Shrinking ice proved climate change. Now growing does too?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by cstreit

...and there is overwhelming evidence that it is also NOT. That's the point of this. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why are there so many SCIENTISTS that question the veracity of the data? Why are there so many faked data points? Why are they hiding the data that contradicts their conclusions?

As an example.. The Hockey stick graph. Looks alarming...




...BUT it's such a SMALL excerpt out of the context of long term temperatures it's designed to be sensationalist. Look at the records for the last 10,000 years not the last 100. 100 years is a blip on the global radar. Help me understand the panic using the two graph's below...

the problem with this point is that we know why the climate changed when it did in the past. by changing the absorption rate (albeto) of the planet, solar output, combined with greenhouse gases, explain all climate changes to date.

its a simple equation really, solar output (energy input) * albeto (energy absorption) * greenhouse gases (energy trapped) = climate

the troubled part for us today, is that we measure the suns output directly, and have not seen it change beyond the bounds of the 11 year solar cycle, albeto is largely a function of 1. land mass distribution (continental drift) and 2. ice coverage. the continents have not fundamentally shifted in the last 100 years, and ice coverage is down. that leaves greehouse gases as the main knob being turned right now. that knob being turned by humans.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by cstreit

Funny comment, half the men in my family are scientists. Geology, meteorology, physics, engineering. All question it. You're making a generalization supported by your prejudice.

as a scientist it is foolish to not question everything. that is the point and purpose of science.

it is also foolish to let ones political leanings influence there science.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

as a scientist it is foolish to not question everything. that is the point and purpose of science.

Which is exactly why it's ridiculous to say the science is settled.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by john70t

So CO2 causes a major shift in the ability of human food (i.e. fish) to continue to regenerate from plant life.
The ocean's bounty is already stressed from overpopulation/overfishing/drag-netting/pollution/etc/etc.
When gods gifts die, gods children die.
But first they fight each other.

Ahh, so now it's clear -

The one constant about the planet Earth since it formed some 5 billion years ago is that it has always been changing.

But suddenly you and your ilk have arrived (and in geological terms, your arrival certainly was sudden), and dammit, the Earth had better stop changing RIGHT NOW!

What monstrous hubris.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

Which is exactly why it's ridiculous to say the science is settled.

not at all. the science is settled. far and away enough to take real and concerted actions.

example: more folks than ever are questioning the fundamental nature of gravity, because of the recent discovery of the higgs using the LHC. does this mean we should not teach and use the theory of gravity to make decisions in our lives anymore?

of course not.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Ahh, so now it's clear -

The one constant about the planet Earth since it formed some 5 billion years ago is that it has always been changing.

But suddenly you and your ilk have arrived (and in geological terms, your arrival certainly was sudden), and dammit, the Earth had better stop changing RIGHT NOW!

What monstrous hubris.

the earth will change, sure. it has and it will in the future.

knowing what we know now, the earth climate, sans human intervention should be stable for at least another 40,000 years. this is when the procession of the axis of the earth will have shifted enough to bring in an iceage.

so, you know, starting a mass extinction event about 40,000 years earlier than planned ... that can't go badly for us now can it?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

the procession of the axis of the earth will have shifted

It's precession. Something that undergoes precession doesn't shift. It precesses.

But why don't you enlighten us more about that scientifical stuff? Like how faked-up global warming numbers will cause a mass extinction.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

It's precession. Something that undergoes precession doesn't shift. It precesses.

But why don't you enlighten us more about that scientifical stuff? Like how faked-up global warming numbers will cause a mass extinction.

typical.

have no counterpoint, so attack the spelling and grammar.

bleh. come up with a counterpoint or go away. i don't care.

[island911]

The end?

[island911]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

.... that leaves greehouse gases as the main knob being turned right now. that knob being turned by humans.

Oh really?

Then please explain this:




That is, if rising CO2 causes rising temp's, then why haven't the temps risen?

[Por_sha911]

The problem with "Climate Change" theorists is not the data but the interpretation.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

Copernicus was imprisoned for claiming the Earth circled the Sun, rather than agreeing with "settled science" that taught the Earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, once scientists reach consensus, and science is settled, we should quit trying to learn any more on that particular topic.

LOL, might wanna double-check that statement about Copernicus.

[island911]

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but still, to Dant's point, these guys were in trouble by the ruling class for going against a form of settled science as it was then --"everbody knew" that the earth was the center of the universe - just like today, the 'everybody's' parrot "Climate catastrophe must be avoided...everybody knows the sky is falling the sky is falling..."

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

LOL, might wanna double-check that statement about Copernicus.

OOPS!!

That's what I meant! I just mis-spelled "Galileo". Honest!

[Cajundaddy]

Originally Posted by island911

Oh really?

Then please explain this:




That is, if rising CO2 causes rising temp's, then why haven't the temps risen?

I think I can explain it briefly: Solar and oceanic variability.

They vary in many ways that we don't yet understand and many scientists discounted their effect until the current pause in warming. Now many are re-thinking their positions on this. They understand the science of CO2 pretty well and they are right that at some point, atmospheric warming will resume. RT works 100% of the time so adding atmospheric CO2 does have a long term net warming effect. Personally I don't expect to see much warming over the next 20-50 years but eventually it will turn around. How much warming? That is still wide open to debate among many in climate science.

Climate is complicated and we still have a lot more questions than answers.

[fintstone]

If global warming was as "settled science" as some would have us believe...they would not have had to rename it "climate change" and advocates would not feel so compelled to falsify data.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Cajundaddy

I think I can explain it briefly: Solar and oceanic variability.

They vary in many ways that we don't yet understand and many scientists discounted their effect until the current pause in warming. Now many are re-thinking their positions on this. They understand the science of CO2 pretty well and they are right that at some point, atmospheric warming will resume. RT works 100% of the time so adding atmospheric CO2 does have a long term net warming effect. Personally I don't expect to see much warming over the next 20-50 years but eventually it will turn around. How much warming? That is still wide open to debate among many in climate science.

Climate is complicated and we still have a lot more questions than answers.

D'ya ever wonder what it was like, back in the days of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Massive efforts and contortions were made by the mathematicians to explain how a geocentric system was the undisputable truth.

hmmm.... I wonder what that looked like? hmmm...

Now, back to Anthropogenic global warming climate change... So many models predicting warming ... so many (all) failed.

You say They understand the science of CO2 pretty well and they are right that at some point, atmospheric warming will resume.

Do they!? Do They Really understand the science of CO2 pretty well? They keep expecting to see warming air temp (due to increased CO2) and.... wait. What?!

And Will it!? Will it come back with a vengeance, to reclaim some properly calculated warming?

Okay, I do suspect that atmospheric warming will resume. ...but not due to the inflated claims of the modern day geocentrists and their magic CO2 bullet. - you know, that magic CO2 bullet that will cause Runaway warming and climate catastrophe.

I mean, really. These people are saying Trust us. Don't look at the lack of correlation. Just throw away all the machinery of the modern world OR ELSE!

Of course, giving them mounds of money and control over all of that machinery of the modern world will ... meh ... maybe forgive you of your climate catastrophe sins - we'll see.

[island911]

Really, what I am saying is, the burden of proof is on those who demand that they are right about their settled science.

'Science' that fails to accurately predict events is not science.

Going on decades of failing to accurately predict events does not get fixed by those who stomp their feet and demand it's science, it's settled. ...and you're not a climate scientist so you can't understand the complexity of why we are right even though we've been wrong for decades now. Now give us control over all economies and no polar bears get hurt!

Again, that's not science.

[gordner]

At the end of the day it is not science at all any more, it is politics, funding and spin....

[wayner]

Tree scientists have also changed their tune over the years.

The early outcry was not to chop down trees because they absorb those gasses and our earth will kill us if we chop down trees.

Now, some scientists have come out and said that the science was wrong. Trees process more gas when they are growing than when they are mature. They need the fuel to grow.

A new forest coming back from clear cutting is a big atmospheric sponge or something like that.