely not very good. You'll notice the distribution is much wider for the Boerne instrumentation. There's also many gaps in the record. Following the latest gap the range in the data is smaller so there's likely better instrumentation in place then. You should also post your source for the data, btw. On the other hand, the San Antonio record has a much smaller distribution of values and is a consistent data record. Your graph also sucks, btw. Thats a pretty ty Y axis.
But honestly, who provides a graph then asks about significance? Why didn't you use excel to give you the appropriate values to look at the data sets instead of making a ty graph? Would have taken the same amount of time.
Your question is telling, though. Here, let me give you these two data points (LOL two ing data points - are you ting me? I mean REALLY?) and you tell me why I should be concerned. That's such a bull question to begin with. And I suspect your follow up was in an effort to discuss the urban heat island effect. If that was the case, lets just establish that urban heat islands definitely exist. However, urban heat islands are a really small part of the data set (hint - there are far more Boernes than San Antonios). In fact, familiarizing yourself with the BEST study which has been discussed here ad naseum would probably address any points you have with that graph.
As for agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion piece, I would agree with that statement had it been linked to someone who had legitimately been over the top. A scientific expedition to study ice loss in the Antarctic - here we know ice mass is being lost - is sensationalist how? The articles implication that those scientists are somehow stupid because of this is some of the dumbest I've read in awhile.
Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you a scientist?
Well that is the type of response I expected, which leads me to my real question for you.
Why do professional climate scientists like yourself suck so badly at discussing climate change with non scientists like myself? Is placing a chip on your shoulder part of your climate scientist training?
It's always seemed odd to me since more than other sciences you really need the general public to believe in what you are doing. Do climate scientists like yourself think that acting like an angry pompous ass is the best way to get people on your side?
Funny how the alarmists like Manny will pick two points and say "see, there it is," then belittle those who use the same tactics.
It's not a scientific article, and because they put a question mark at the end they are just asking a legitimate question just like Time magazine was. So is an ice age coming?Arctic ice cap increases 60% in one year; so, is an ice age now coming?
Ever since 2007 when Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for a suspect global warming alert, there have been ongoing doomsday sayings concerning rising oceans from a disappearing ice cap. Even the BBC, a prestigious news agency, shrilly declared in 2007 that the Arctic ice cap would disappear in 2013.
Here we are in 2013 and not only do we still have an Arctic ice cap, but it has increased in size by 60% in one year according to measurements done by satellite images according to another British news agency, The Daily Mail....
http://www.examiner.com/article/arct...age-now-coming
Ice age? I would say it's possible. It would take a pretty long time, but that trend may have started with this current solar cycle.
Don't act like you're the general public. Why would I be short with you? It would not have to do with your history if miscategorizing what I say and attributing bull to me in the past, would it? It wouldn't be because of you making fun of "stupid climate scientists" would it? It wouldn't be because you're repeated failed attempts to grasp fundamental scientific principles on the matter and repeat ad naseum bull that has been refuted. No, its obviously because I - and other climate scientists - have a chip on my shoulder and I just fail at being reasonable with you.
I actually don't think there's much of a problem in the way climate scientists communicate their findings. For one, denial is not a world wide phenomenon. Secondly, the biggest indicator of whether or not you believe climate change in the United States is your political party affiliation. Is there anyone in this thread spouting denial bull who isn't a self identified conservative? Similarly, the same pattern is seen with another scientific theory: evolution. So, are biologists in the united states simply failing at communication too?
I actually love discussing the subject with people face to face. I had a recent discussion with a stock broker and petroleum engineer on a flight who were both skeptics. They bought up a few myths - such as volcanoes emitting more CO2 each year than humans - and I explained to them where they were incorrect and showed them data. They seemed very open to it and by the end of the flight were much farther along to understanding the concepts. The engineer especially so. Now, I'm hesitant to say that I changed their minds as you never really know and people are very much hardwired against changing their viewpoints such as this quickly, but it was a good conversation none the less. This is not the only experience I've had recently. So perhaps its not a chip on my shoulder but you. Just maybe.
Lets say you start out with 10,000 dollars on a trip to Vegas. After 10 hours, you've lost most of it and you're down to just 10 bucks. After another hour, you've increased that 10 dollars to 6 - a magnificent increase of 60%. Are you on your way to being rich?
Snakeboy, can you honestly say you're open to agreeing with the IPCC's assessment on climate change? I don't think you can.
BTW, if you want to compare something to Time, its probably best if the article in question doesn't cite the bible.
The Bible does not discuss global warming specifically, however one of the plagues of the tribulation period which the sun will become abnormally hot and Earth inhabitants will curse God as a reaction is talked about in Revelation. The final global warming event will be the introduction of the lake of fire, a not too gentle conclusion of the final Judgment.The Bible is loaded with facts and much validation of what the Bible stated thousands of year ago has already taken place. Even many scientific principles established centuries later were declared by the 66 authors of the Bible under the anointing of the Holy Spirit\.
Definitely just a chip on my shoulder.
Yeah, I know Darrin, it's just like all of those 1% guys who complain about taxes making them poor, then stumbling into their bank statements.
Last edited by Drachen; 01-03-2014 at 11:45 PM.
These were SCIENTISTS studying what?
This was an incredibly weak attempt to give doubt to warming, embarrassingly weak. You guys gotta do better than some guys retracing an old explorers steps. Pathetic.
, it's cold in my room tonight... Jesus... Case closed.
Seriously?
Maybe. Did the arctic ice decrease a 1000% before the 60% increase?
I never read the article but why does it matter. Like Time magazine they were just asking a legitimate question right? They did use a question mark after all.BTW, if you want to compare something to Time, its probably best if the article in question doesn't cite the bible.
I don't know what the IPCC's assessment is but I'd say probably not.
My position is...
That we are rapidly increasing CO2 levels and the real impact of that increase has yet to be determined; but common sense says it's not going to be a good thing.
That the side which pretends to be most concerned with the increasing CO2 levels is also fully opposed to the only energy source we have that could significantly change the current trajectory and is more interested in using the issue to advance an ideological agenda.
That climate scientists foolishly try to connect their field to current weather events and in doing so reduce themselves to nothing more than weathermen and guarantee that they will lose their argument with the general public.
That increasing CO2 levels will have little affect on my life because I'm 47 and don't have any kids so if people want to be stupid and spend decades arguing over the weather then I should just enjoy the show as ridiculous as it is.
Do you think me reading the IPCC assessment will change any of those facts?
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 01-04-2014 at 02:59 AM.
Doesn't a lot of the pro climate change evidence rely heavily on "recorded" temperatures? I mean how can a scientist 100 percent tell us what the temps were during the Crusades or during the Roman Empire or before that? What about all of the temperatures that were never recorded?
lol conservatives
" science! Why?...............Cause it, that's why! Support Phil!"
Yeah I'm going to chalk it up to me giving you a bit too much credit. "I don't know what the position is but I'm against it. Oh, why haven't they explained it to me? Its their fault! The article I linked is the equivalent of time and it doesn't matter they were referring to the bible as an actual source!"
Chip on my shoulder, obviously.
They use proxy measurements, like tree rings.
Amazing how many insurance salesmen can become climatologists on the internet.
Ahhhh, but they are salesmen. Carry on.
Yeah I'm going to chalk it up to me giving you a bit too much credit. "I don't know what the position is but I'm against it. Oh, why haven't they explained it to me? Its their fault! The article I linked is the equivalent of time and it doesn't matter they were referring to the bible as an actual source!"
Chip on my shoulder, obviously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions