17 yrs. no warming?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby assateague » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:41 pm

What's wrong with a warmer world?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:48 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote: It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.

OK. That's a rational point, woody. Comparing conflicting data from equally esteemed sources is tough. On this one it simply seems to me that it would be something we would want to err on the safe side of, assuming there is a real conflict of scientific opinion.


It's not a political argument it's a scientific argument. The entire premise is that greenhouse gases are producing global warming. The scientists are able to measure co2 levels throughout the last many thousands of years but not through a whole cycle of an ice age. The levels of co2 are elevated. This occurred at the same time as warming in a warming period. Wrong conclusions were drawn from correlations calculated through coincidence. We are in the retreat of an ice age. Every first year geology student can tell you that. We are also in a period of substantial solar activity. No chit warming is occurring but not from elevated co2. On the end Jim, mostly all of their science is legit. It's their conclusions that are wrong. The proof is that there hasn't been any statistical warming in over 17 years, in fact there has been cooling for almost 8. Plus their Computer models have woefully been completely wrong.

Oh brother....do you realize how many hours of internet research you have subjected me to, to come to the conclusion that I still don't know? Screw it....I like Clinton and Gore. I'll believe Al if he tells me there really is a tooth fairy! :lol3: Now I've got to install motion sensors in my grandkid's room. Do they work on "fairies"?


Jim, Vince is right...
There is clear correlation between two unrelated subjects.
But more importantly there is closer correlation to more powerful forces that are far more likely and capable of making changes on such a grand scale.

The evidence is inconclusive at best, but a logical scientific mind can see the end game.

Man changing global weather patterns is a scifi villain's aspiration that politicians turned into a money making (stealing) wet dream.

I wish you could understand and if you really want to, I can give you a reading list... Not about global warming... My college text books. With a good grasp of the forces interacting and human capabilities it becomes quite obvious that it is hokum.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby aunt betty » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:55 pm

Enter...
MANBEARPIG :yes:
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 9364
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:05 pm

MackieKnife wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote: It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.

OK. That's a rational point, woody. Comparing conflicting data from equally esteemed sources is tough. On this one it simply seems to me that it would be something we would want to err on the safe side of, assuming there is a real conflict of scientific opinion.


It's not a political argument it's a scientific argument. The entire premise is that greenhouse gases are producing global warming. The scientists are able to measure co2 levels throughout the last many thousands of years but not through a whole cycle of an ice age. The levels of co2 are elevated. This occurred at the same time as warming in a warming period. Wrong conclusions were drawn from correlations calculated through coincidence. We are in the retreat of an ice age. Every first year geology student can tell you that. We are also in a period of substantial solar activity. No chit warming is occurring but not from elevated co2. On the end Jim, mostly all of their science is legit. It's their conclusions that are wrong. The proof is that there hasn't been any statistical warming in over 17 years, in fact there has been cooling for almost 8. Plus their Computer models have woefully been completely wrong.

WRONG. Its purely political relative to humans causing it. There is no discussion whether we are adding methane and co2. We are. Whether its a trend is not debate-able. The science shows statistical significance. Who cares if its solar flares or douche bags; lets get ahead of it. Lets nuke China.


It is political... Vince is saying if shouldn't be!
I have said this before, bug here you go knife...

The amount of total green house gas released by man on average makes up between .0001% and 1% depending on what source you look at.

Bovine creatures and decaying plants make up a gran majority of the "pollution"

In 2010 the air was measured to be cleaner on average than it been since the industrial revolution!
Less than ten ppm, the goal set by the EPA I believe was 15 ppm. So what are they doing? Moving the goal posts! 5 or 6 ppm!
That means they are going to require the air to be cleaner than it was before man's "influence"...
How do we do that? Put filters up cow's asses?
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:14 pm

As suspected can't play with the big boys... Get outa the water!
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:17 pm

assateague wrote:What's wrong with a warmer world?


Absolutely nothing if that is what it is supposed to be!

I really hope I'm right and there is an ever after... In a 6000 years I am going to find all the yuppies I can (not likely to be many where I will be) and I am going to rub their faces in the ice covering Assa's home!
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:30 pm

MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
assateague wrote:What's wrong with a warmer world?


Absolutely nothing if that is what it is supposed to be!

I really hope I'm right and there is an ever after... In a 6000 years I am going to find all the yuppies I can (not likely to be many where I will be) and I am going to rub their faces in the ice covering Assa's home!

Monumental stupidity, i wont die confused, Im looking for my last nitrous blast x 10.


Self proclamation?

Spot on, if I had to use two words to describe ...
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:02 pm

MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
assateague wrote:What's wrong with a warmer world?


Absolutely nothing if that is what it is supposed to be!

I really hope I'm right and there is an ever after... In a 6000 years I am going to find all the yuppies I can (not likely to be many where I will be) and I am going to rub their faces in the ice covering Assa's home!

Woody youre gunna make it farther in the after life than any of us. Youre an awesome american, your a top three patriot who could get the 20+ yr card from Jesus. Youve been chosen. I wish I was you and within your philosophical realm you selffish pupppet.


What's your problem, Knife?

Debating, you can't argue with facts...
You start the name calling and then you get all butt hurt when you're faced with more facts...

IDK how to handle you... Should I be more gentle and get sensitivity training?
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:17 pm

MackieKnife wrote::crying:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
assateague wrote:What's wrong with a warmer world?


Absolutely nothing if that is what it is supposed to be!

I really hope I'm right and there is an ever after... In a 6000 years I am going to find all the yuppies I can (not likely to be many where I will be) and I am going to rub their faces in the ice covering Assa's home!

Woody youre gunna make it farther in the after life than any of us. Youre an awesome american, your a top three patriot who could get the 20+ yr card from Jesus. Youve been chosen. I wish I was you and within your philosophical realm you selffish pupppet.


What's your problem, Knife?

Debating, you can't argue with facts...
You start the name calling and then you get all butt hurt when you're faced with more facts...

IDK how to handle you... Should I be more gentle and get sensitivity training?

Yes, you should get a crap ton more education.


Plan on it... Not sure how that will help communicate with you.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indawoods » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:36 pm

assateague wrote:I'm not THAT cheap.


-on the viability of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a thirst quenching barley pop.
User avatar
Indawoods
hunter
 
Posts: 6435
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:45 pm

Arguing with MK is like wrestling a retarded pig. Eventually you realize the pig is both high and retarded. That and it is simply not smart enough to enjoy it. :yes:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:50 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Arguing with MK is like wrestling a retarded pig. Eventually you realize the pig is both high and retarded. That and it is simply not smart enough to enjoy it. :yes:


Well I wasn't going to be that blunt.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indawoods » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:54 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578528841152512364.html

There was always a problem with the CO2-as-cause explanation—how to explain the decline in temperatures from the mid-1940s and relatively flat temperatures until 1975 when carbon dioxide levels were rising all the time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did this by arguing that sulfate aerosols resulting from coal-fired power station emissions had a cooling effect that temporarily stopped the rise in temperatures.

There wasn't hard data on aerosols, so assumptions were used that couldn't be checked against reality. To anyone but a climate scientist, it was deeply unsatisfactory—especially as different climate modelers used different values to get similar results. Nonetheless, this was the story line the IPCC developed in its 1995 Second Assessment Report.


fitting the data to the theory instead of fitting the theory to the actual data is the only evidence anyone with any scientific training needs to know to see it for the sham that it is. pure steaming hokum. pungent donkey excrement. hairy orifice biscuits.

the inability of the 'models' to back predict what has actually happened in the past (known data and results) is the nail in the coffin.

the confirmation bias infesting the entire scope of climate science in the last 20 years is prolific to the point of absurdity.
assateague wrote:I'm not THAT cheap.


-on the viability of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a thirst quenching barley pop.
User avatar
Indawoods
hunter
 
Posts: 6435
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:04 pm

RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Excellent. I've reached the point where I don't bother too much referencing cuz it just winds up a pissing match where everyone wastes their time fetching links to wield, and no one is willing to consider changing their thinking anyway. So state you opinion and what your basic logic is. For me, the fact that glaciers and ice caps are dwindling is pretty telling and obvious. That's my opinion.

Yes Woody, we've been in a warming trend since the last ice age. That's not really the issue. The issue is the rate of change and what, if any counter-veiling forces might be at our disposal should we choose to try and apply them ... for whatever reasons we deem to be in our own enlightened self-interest ... civilization wise.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:43 pm

dudejcb wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Excellent. I've reached the point where I don't bother too much referencing cuz it just winds up a pissing match where everyone wastes their time fetching links to wield, and no one is willing to consider changing their thinking anyway. So state you opinion and what your basic logic is. For me, the fact that glaciers and ice caps are dwindling is pretty telling and obvious. That's my opinion.

Yes Woody, we've been in a warming trend since the last ice age. That's not really the issue. The issue is the rate of change and what, if any counter-veiling forces might be at our disposal should we choose to try and apply them ... for whatever reasons we deem to be in our own enlightened self-interest ... civilization wise.

Check the south pole Dude before you swallow it hook line and sinker.... :wink:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 54670
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:24 am

Indaswamp wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Excellent. I've reached the point where I don't bother too much referencing cuz it just winds up a pissing match where everyone wastes their time fetching links to wield, and no one is willing to consider changing their thinking anyway. So state you opinion and what your basic logic is. For me, the fact that glaciers and ice caps are dwindling is pretty telling and obvious. That's my opinion.

Yes Woody, we've been in a warming trend since the last ice age. That's not really the issue. The issue is the rate of change and what, if any counter-veiling forces might be at our disposal should we choose to try and apply them ... for whatever reasons we deem to be in our own enlightened self-interest ... civilization wise.

Check the south pole Dude before you swallow it hook line and sinker.... :wink:


Why would he do that?
It only matters what is happening hear in North America!
Who cares that Siberia has been experiencing some of the coldest winters on record lately?
Who cares if Antartica is expanding faster than the artic is shrinking?
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:40 am

Dude, here you go!

This is a trend according to the Global warming scientist... 20 years is not a trend when dealing with this scale (300 million years)
Image

Mind you not only does this ignore that scientific common practice, lets take a look at where temperature data was gathered from...

WASHINGTON — Dire “global warming” predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces — all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

Image

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Watts’ concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was “inadequate and deteriorating.” Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Out of the 1,221 stations over 1000 of them were found in North America...


Hard to make an accurate global average with data collected with inaccurate instruments and data from only one corner of it!


Now this is a real trend...
Image

Here is another one of their nifty little trends...
Image

Once again lets look at where they where gathering data...
Image
That's right...

here is a reliable one...
Image
Actually I was wrong on the numbers earlier... 8 not 10 and from 2006 to 2010... none the less they are moving it. :fingerhead:
Either way, the trend is clear the earth is cleaner and the effect is net zero.

Solar activity... the sun has more effect on our climate than we do? NO WAY! cant be (sarcasm)...
Image


Nail in an already sealed coffin...
Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 12:00 AM ET
New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Image




What you have here is enough proof for a practical person that it is not man caused... and man cannot stop it.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:23 am

Climate change ona global scale is complex to say the least. To reach simple conclusions based on limited understanding can be misleading.

Why is Anarctica behaving the way it is? Who knows, but in the face of widespread change elsewhere there may be something else in play down there. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html

I could copy and paste the article, but why bother. The link should work, but here is an excerpt that puts itinto a nutshell.

And while the ice loss has been fairly well documented in the west and the peninsula, data on the East Antarctic ice sheet paints a murkier picture. The most recent estimate published in the journal Science in 2012 states that the East Antarctic ice sheet is gaining mass by 14 gigatonnes per year. However, that data, as the study points out, has a 43 gigaton margin of error, Abdalati says, making it difficult to confirm the gain with any certainty.

Perhaps the most confusing detail - the growth of sea ice around Antarctica - is also a direct response to climate change, said Andrew Carleton, professor of physical geography at Penn State University. Despite the warming climate, sea ice surrounding the continent has increased about one percent every decade between 1979 and 2008, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

It seems counter intuitive, but that growth is a result of the glacial melt happening on the rest of the continent, Carleton said. As fresh water melts into the ocean it decreases the salinity of the seawater, he explained. Water with less salt content freezes at a higher temperature, so even with warming air temperatures melting the glaciers, the Antarctic Ocean continues to gain sea ice.

"It seems paradoxical, but it makes sense," Carleton said.
Last edited by dudejcb on Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby RustyGunz1960 » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:25 am

A common argument for the impossibility of man to affect climate is the historic record. There is no question that periods of even greater warming and cooling occurred many times before modern man’s existence. But that same argument would suggest that since the dinosaurs went extinct long before man’s presence, man is incapable of causing or having caused the extinction of any other species. We know that is not the case and that logic is not an argument. There is also no question that other factors, unrelated to man, could be causing changes being seen now. Man could be causing it, it could be occurring independently of man, or man can simply be compounding it. Unfortunately, definitive proof is not going to exist. That is the nature of science. Look at Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. No matter how many people believe it, it is and always will be a theory.

My approach, given these uncertainties, is to look at the pros and cons of some of the suggested actions. Can it really be argued that we are putting too little particulates and other substances into the air? Can your car get too good gas mileage? Are we really using up non-renewable resources too slowly? Alternatives to heavy fossil fuel reliance aren’t just about possible climate change. Don’t we want these fuels to last as long as possible? Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space? Given the cost of moving those materials into space, solar power simply makes the most sense in those circumstances. I also feel that expanded nuclear power has been greatly neglected as a solution to many of our energy problems. That stance certainly isn’t popular with the left. Going back to my original assertion, alternatives are too often written off due to their being aligned with the right or the left, rather than simply being taking on their merits.
Last edited by RustyGunz1960 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:34 am, edited 4 times in total.
RustyGunz1960
hunter
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:16 pm
Location: Little Egg Harbor

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:28 am

dudejcb wrote:Climate change ona global scale is complex to say the least. To reach simple conclusions based on limited understanding can be misleading.

Why is Anarctica behaving the way it is? Who knows, but in the face of widespread change elsewhere there may be something else in play down there. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html

I could copy and paste the article, but why bother. The link should work.


That goes both ways DUDE... your side collects data from very few locations

Where is the widespread change?

Maybe there is something else in play elsewhere... ocean currents but we already covered that
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:33 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:A common argument for the impossibility of man to affect climate is the historic record. There is no question that periods of even greater warming and cooling occurred many times before modern man’s existence. But that same argument would suggest that since the dinosaurs went extinct long before man’s presence, man is incapable of causing or having caused the extinction of any other species. We know that is not the case and that logic is not an argument. There is also no question that other factors, unrelated to man, could be causing changes being seen now. Man could be causing it, it could be occurring independently of man, or man can simply be compounding it. Unfortunately, definitive proof is not going to exist. That is the nature of science. Look at Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. No matter how many people believe it, it is and always will be a theory.


No that is not an argument ever used... you are mixing two arguments to make smarter individuals look stupid.
The fact that the climate has changed before man, is not an argument that we can't effect it. It is an argument combating the idiotic statements from the other side saying the temp increase started with the industrial revolution...

stop trying to obfuscating.

I have a meeting, so I will be back for the rest...

RustyGunz1960 wrote:My approach, given these uncertainties, is to look at the pros and cons of some of the suggested actions. Can it really be argued that we are putting too little particulates and other substances into the air? Can your car get too good gas mileage? Are we really using up non-renewable resources too slowly? Alternatives to heavy fossil fuel reliance aren’t just about possible climate change. Don’t we want these fuels to last as long as possible? Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space? I also feel expanded nuclear power has been greatly neglected as a solution to many of our energy problems. That stance certainly isn’t popular with the left. Going back to my original assertion, alternatives are too often written off due to their being aligned with the right or the left, rather than simply being taking into on their merits.


....
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:38 am

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Climate change ona global scale is complex to say the least. To reach simple conclusions based on limited understanding can be misleading.

Why is Anarctica behaving the way it is? Who knows, but in the face of widespread change elsewhere there may be something else in play down there. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html

I could copy and paste the article, but why bother. The link should work.


That goes both ways DUDE... your side collects data from very few locations

Where is the widespread change?

Maybe there is something else in play elsewhere... ocean currents but we already covered that

My side? Very few locations? Your take is what sometimes is referred to as "fiddling while Rome burns."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby boney fingers » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:44 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:A common argument for the impossibility of man to affect climate is the historic record. There is no question that periods of even greater warming and cooling occurred many times before modern man’s existence. But that same argument would suggest that since the dinosaurs went extinct long before man’s presence, man is incapable of causing or having caused the extinction of any other species. We know that is not the case and that logic is not an argument. There is also no question that other factors, unrelated to man, could be causing changes being seen now. Man could be causing it, it could be occurring independently of man, or man can simply be compounding it. Unfortunately, definitive proof is not going to exist. That is the nature of science. Look at Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. No matter how many people believe it, it is and always will be a theory.

My approach, given these uncertainties, is to look at the pros and cons of some of the suggested actions. Can it really be argued that we are putting too little particulates and other substances into the air? Can your car get too good gas mileage? Are we really using up non-renewable resources too slowly? Alternatives to heavy fossil fuel reliance aren’t just about possible climate change. Don’t we want these fuels to last as long as possible? Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space? I also feel expanded nuclear power has been greatly neglected as a solution to many of our energy problems. That stance certainly isn’t popular with the left. Going back to my original assertion, alternatives are too often written off due to their being aligned with the right or the left, rather than simply being taking into on their merits.



Alternatives are often written off because they actually use more net energy to produce then the original (see ethanol and hybrid cars) or because they involve bowing to the alter of world leaders who will control the market (see carbon trading). Conventional Solar is great in space or Arizona, but I don't live either place. We do use solar where I live, it is the most cost effective long term energy source out there and it involves solar power lifting water particles into the air and dropping them into a reservoir where it can be used as needed when needed. If I had an effective way to reduce the money I pay for fuel I would in a minute even if it meant agreeing Al Gore or Yoko or even Jim. Have you ever thought of this one, maybe we are putting out just enough GHGs to stave off global cooling and therefore have saved the planet through the use of SUVs.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby RustyGunz1960 » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:09 am

Well I've spoken my mind and am done with this issue, here at least. Those with strong enough opinions to take the time to post are not going to be swayed by others and I do not want to be one of those telling their wife they can't come to supper or bed because someone is wrong on the internet. Time spent carving decoys will be more relaxing. Later all! :smile:
RustyGunz1960
hunter
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:16 pm
Location: Little Egg Harbor

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:16 am

dudejcb wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Climate change ona global scale is complex to say the least. To reach simple conclusions based on limited understanding can be misleading.

Why is Anarctica behaving the way it is? Who knows, but in the face of widespread change elsewhere there may be something else in play down there. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html

I could copy and paste the article, but why bother. The link should work.


That goes both ways DUDE... your side collects data from very few locations

Where is the widespread change?

Maybe there is something else in play elsewhere... ocean currents but we already covered that

My side? Very few locations? Your take is what sometimes is referred to as "fiddling while Rome burns."

You can't put a fire out that does not exist, but you can go broke trying!
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests