RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:06:47 AM)

Where is that data of the current trend?  citation, please.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:07:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Will, here is another issue. Have another look at the graph

Reading from right to left notice what happens at the peak of the interglacial period 130,000 years out, give or take a few. AFTER the temperature falls quickly the CO2 remains steadily high in the atmosphere for about 15,000 years. So, glaciation occurs while the CO2 remains high. How could that happen if the CO2 provided a greenhouse effect? What caused the glaciation? Maybe CO2 doesn't cause all that much of a greenhouse? Maybe there is another factor at play.



You don't get it... they WANT there to be a CO2 cause/effect link -- so no logic or scentific evidence will ever suffice for those brainwashed by the new religion of global warming/climate change doom-and-gloom. 




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:08:13 AM)

 
See Page 3.




mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:14:40 AM)

But we would need fairly certain proof that co2 is not causing it, and it would fuck with some pretty sound principles long established since Brahe, Copernicus, Bernoulli, Boltzman and so on.....way before republicans and democrats started kvetching.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:19:02 AM)

 
See vincentML's posts to this thread... there are some valid points.

Personally, my view is that it's simply not "settled science" -- either way.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:20:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But we would need fairly certain proof that co2 is not causing it, and it would fuck with some pretty sound principles long established since Brahe, Copernicus, Bernoulli, Boltzman and so on.....way before republicans and democrats started kvetching.

Ron, don't try to confuse scientifically illiterate people with Physics and Chemistry.



mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:22:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA


See Page 3.




I looked at what was there and saw no credible citations of such cooling trend , unless we are straining at gnats in its meaning.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:23:42 AM)

 
Click the link...




mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:40:09 AM)

which one on that page?



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:02:11 AM)

Let me save you the trouble.  =)

"According to NOAA/NCDC, 1994, 1996, 1991, 1997, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1992, and 1999 all had warmer winter temperatures than the winter of 2010-2011 (years ordered from coolest to warmest).
 
In fact the average winter temperature for the contiguous United States in 1992 was 36.90 degrees F, as compared to 32.15 degrees F in 2011 and 31.12 degrees in 2010. So we are talking about recent winters being about 5 degrees cooler. It was even warmer in 1999 and 2000: it cooled nearly 6 degrees F from 2000 to 2010. Yet these people want us to believe it is actually getting warmer."

Link:  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate



[image]local://upfiles/687741/8749336FA73840CDAECB829AF4C8609C.jpg[/image]



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:06:40 AM)

Graph



[image]local://upfiles/687741/F770782BA1364DEF8924A6F6985B8A4A.jpg[/image]



Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:11:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

Let me save you the trouble.  =)

"According to NOAA/NCDC, 1994, 1996, 1991, 1997, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1992, and 1999 all had warmer winter temperatures than the winter of 2010-2011 (years ordered from coolest to warmest).
 
In fact the average winter temperature for the contiguous United States in 1992 was 36.90 degrees F, as compared to 32.15 degrees F in 2011 and 31.12 degrees in 2010. So we are talking about recent winters being about 5 degrees cooler. It was even warmer in 1999 and 2000: it cooled nearly 6 degrees F from 2000 to 2010. Yet these people want us to believe it is actually getting warmer."

Link:  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate



]


What about the 50 year 100 year, 200 year and 300 year trend? (covers the Industrial revolution and time previous)
In other words, is that 10 years a blip in a long term trend?

I mean if your child's temperature gradually rose from 98.6 to 104.5 over 24 hours, would you declare him cured if his temp went down to 104.4 during the 25th hour or would you be calling the doctor?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:17:05 AM)

Wow, look what happens when you start in 1880 and go to 2004?

Where is that downward trend?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html


*The observed temperature increases have been accompanied by other phenomena such as decreases in mountain glacier extent and snow cover, shortening seasons of lake and river ice, decreases in Arctic sea-ice extent, and a rise in global average sea level (IPCC, 2001). Global time series

pdf version / gif version pdf version / gif version

Although yearly and decadal variations are evident in these time series of annual global surface mean temperatures, the 1901-2004 long-term trend in combined land and ocean temperatures is positive (+0.6°C/century). Land surface temperatures have increased at a rate of +0.8°C/century while ocean surface temperatures have risen +0.6°C/century during the same time period. The trend has increased to +0.17°C/decade during the past 25-year period (1979-2004) for combined land and ocean temperatures.


Theres even pictures and stuff in the link.



It's amazing what happens when you use the whole graph and don't cherry pick a few years.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:17:45 AM)


1)  Current trend has shown cooling.

2)  Alleged "experts" can't explain certain periods.

3)  Evidence that CO2 may be a effect, not a cause.


In short, not "settled science".




mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:17:52 AM)

well it doesnt quite show that.  local rankings during that period are sorted descended for that period,  and shown for the trend from base point, and the years of course do not follow that order, I see that 2011 was 32.15 and 2010 was 32.12 thereby proving the original arguement by a random selection of those dates because now we are making logically, an undistributed middle arguement.

If december february time frames are considered only.... that is we restrict the data to some unrealistic unreality we are all set.

now, for those same time frames what was the avg temp of the other three seasons?

I have seen no data or postulate by warming that says that these things will occur in a y=mx + b sloping.

That is the bobslide to hell may include many turns.

So, again no credible trend of cooling has emerged even if we restrict the data to make it look so. 



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:19:16 AM)

 
I disagree... but your view is your view.  (shrugs)




Lucylastic -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:21:54 AM)

thats the point, cherry picking statistics prove their "whole disbelief"
I know they have been using ice cores and earth cores samples for years , but the other night I watched something the other night on "blue holes" the deep caves and holes covered with water, and finding stalagmites and stalactites hoed similar clues to the temperature and climate hundred of thousands, within the salt deposits
fascinating to me with regard to weather and helping back up all kinds of findings.
Has anyone else heard of this?




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:41:32 AM)

I found a good (but fucking LONG and sometimes technically difficult) article on the history of modern climatology. I'm gonna toss it up in case anyone is interested.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
It has everything, tree rings, old sea captain's logs, overlooked Southern hemisphere data from the medevil warming period, crop maps, all sorts of cool stuff

One wierd thing in the article is using boreholes into the earth of all things to study paleoclimate.

It makes no damn sense but they say it gives good data.

It also gives a good background on that recent 10 year flat to slightly cooling period we just got over. It's about 3 paragraphs from the bottom if you're looking for it.

There will be a quiz tomorrow. [8D]



Lucylastic -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:48:01 AM)

Im trying to find the title of the documentary, it was fascinating
Thanks I will read Hill, While I dont have physics under my belt, I am interested in the "science"
Biology/evolution is my interest and some of the things they have found at the bottom of these blue holes are showing some incredible newish info

thanks again
OK I found it, its a PBS prog Extreme Cave Diving
and you can watch it at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/extreme-cave-diving.html
there is video
the info Im talking about is in the last half hour
IM well aware that its probably well old news compared to what they have found since then, but hey , its fascinating



Lucylastic -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 12:14:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


There will be a quiz tomorrow. [8D]

You eeebil eeeebil bastage




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875