quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

Perhaps you might like to revise your claim in view of this graph, which clearly demonstrates that world temps have been increasing steadily and consistently this century. source

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

There is little to no evidence that D/O cycles occur outside of glacial periods and within interglacial periods. If they do occur their effects are minuscule and range from mild periods to cold periods, not hot periods.

Says the person I had to teach they existed.

Also to be noted: Not true.
But even if it *were* true there have, in fact, been thousands of such cycles. Hell man, there are a hundred or so documented since the eemian. And thats just a blink of an eye - what 150K years ago?

Absolutely fucking wrong, the evidence that DO cycles even happened came from the Greenland ice cores, which while they have stretched back to Eemian, only 25 of these cycles have been documented since the last glaciation. And if you decide to argue bond events instead, only 8 of these have been documented since the last glaciation. Once again I explain that DO events we're tied to the bipolar seesaw, where when it got colder in the north it got hotter in the south, and vice versa. The warming we are currently seeing World Wide has not been that of the seesaw, but that of a world wide warming event happening at the same time. If this was a DO event, we would see places like South America and Australia reporting cooler temperatures on average and we would be seeing Antarctica growing in land ice volume, not decreasing. As a result, DO events have been completely ruled out. Not to mention that since the end of the glacial period it's obvious that these DO events were getting weaker, giving more hints to the idea that DO events we're stronger during times of glaciation. I dislike using Wikipedia, but I thought it may be better to use it to drive the reality home since you have difficulty accepting "liberally biased sources" like SS. C'mon man, you may have introduced me to DO cycles, but you didn't teach me anything of value besides the name. Go get a proper education.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

Lastly, why does your whole hypothesis hinge on a cycle which is still contested? Some scientists still don't see it as a proper cycle simply because of the fact that it's quasi-periodical and because it's magnitude of cooling isn't always the same each cycle. If your denial hinges on a concept which is still under scrutiny, then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you so obsessively deny the existence of AGW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

Perhaps you might like to revise your claim in view of this graph, which clearly demonstrates that world temps have been increasing steadily and consistently this century. source

Once again, your simple inability to read a graph is simply staggering. Your graph says the same thing as all other graphs. That temperatures since 1997 have been stable at approximately +1 degree. They are not increasing.

In fact, if you take the hadut-4 temperature readings and graph them since 1997 you find that the temperatures are decreasing .05 degrees per year over the last 15 years.

Learn math.

quote:

It must be great to simply make up your own temperature readings and math 2013 to 1997 is 16 years and Google has never heard of something called hadut-4.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

Perhaps you might like to revise your claim in view of this graph, which clearly demonstrates that world temps have been increasing steadily and consistently this century. source

Once again, your simple inability to read a graph is simply staggering. Your graph says the same thing as all other graphs. That temperatures since 1997 have been stable at approximately +1 degree. They are not increasing.
In fact, if you take the hadut-4 temperature readings and graph them since 1997 you find that the temperatures are decreasing .05 degrees per year over the last 15 years.
Learn math.

It must be great to simply make up your own temperature readings and math 2013 to 1997 is 16 years and Google has never heard of something called hadut-4.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

There is little to no evidence that D/O cycles occur outside of glacial periods and within interglacial periods. If they do occur their effects are minuscule and range from mild periods to cold periods, not hot periods.

Says the person I had to teach they existed.

Also to be noted: Not true.
But even if it *were* true there have, in fact, been thousands of such cycles. Hell man, there are a hundred or so documented since the eemian. And thats just a blink of an eye - what 150K years ago?

Absolutely fucking wrong, the evidence that DO cycles even happened came from the Greenland ice cores, which while they have stretched back to Eemian, only 25 of these cycles have been documented since the last glaciation. And if you decide to argue bond events instead, only 8 of these have been documented since the last glaciation. Once again I explain that DO events we're tied to the bipolar seesaw, where when it got colder in the north it got hotter in the south, and vice versa. The warming we are currently seeing World Wide has not been that of the seesaw, but that of a world wide warming event happening at the same time. If this was a DO event, we would see places like South America and Australia reporting cooler temperatures on average and we would be seeing Antarctica growing in land ice volume, not decreasing. As a result, DO events have been completely ruled out. Not to mention that since the end of the glacial period it's obvious that these DO events were getting weaker, giving more hints to the idea that DO events we're stronger during times of glaciation. I dislike using Wikipedia, but I thought it may be better to use it to drive the reality home since you have difficulty accepting "liberally biased sources" like SS. C'mon man, you may have introduced me to DO cycles, but you didn't teach me anything of value besides the name. Go get a proper education.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

Lastly, why does your whole hypothesis hinge on a cycle which is still contested? Some scientists still don't see it as a proper cycle simply because of the fact that it's quasi-periodical and because it's magnitude of cooling isn't always the same each cycle. If your denial hinges on a concept which is still under scrutiny, then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you so obsessively deny the existence of AGW.

Certainly, you've asserted the view that this is simply a bi-polar seesaw. To say that this settle is by no means true. But even so, so what?

Bottom line: One more inaccuracy in the IPCC.


As for the number of D/O events: Read some more. They are well documented at over 140. And no, I'm not counting bond events. And again this is just since the eemian.

As for D/o events being document by the greenland ice cores - again your reading is elementary. They've been documented by swedish ice course, swiss ice cores, antartic ice cores. They've been documented by pollen analysis in more than 48 countries.

You dispute that we have not had THOUSANDS of temperature change scenarios is a farce.

Look man, all you have to do to get me to agree that an IPCC theory of global warming is accurate is:

a). Correctly modely the net absorption of radiation from co2 and other green house gases.
b). Correctly model cloud formation.
c). Accound for things like the PDO and ADO; malen. cycles.
D). HAVE SOME BLOODY AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As pointed out in previous links, the 'uncertainty' due to 'failure of climate to follow predictions' is a dead issue with the inclusion of recently compiled and published comprehensive Arctic on-the-ground and satellite data not included in the IPCC original assessment and the new studies showing the large scale warming in middle depths of the S. Pacific. There is now no 'missing heat' and the predictions are closely matching total known earth caloric increases. It just isn't showing up where expected from previous measurements. If people want to poke holes in Global Warming, they need to keep up with current research, as must credible 'deniers'.

Yes you pointed out that ice in antartica is melting. Ignoring the truth (or more precisely, lack of truth) in that statement.

"it just isn't showing up where expected" is the crux of the matter.

You (IPCC) oh so confidently predicted increased temperatures. They didn't occur. The theory is wrong.

So where "IS" it showing up ?

As Diana Ross once sang "I`m still waiting"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly, you've asserted the view that this is simply a bi-polar seesaw. To say that this settle is by no means true. But even so, so what?

Bottom line: One more inaccuracy in the IPCC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just to add:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Certainly, you've asserted the view that this is simply a bi-polar seesaw. To say that this settle is by no means true. But even so, so what?

Bottom line: One more inaccuracy in the IPCC.

Um, what? The bi-polar seesaw is one of the defining factors of DO events. As you said, there are cores which record pollen and dust around the world, and when one hemisphere was cold, the other was slightly more mild. So what? If the bi-polar seesaw applied to DO events in the past, then why wouldn't it apply to DO events supposedly happening now? This is a logical fallacy you're clearly looking over since your ego can't take the hit.

Bottom line: The bi-polar seesaw is a condition that is typical to DO events, and if isn't happening now, then it likely isn't a DO event. It is thus ruled out as a possible explanation. That is science. If you keep going about trying to prove that it is DO events despite contrary evidence, you're no better than the people trying to "prove" that the great flood actually happened.

quote:


(although, it is ironic that the IPCC "model" is actually 90 models. Its like having 90 models of gravity. Yet I digress)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


(although, it is ironic that the IPCC "model" is actually 90 models. Its like having 90 models of gravity. Yet I digress)

not ironic, not nothing, gravity is not at all chaotic, it is very well behaved and has some real simple rules.

Climate is more complex and is beholden to several million more variables, but you have demonstrated in that single sentence how it is you understand neither.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


(although, it is ironic that the IPCC "model" is actually 90 models. Its like having 90 models of gravity. Yet I digress)

not ironic, not nothing, gravity is not at all chaotic, it is very well behaved and has some real simple rules.

Climate is more complex and is beholden to several million more variables, but you have demonstrated in that single sentence how it is you understand neither.

Ah, so you agree that the IPCC model is wrong. Because they seem rather fixated on CO2.

Here's the link to the IPCC executive summary. I defy you to find one reference to any driver other than CO2.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

Funny that when I say the IPCC is too simplistic you attack the statement. And yet you say the same thing yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


(although, it is ironic that the IPCC "model" is actually 90 models. Its like having 90 models of gravity. Yet I digress)

not ironic, not nothing, gravity is not at all chaotic, it is very well behaved and has some real simple rules.

Climate is more complex and is beholden to several million more variables, but you have demonstrated in that single sentence how it is you understand neither.

Ah, so you agree that the IPCC model is wrong. Because they seem rather fixated on CO2.

Here's the link to the IPCC executive summary. I defy you to find one reference to any driver other than CO2.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

Funny that when I say the IPCC is too simplistic you attack the statement. And yet you say the same thing yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


(although, it is ironic that the IPCC "model" is actually 90 models. Its like having 90 models of gravity. Yet I digress)

not ironic, not nothing, gravity is not at all chaotic, it is very well behaved and has some real simple rules.

Climate is more complex and is beholden to several million more variables, but you have demonstrated in that single sentence how it is you understand neither.

Ah, so you agree that the IPCC model is wrong. Because they seem rather fixated on CO2.

Here's the link to the IPCC executive summary. I defy you to find one reference to any driver other than CO2.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

Funny that when I say the IPCC is too simplistic you attack the statement. And yet you say the same thing yourself.

Despite your bleatings of protest at inconvenient findings, as Galileo is reputed to have muttered: "And yet, it moves."
I don't know why I even try. Modern science is obviously beyond you. KEEP UP! You are fixated on historical science, not current work. Several times now more recent work updating the partial Earth study the 'flatened' curve embarrassment came from has been posted. NO pause is now observed, deeper investigation keeps showing continued warming as well as more complex and variable climate behaviors and feedbacks than understood before. DUH! It's a Big planet.
Arctic, 8 times the temp increase observed anywhere else in the last decade and more, info not available when the curve with the flattening was plotted. Mid-depth S. Pacific, huge caloric storage no one expected. (That means WARMER.) Again, information not present when the flattening curve was published.
Antarctic, double the previous net ice melt in just the last 3 years, warmer surface water has now uncut the single most vulnerable ice shelf and associated glacier feed structure we know about. No even hypothesized block to an accelerating collapse of that whole W. Antarctic ice cap has been suggested. Ocean acidification observed world wide. Just natural variability?? From what other mechanisms than the unprecedented anthropogenic CO2 rise in the atmosphere? Last time there was this much CO2 in the air and things were stable, NO polar ice caps?? That's a problem.
Climate change Very closely followed all over the N. Hemisphere is continuing to shorten Winter all through the 'pause' as observed by vegetative growth patterns and migratory animal, bird and insect patterns. Less studied S. Hemisphere behaviors seem in lockstep. The Southern Ocean is changing fastest of all by present inadequate studies. The latest work show More S. Ocean warming than earlier, not less.
Saying 'Climate Scientists are inherently biased is like saying Physicians invent disease and create injury. Or astronomers create stars. Studying a phenomenon isn't promoting it or creating it. Climate scientists are the most upset about anthropogenic climate change and the most involved in finding realistic coping mechanisms and possible controls mitigating the warming and it's disastrous consequences for humanity world wide. Deniers are the modern equivalent of allegorical Ostriches, burying your head in the sand only gets sand in your eyes, your butt gets mowed just the same as if you saw the trouble coming.
The rest of the world, and scientists generally, aren't sociopathic NeoCons or delusional US Right Wing corporate apologists. If your science isn't sound, the data verifiable, the arithmetic adds up, it doesn't get published and you don't have a career. Other people, methods and replicating studies have to agree or everyone gets busy figuring out why. Scientist Love sound but unexpected findings. The key word is "FINDINGS", not creative ways to confuse issues and 'refute' the irrefutable observations from the field. You say there is no warming. The people with thermometers and space satellite instruments, etc. all over say you are lying.
Mistakes get made, the system is the Only one on Earth that has inherent self-correcting mechanisms built in. Why we pay scientists and not Witch Doctors to figure how 'why' and keep as much shit out of the fan as possible. A revelation to political animals who argue to fools, but, there it is.