The Goreacle's Last Gasp: 24 Hours of Climate Reality - A DUD (compare, state)
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.
Didn't the AGwarmists say tornadoes and hurricanes would pummel the US? Both at 30, 40 year lows. Polar bears? Thriving. That melting Ice Cap? Increasing. Sea ice? Increasing.
They've been wrong over and over again.
Let's change that to you've been wrong over and over again. We blew the tornado records out of the water this past year. Sea ice is the second lowest it's every been (2007 was the lowest), and continues its decrease. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. Sea levels are rising.
OK, but in the arena of science, none of the professional scientific academies believe AGW is incorrect and, in a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, 97-98% support the tenets of man-made climate change. Expert credibility in climate change
"It doesn't take a 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact"
Albert Einstein
Which basically means, consensus is irrelevant. This quote came from an interview with him concerning a book that Hitler had created by the 100 top scientists in Germany called "100 scientists against Einstein".
That form of position is not science, it is propaganda. Surely you remember the issues Galileo had with the church and the demand that adherence to consensus opinion be the establishment of such conclusions? History has numerous points throughout it where such establishments of expected thinking dictated science and its acceptance.
Einstein was pointing out that opinions, beliefs, and consensus does not drive science, does not validate or invalidate a position, that only facts and proper scientific process could establish such.
So, your claim (even if it were true, which that would be an entire discussion on the legitimacy of that research to which is contested concerning its methods) does nothing to change the issue.
The fact of the matter is that what a scientist (or a group of scientists) "believe" is irrelevant, what is important is what they can verify, validate, and replicate according to such a belief while properly explaining all divergence, all outliers, and all aspects of that beliefs failure and it only takes a single fact to destroy that entire hypothesis. That is why scientific process is as such, for we can easily establish a premise and seek out all of the supporting factors that makes it appear strong, but if we do not answer to the factors that do not support it, all the support in the world is meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that what a scientist (or a group of scientists) "believe" is irrelevant, what is important is what they can verify, validate, and replicate according to such a belief while properly explaining all divergence, all outliers, and all aspects of that beliefs failure and it only takes a single fact to destroy that entire hypothesis. That is why scientific process is as such, for we can easily establish a premise and seek out all of the supporting factors that makes it appear strong, but if we do not answer to the factors that do not support it, all the support in the world is meaningless.
The study was not a survey of what scientists "believe" but rather what their research supports.
Since you cannot prove something absolutely in science, you can always claim that there is a debate. That is the technique used to delay action on the solutions: waste time arguing about the problem.
I saw someone seemingly defy gravity yesterday. But I don't expect that "divergence" is required to be explained to me, otherwise gravity is a lie.
Let's change that to you've been wrong over and over again. We blew the tornado records out of the water this past year. Sea ice is the second lowest it's every been (2007 was the lowest), and continues its decrease. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. Sea levels are rising.
Actually, we did not have any wild record tornadoes (I think only one was an actual record, or record tie, the rest were far behind previous records). What you are referring to is a methodology change in what is tracked. We used to when establishing the number of tornadoes, only account for F3's and above, yet as technology has gotten better (meaning we can with more accuracy detect F0's-F2's), the methodology now accounts for those and our calculations specific total "count" of occurrences without respect to severity rating.
This produces a much higher number of occurrences and this change was actually moved to a few years ago. If you look at the data to which is used to claim "record totals" and apply the old methodology, you will see that the occurrences are not abnormal. This is not to say we did not have quite a few F0-F2 tracked, but when you account for the fact that we have better technology and systems to be able to track such, it isn't a surprise we are seeing an "increase" as that increase is simply our ability to track that which we had not be able to do reliably before.
As for the arctic ice, it is not showing a progressive spiral as was modeled, nor does it show any clear indicator of losing its ice entirely.
Note: the link is not a commentary, the images are directly linked from their reporting agencies, there are no adjustments (other than what the reporting agency applies) and you can look at the pictures URL and go straight back to the reporting agency to verify (as well as see the agency reported in their titles). I use this site because it puts all of the reporting agencies and relevant data pools neatly on a single page with no commentary or opinion. Just the facts so to speak.
Notice the trends. Since 2007 (which was the biggest loss in the 30 year record), yet 2008 was a steady growth, and 2009 was a very strong growth, while 2010 fell back between them and 2011 as you can see so far, came close (but did not break the 2007 record) and has for the moment showed a strong turn early this season (which may or may not hold as the seasons is not over yet).
That behavior shows no clear trend, and if one were to speculate, an argument for a slow return seems more likely than a tipping point loss.
Also what is interesting is that if you look through the records, ice loss is not directly correlated to temperature. What I mean is, that obviously yes, during the melt season when temperature rises above freezing, the ice in fact melts, but if you pay attention to the temperature of the air and look at the gain and growth of ice, you will see that even when it may below freezing (even far below), the ice may still be melting.
What this shows is that there are other factors to which we are beginning to learn that have an impact on ice growth and loss. Things like wind have a strong effect in many ways, including compacting the ice (showing a reduction in area) or spreading it out, increasing its melting. Not only that, but we must also consider currents which may have regional changes and produce warm entries into the area which can cause melt, even though the air temp is well below freezing.
Another interesting factor is the effect of soot on ice melt which seems to accelerate loss beyond natural climate factors. Such is one of the causes for melt in the Himalayas.
The point is, there is no clear sign of losing the arctic ice, nor can one attribute it to a warming climate as the data does not support such a direct correlation unless one ignores the many "natural" contributing factors to which effects ice melt.
1. Have global temperatures risen during the past 200 years?"
What a misleading question, if there ever was one, this was it. since Everyone knows we were in a little ice-age for hundreds of years, and it only just ended the beginning of last century, OF COURSE THE PLANET HAS WARMED SINCE!!! Otherwise we would still be in a little ice-age.
I am so sick and tired of temperature graphs that these hoaxsters use that start during the last ice-age, in order to prove we humans are causing global freaking warming.
I saw a Discovery Channel climate documentary with some quack use the growth rings of 300 year old coral reefs, to prove man-made global warming. you see, the growth rings were small, (DURING THE ICE-AGE,) and they got dramatically larger at around the beginning of the 1900s (when the ice-age ended) and the industrial revolution started, and he left it to the viewers to assume we humans caused global warming.
What do about 98% of those scientists involved with climate change know? I'm going with the experts on climate, the oil and coal industries.
I have to think that those conservative elites get a kick at how anything they say, their followers will obey.
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
The study was not a survey of what scientists "believe" but rather what their research supports.
Since you cannot prove something absolutely in science, you can always claim that there is a debate. That is the technique used to delay action on the solutions: waste time arguing about the problem.
I saw someone seemingly defy gravity yesterday. But I don't expect that "divergence" is required to be explained to me, otherwise gravity is a lie.
Science is not a process of proving something absolutely, that is not how the process works. It is a process of disproving it by its inability to answer to or properly explain such a conflict in premise. That is what Einstein was talking about. The process is not that you have a lot of supporting evidence and that you must account for all things and prove your position absolutely, but rather your hypothesis must stand as if it were assumed to be true because there is no evidence that invalidates its position through each test and replication of that hypothesis. This is how we establish "facts", but there are times that while we have tested every possible aspect of it and the hypothesis consistently shows to be true without errors, that we still eventually come upon a time where it does fail (often due to new understandings, etc..), which is to say that we have found a new way to test it and it fails, there by disproving the hypothesis and this is what we call a "slippery fact".
That is why all it takes is a single fact to disprove it. This is the safeguard of sound science to which helps to reduce bias (you can never fully eliminate it, all you can do is attempt to reduce it as much as possible through a sound process of evaluation and experiment).
As for your gravity example, how would you know it defied gravity if you did not properly apply tests to establish what that "seemingly" effect was? The assumption you make to come to your conclusion is that gravity is a fact, and you speculate that since such has been properly tested and established, then it must be true. Nothing wrong with that, it is a reasonable assumption to make, but make no mistake, your evaluation is not scientific, nor valid to any support be it for or against that of the theory.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a tested theory, it is a hypothesis of assumptions and speculations that draw correlations of various facts (and perceived facts) to purpose a conclusive relationship. Its hypothesis consistently fails as there are many errors in its presumptions to which can not be validated, verified, or replicated. As long as a single fact shows that position to be in question, then its position (hypothesis) must be adjusted to account for its failure. The real question is, how often does the hypothesis get adjusted versus how often the data and methodologies that are used to support it?
Oh, and as for the research you provided, I never said it was specifically a survey, I said it has problems that are highly contested concerning its methods and to which would require a lot of discussion to establish the problems with it, something I think is better served in a more specific thread. If you like, make one and I will be happy to discuss the details of it as I am sure others would. In the end though, as I said, that research is irrelevant to the position of AGW as consensus is not a scientific process.
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
and the sealevels have stayed nearly the same over the last 160 years
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
For a wonderful examination of Sea Level change from 1841 to 2004, this picture is worth a thousand words:
Here is another view — this time, the mark has been traced over with line to emphasize it.
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the ‘Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004. Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre.
Let’s read that again and consider four things:
#1) - the mark was placed at mean sea level. The word “mean” in this use denotes the “mathematical average”. The sea rose above it and set below it by an equal amount during the tidal cycle.
#2) - The mark was made in the middle of the tidal range in 1841 and it was photographed 163 years later at the bottom of the tidal cycle.
#3) - the tidal cycle is one meter and the mark is 50 centimeters or one-half meter long.
#4) - the mark is sitting about 30 or 40 centimeters above the water in the photograph. Given that there is some wave surge, it looks like the level of the ocean has not changed one bit in 163 years.
Let's change that to you've been wrong over and over again. We blew the tornado records out of the water this past year. Sea ice is the second lowest it's every been (2007 was the lowest), and continues its decrease. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. Sea levels are rising.
Check out the dates of these storms, they mirror the same exact weather patterns we had in the 1970s and in the other years where we had record cold temps. It's the cold weather that brings storms like these, not warm.
What about the antarctic ice? Antarctica contains 90% of all ice on the planet, and it's growing. Antarctic ice also accounts for more than 80% of all the fresh water on earth.
Last edited by Wapasha; 09-16-2011 at 10:16 AM..
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.
