Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, which makes the fact that such clear changes are taking place within just 10 years even more interesting...
Mark the weather and temp for today on your calendar, and if you do not see the exact same thing next year, then run and hide, because it's global climate change.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
Was this a part of the al gore movie? Is the IPCC in hysterics because of a greener Africa? If this is all caused by man-made global warming, we can use more of it
Well I think this is a good example of how with all our knowledge, we are rather ignorant of the consequences. It would also support that climate is changing, whether by mans influence or not, and while one place may freeze or turn to desert, another place ends up a lust habit that was once a desert.
Great if you live in the Sahara, but what about people living in Connecticut or Venezuela do they end up winners or losers and do we even know?
Embrace the good stuff and ignore the bad. Got it.
Ignore the fact the area was a lush savanna 12,000 years ago. In other words, a natural cycle.
Quote:
To support this claim, NASA, The Pentagon, and Defense Department, as well as other scientist can factually show a decline in arctic polar ice as viewable in the article by satellite imagery. This is what is known as evidence to support the claim.
Now from this there is further evidence in the form of lessened temperature differential as well as a drop in sea water salinity in the Northern Atlantic ocean, which is also verifiable.
From these basic pieces of evidence supporting the claim that it has a possible effect on climate temperatures in the NW United States and Western Europe, we can then infer a number of things, not all of which are proven, but are merely hypothetical, and this article so states this.
Now when someone offers a response of "AGW lunatics all think alike", which in itself explicitly is a patently false gross assumption, I would then ask, what kind of argument is this? There is no challenge even to the claim or the statement, let alone any of the supporting evidence. This is nothing more than clap trap drive by ignorance made by people who just want to respond to a topic because they feel compelled to, not because they wish to challenge the claim stated in the OP.
Apparently the slowing of the current was a natural anomaly......a little common sense goes a long way, moreso than jumping to the conclusion it is a man-made phenomenon.
When the warmist believers stop trying to attribute every extreme in weather, every drought/famine, every "anomaly" like the slowing of this current seen in 2004, BUT NOT seen subsequently as a long-term trend, well then maybe, just maybe, people won't be so quick to dismiss all these "fears" of possibilities and dire consequences to come.
You have to admit that is true op; the warmists try to link every natural variance in climate or weather to AGW and that is one of the reasons they are not believed anymore.
And if you had just googled for an update on this 6 1/2 year old article, you would have seen there is little evidence of that which the Pentagon and Defense feared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Well I think this is a good example of how with all our knowledge, we are rather ignorant of the consequences. It would also support that climate is changing, whether by mans influence or not, and while one place may freeze or turn to desert, another place ends up a lust habit that was once a desert.
Great if you live in the Sahara, but what about people living in Connecticut or Venezuela do they end up winners or losers and do we even know?
Consequences of what? A savanna returning to a lush state it once held? I'm sure it has toggled between the two for billions of years.
Yes, the climate IS changing, has always changed and we would be in trouble if it stopped changing. Frozen tundra, lush jungle, desert.........have all seen the polar opposite one time or another in their history.
In case you missed the BBC link on the previous page.
The current, responsible for Britain’s mild climate by bringing a constant flow of warm water and weather from the tropics, has not significantly changed in nearly 20 years, scientists said.
They believe that small differences observed in its pace since research began in 1993 are part of a natural cycle.
The findings call into question theories proposed by some environmentalists that global warming could shut down the stream, causing temperatures to fall dramatically in Europe.
Yeah, those funny AGW environmentalists! Always coming with some new "theory" to blame weather/climate anomalies on man.
Well I think we have a pretty solid understanding of its basic functioning, however I get the feeling we don't understand it well enough to say definitively what exactly the cause is. While reading through some material on this, there are a wide variety of variables, such as salinity levels, temperature differentials, influx of freshwater from rain, the polar ice caps, etc... etc... I could explain basically how a Mercedes car works with an internal combustion engine, but I could not tell you with any specifics how its fuel injection systems functions in relation to ignition computations and timings, valve timing adjustments, and so forth.
I view the climate change debate a bit like modern global economics, we know how it works over all, but we cannot accurately state what the stock market numbers will be in three days time.
Don't forget to factor in gravitational pulls from the sun and moon, plus the spinning molten core and our gravitational field. My point was that the scientists cannot fully explain what caused the rapid cooling of the Great Pacific Climate Shift” and how to predict the oceanic conveyor with any real accuracy.
One hundred years from now science will look back at some of the quaint theories we have been making and smile.
Don't forget to factor in gravitational pulls from the sun and moon, plus the spinning molten core and our gravitational field. My point was that the scientists cannot fully explain what caused the rapid cooling of the Great Pacific Climate Shift” and how to predict the oceanic conveyor with any real accuracy.
One hundred years from now science will look back at some of the quaint theories we have been making and smile.
Don't forget our magnetic field - the north pole just recently kicked into high gear heading to Russia.
Are you done making excuses? I corrected the use of the word and still some members persist on using a wrong definition, so then we move from ignorance or lack of understanding to what some people would refer to as stupidity, which is the willful and intentional continued misuse because "they believe".
As I said, simply "You mean this don't you?" would have sufficed. Or, if they continue to use it, but it has no bearing on the content of their discussion, then I don't see the point unless you are interested in playing hall monitor or enjoy pointing out such pointless corrections to serve some ego boost. /shrug
In the end, quibbling over that issue is stupid because it avoids dealing with the main issue. That is, the position of AGW, its support, and the validity of it which if you haven't been paying attention has been called into question many times now because of their inability to defend their position without constantly moving the goal post or living in make believe with hind casts (which most are wrong as well) to which they claim validate their forecasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
What was the argument, in fact before we get there what is the single primary root of an argument or debate? Perhaps a claim, which is then followed by evidence, reasons, warrants to support reasons when challenged.
Well, in my case the argument is that the article given is simply a subtle attempt to again build the case for AGW. I already explained why, pointed out the details of such and well... crickets... /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
What was the claim made in the OP? At first glance it seems rather clear to me, "The possibility that a decline in arctic sea ice could case the North Atlantic current to slow or stop that might create cooler conditions in Europe and the North Eastern US." In fact it is so stated in the beginning of the article.
I believe the OP was claiming that any disaster scenario, oddity, or the like is simply fodder for the AGW position.
Look, you talk as if everything is objective and attempt to display yourself as being "neutral", but you then use snide insults like "denier" and the like which are nothing short of an obvious tell tale of a solid bias (and emotional one at that). So please excuse me if your continued attempts to display everything as balanced simply comes off to me as your spitting all over the place as you speak.
As I said, the basis of the article cites research as support to "suggest" its "might", "could", etc... when those positions are highly contested, many of which have severe problems with their methods and collections. So using them as a supporting factor in an additional issue to which understanding is limited is not being objective, it is attempting to push a bias.
NASA is known for its bias, its poor behavior concerning interaction with critical assessments of its work and one of its leads is a raving political activist and lunatic. So please excuse me if I don't view their obvious attempt at building a loose correlation for AGW support as a scientific and objective approach, especially when it is stacking assumptions upon assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
To support this claim, NASA, The Pentagon, and Defense Department, as well as other scientist can factually show a decline in arctic polar ice as viewable in the article by satellite imagery. This is what is known as evidence to support the claim.
They can show a downward trend over 30 years. Whoopie da do! What conclusions can you draw from such? We have showed gain and loss as well. How does this support it? Hmm? Frankly, they have no idea what is truly going on. Each year they miss their predictions by quite a bit. Each year they continue to predict record losses and for the last 3 years now they have been made to look silly doing such.
The arctic pole is up and down. It had some record gains, some losses, and its moving along. This year, it didn't surpass 2007 and the two years before that, there was steady growth above 2007. We will see what next year holds.
Also, I notice we don't mention the Antarctic which has for the last 2-3 years showed a far above the 30 year average growth.
In the end, all of this garbage about how this eludes to this and it "could" be that and "might" be this using a bunch of other "might be" research is simply pushing for a political agenda to which btw, these administrations have been caught with their pants down concerning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now from this there is further evidence in the form of lessened temperature differential as well as a drop in sea water salinity in the Northern Atlantic ocean, which is also verifiable.
Lets see that research can we? Go ahead and provide that verifiable and validated support for such a claim? I will bet you a shiny penny that we will find contested issues with all of that "validated" research as well. We don't need to look at those details, just trust in the all mighty NASA to be correct, maybe sacrifice a sheep to ole Hansen for effect too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
From these basic pieces of evidence supporting the claim that it has a possible effect on climate temperatures in the NW United States and Western Europe, we can then infer a number of things, not all of which are proven, but are merely hypothetical, and this article so states this.
No you can not infer anything. Look, correlation is not validation for causation, EVER. yet this is the principals to which they are trying to build their case. Each area they evaluate they can not fully explain, so they bumble around with the numbers until it looks to fit what they think and then they point over to something else and go "oh lookie, that might match up!" Hence the constant screw ups with their predictions, the constant "unexpected" occurrences in the climate.
As I said, NASA holds an AGW position and the basis of the assumptions they make in this article uses that foundation to which is also assumptions that have not been validated properly. It is simply picking out a bunch of things that look like they fit together and just jamming together claiming that the correlation proves the causation. Its sloppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now when someone offers a response of "AGW lunatics all think alike", which in itself explicitly is a patently false gross assumption, I would then ask, what kind of argument is this? There is no challenge even to the claim or the statement, let alone any of the supporting evidence. This is nothing more than clap trap drive by ignorance made by people who just want to respond to a topic because they feel compelled to, not because they wish to challenge the claim stated in the OP.
I agree this is a poor response, but don't act shocked, for the last decade we have watched AGW proponents as well as the researchers and administrations respond in such vile and despicable ways to anyone who simply asked for verification and validation or dared to question at such a wide level, that it is natural people are going to take a generalized view of anyone supporting AGW.
This is the bed they made for themselves. You can't play dirty politics, condemn people, ignore policy and law, insult, block opposing research, legislate draconian policies, and threaten people for years and then expect them to turn around and be polite. Climate science did this to itself and a lot of people are extremely angry at the arrogance, the incompetence and dirty politics in the field. Personally, I think they are going easy on them as they are lucky they didn't end up with people showing up with torches and pitchforks.
Even with all of their folly, they are still arrogant in their position. You yourself still use "denier". I have seen your past arguments on the topic, your arguments are strong AGW support and arrogant in their demeanor. Did you expect people to smile and be nice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now if people wish to have a debate or argument in a well measured and reasoned fashion, I'm game, I do it all the time. If someone wishes to make inane commentary based upon nothing but opinion, which more often than not doesn't even challenge the claim made but more of a contemptuous statement against a universal proposition which may or may not be related to the claim, then yes, I'll treat people accordingly.
I have spent hundreds of pages trying to discuss the exact science of the issue here only to have the arrogant twits out there come in and thumb their nose while they insulted with childish words and infantile arguments and accusations. I have ignored the insults and stuck to the facts, only to be called names while they pointed to administration summaries and demanded appeals to authority. So please do not act as if you are the lone person here simply trying to discuss the issue scientifically. The fact is, you claim these are opinions, but then you fail to accept that the entire AGW hypothesis has not been validated to the extent to which they continue to make assumptions on the effects of climate, also an "opinion".
If you want to start a discussion, we need to go back to the basics, and cover that before you demand we accept assumptions upon assumptions to explain more assumptions as evidence.
We need to evaluate the surface data records, the collection methods, the satellite data and how they adjust all of these to conform to their current positions. We need to evaluate how they do their research, what they are doing with the research, what methods they are using to come to these conclusions. We need to understand what is being backed by models and how those models achieve their results, what they are actually doing, if they are correct or if they are simply making large assumptions as to it being correct.
You see, when you go on about how all of the other things they mention show support, I have contest with all of those other things so you need to provide the evidence of those so we can discuss them and see why my complaint about them using that as evidence to support this is really just one big garbage assumption that might as well be as accurate as throwing darts blind folded at a weather map.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now when you are done with your whine festival, care to address the claim and its supporting evidence?
Sure, provide the research of all that "validated" claims and we will go over it in detail and show why your current attempt to give this article any weight is simply hot air.
As I said, simply "You mean this don't you?" would have sufficed. Or, if they continue to use it, but it has no bearing on the content of their discussion, then I don't see the point unless you are interested in playing hall monitor or enjoy pointing out such pointless corrections to serve some ego boost. /shrug
In the end, quibbling over that issue is stupid because it avoids dealing with the main issue. That is, the position of AGW, its support, and the validity of it which if you haven't been paying attention has been called into question many times now because of their inability to defend their position without constantly moving the goal post or living in make believe with hind casts (which most are wrong as well) to which they claim validate their forecasts.
Well, in my case the argument is that the article given is simply a subtle attempt to again build the case for AGW. I already explained why, pointed out the details of such and well... crickets... /shrug
I believe the OP was claiming that any disaster scenario, oddity, or the like is simply fodder for the AGW position.
Look, you talk as if everything is objective and attempt to display yourself as being "neutral", but you then use snide insults like "denier" and the like which are nothing short of an obvious tell tale of a solid bias (and emotional one at that). So please excuse me if your continued attempts to display everything as balanced simply comes off to me as your spitting all over the place as you speak.
As I said, the basis of the article cites research as support to "suggest" its "might", "could", etc... when those positions are highly contested, many of which have severe problems with their methods and collections. So using them as a supporting factor in an additional issue to which understanding is limited is not being objective, it is attempting to push a bias.
NASA is known for its bias, its poor behavior concerning interaction with critical assessments of its work and one of its leads is a raving political activist and lunatic. So please excuse me if I don't view their obvious attempt at building a loose correlation for AGW support as a scientific and objective approach, especially when it is stacking assumptions upon assumptions.
They can show a downward trend over 30 years. Whoopie da do! What conclusions can you draw from such? We have showed gain and loss as well. How does this support it? Hmm? Frankly, they have no idea what is truly going on. Each year they miss their predictions by quite a bit. Each year they continue to predict record losses and for the last 3 years now they have been made to look silly doing such.
The arctic pole is up and down. It had some record gains, some losses, and its moving along. This year, it didn't surpass 2007 and the two years before that, there was steady growth above 2007. We will see what next year holds.
Also, I notice we don't mention the Antarctic which has for the last 2-3 years showed a far above the 30 year average growth.
In the end, all of this garbage about how this eludes to this and it "could" be that and "might" be this using a bunch of other "might be" research is simply pushing for a political agenda to which btw, these administrations have been caught with their pants down concerning.
Lets see that research can we? Go ahead and provide that verifiable and validated support for such a claim? I will bet you a shiny penny that we will find contested issues with all of that "validated" research as well. We don't need to look at those details, just trust in the all mighty NASA to be correct, maybe sacrifice a sheep to ole Hansen for effect too.
No you can not infer anything. Look, correlation is not validation for causation, EVER. yet this is the principals to which they are trying to build their case. Each area they evaluate they can not fully explain, so they bumble around with the numbers until it looks to fit what they think and then they point over to something else and go "oh lookie, that might match up!" Hence the constant screw ups with their predictions, the constant "unexpected" occurrences in the climate.
As I said, NASA holds an AGW position and the basis of the assumptions they make in this article uses that foundation to which is also assumptions that have not been validated properly. It is simply picking out a bunch of things that look like they fit together and just jamming together claiming that the correlation proves the causation. Its sloppy.
I agree this is a poor response, but don't act shocked, for the last decade we have watched AGW proponents as well as the researchers and administrations respond in such vile and despicable ways to anyone who simply asked for verification and validation or dared to question at such a wide level, that it is natural people are going to take a generalized view of anyone supporting AGW.
This is the bed they made for themselves. You can't play dirty politics, condemn people, ignore policy and law, insult, block opposing research, legislate draconian policies, and threaten people for years and then expect them to turn around and be polite. Climate science did this to itself and a lot of people are extremely angry at the arrogance, the incompetence and dirty politics in the field. Personally, I think they are going easy on them as they are lucky they didn't end up with people showing up with torches and pitchforks.
Even with all of their folly, they are still arrogant in their position. You yourself still use "denier". I have seen your past arguments on the topic, your arguments are strong AGW support and arrogant in their demeanor. Did you expect people to smile and be nice?
I have spent hundreds of pages trying to discuss the exact science of the issue here only to have the arrogant twits out there come in and thumb their nose while they insulted with childish words and infantile arguments and accusations. I have ignored the insults and stuck to the facts, only to be called names while they pointed to administration summaries and demanded appeals to authority. So please do not act as if you are the lone person here simply trying to discuss the issue scientifically. The fact is, you claim these are opinions, but then you fail to accept that the entire AGW hypothesis has not been validated to the extent to which they continue to make assumptions on the effects of climate, also an "opinion".
If you want to start a discussion, we need to go back to the basics, and cover that before you demand we accept assumptions upon assumptions to explain more assumptions as evidence.
We need to evaluate the surface data records, the collection methods, the satellite data and how they adjust all of these to conform to their current positions. We need to evaluate how they do their research, what they are doing with the research, what methods they are using to come to these conclusions. We need to understand what is being backed by models and how those models achieve their results, what they are actually doing, if they are correct or if they are simply making large assumptions as to it being correct.
You see, when you go on about how all of the other things they mention show support, I have contest with all of those other things so you need to provide the evidence of those so we can discuss them and see why my complaint about them using that as evidence to support this is really just one big garbage assumption that might as well be as accurate as throwing darts blind folded at a weather map.
Sure, provide the research of all that "validated" claims and we will go over it in detail and show why your current attempt to give this article any weight is simply hot air.
You win, it is really because God hates homosexuals and is punishing us.
Don't forget to factor in gravitational pulls from the sun and moon, plus the spinning molten core and our gravitational field. My point was that the scientists cannot fully explain what caused the rapid cooling of the Great Pacific Climate Shift” and how to predict the oceanic conveyor with any real accuracy.
One hundred years from now science will look back at some of the quaint theories we have been making and smile.
Actually while digging into this subject, I found a bunch of stuff from another group of scientist refuting the very claim that the North Atlantic current effects regional temperatures in Europe in the first place.
I've come to at least one strongly held conclusion, climate does in fact fluctuate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
