Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Up slightly, eh?
Its actually at 35 year highs.
*sigh* Once again, sea ice extent has increased slightly, but volume has decreased. Please do some research into arctic sea ice:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered-intermediate.htm
quote:
And once again, we're not talking about sea ice. We're talking ice volumes in ANARTICA. Wrong hemisphere.
And once again SS is a crap site whose purpose is to supress actual climate debate. Quote a real paper. Like the Ice & snow database.
quote:
Future of mankind eh. My how disturbing. We should immediately drop all rational thought and fight this existential crisis! Oh my! The sky is falling!
Oh wait. We have less than a 1.3 degree temperature change - something that has occured millions of times over history. We've experienced greater temperature changes, and the earth certainly has seen millions of them.
Yup, it has occurred millions of times over history...except it happens over thousands to millions of years, never before has earth ever seen such a rapid INCREASE in temperature like this before.
Flat out lie.
We've seen far more extreme temperature changes, frequently.
For example, not too long ago from the younger drayas/preboreal transition saw a change of about 15 degrees in 50 years.
Other sources (such as Dangard 1989) says it was a 7C degree change over perhaps 50 years. Dangard was essentially the pioneer in paleoclimatology.
Not like he's important or anything.
Regardless there are numerous sources that say that the idea that "never before has the earth ever seen such a rapid increase in temperature" is absolute poppycock.
Your position is absolutely untenable - its LAUGHABLY ignorant.
quote:
quote:
One of (numerous) problems with the ipcc body of crap is that the model makes no serious examination nature of carbon forcing as a function of co2 concentration. Present theories are open ended - when in fact the likely fact is an asymptotic approach to equilibrium. There's a lot of science out there that believes that temperature contribution by Co2 is limited to about 2 degrees in total (where we are at about 1.2).
And 2 degrees is a lot of extra energy in the climate system. Also it's an approach to an equilibrium? Thats technically true, since we have added so much CO2 that temperatures have begun increasing, meaning that in the future the temperatures should go down and reach pre-industrial levels. But thats only if we slow down the use of fossil fuels or if we completely run out of them.
quote:
We're not going to run out of them - at least not in the next 300 years.
And whether the temperature has already reached equilibrium or not is unknown.
What is known is that the IPCC theory is wrong and gives no guidance on the issue
quote:
Regarding sceptical science - its founder has been caught saying its purpose is to suppress dissent.
If a ton of people believed killing your second born son was good, wouldn't you want to suppress dissent for letting them live? Of if a ton of people believed politicians were gods, wouldn't you want to suppress dissent for trying to remove them from office after their terms are up? The website is designed to refute denier arguments, so ya it is meant to suppress dissent through education. There is a comment section on that website you know. If they were trying to suppress dissent, they wouldn't let people comment, instead they use it as a method to answer questions on climate change that deniers or those who are confused dont currently understand/arent answered in the respective page.
No. The purpose, as the founder has admitted is to suppress dissent. They have organized hit squads of people that will immediately kill any conversation that threatens their point of view.
The old adage is that if you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. And when you have neither, pound the table. And so SS now has more than 200 volunteers organized that will contest any non IPCC theory, drown out research, and harass and attempt to intimidate anyone that doesn't toe the eco-terrorist line.
quote:
quote:
As for SS's criticism: its off the mark, misconstruing (deliberately) svenmark's research. Svenmarks research says that ionizing radiation has led to increased cloud cover, which has ameliorated global warming.
Unlike the IPCC theory, his theory actually tracks aersol formation. It tracks cloud formation, and it explains the temperature variation that results.
Of course SS would seek to discredit him. Svenmark has all the hallmarks of actual, yanno, science. Ie. A theory that predicts the data, and can be tested and shown accurate.
It's not just SS pal, I know wikipedia isn't a great source but it does a good job summarizing that he's off the beaten path searching for gold but he keeps finding rocks instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_updates
Perhaps you can point me to where it says that? Because I read the article and didn't find a damn word of it. I did find that there is debate on the subject. However, there is a published paper in 2013 in a mainline scientific journal that says that %50 of all temperature variation is per Svenmarks ionizing radiation.
Additionally I've read all of the papers used to contravene Svenmarks research (unlike you). And frankly, they are utter frauds.
One attempts to use neutrino meausrements to say that no such cloud formation occurs.
Since Svenmark said that ionizing radiation caused cloud formation, and this paper used neutrinos which are famously NON ionizing its like comparing an apple to quantum theory isn't it.
The second ahem, "science" found a positive correlation and then changed the time scales to obfuscate it. Ie., Svenmark postulated cloud cover effects that would last from between a few hours to a few days. The second "science" found no change in cloud cover over a month later.
Yeah. If I didn't know better I'd think someone was manipulating science to discredit someone. [sarcasm] So not only is the scientifically dishonest it fails even a 2nd grade sniff test. When was the last time you saw a cloud that lasted a month?
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 5/8/2014 9:11:51 AM >
|
RE: interesting post on the politics of alarmists. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread