Climate Change...... LOL (accuse, single, states, claims)
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.
Im smart enough to know I cant answer some of these questions, since like you, im no climatologist.
Not smart enough apparently to think and question. You make an argument to be a sheep, to accept authority over evidential process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k.smith904
However, its very simple why warming will be bad. Increased CO2 levels cause warming in the atmosphere, which causes ice to melt, particularly in the Arctic. Higher sea levels dont only mean flooding, the desalinization of the ocean causes currents, and in turn weather patterns, to change. I dont have numbers for you, but theres a ripple effect. Its not as simple as you are.
You do realize C02 lags behind warming, not the other way around?
You do realize that the Arctic has had loss, even when the temperature was below normal?
You seem like you are just passing off information.
That is a nice statement you made here... however, my problem with what you are saying is reality.
Take for instance the most recent peer reviewed bit of science that came out a few weeks ago...
A well-known scientist, who has worked with the likes of Michael Mann etc., published a Peer Reviewed paper indicating that modern warming is substantially higher than at any point in the current Optimum.
That would be quite worrisome to anyone who follows climate science and especially the CAGW debate.
This paper was written by a well-respected member of the scientific community, he is a man who believes that man caused global warming is real, and a very serious problem. His paper was peer reviewed with little notation and the published worked was signed off on by a number of very credible scientists who all agree in CAGW.
Your statement above would lead one to think that would end the debate. However….
Once the paper was published, other people who are not believers in CAGW but who are hard scientists got ahold of the data. They shredded the paper. Dozens of problems were discovered, any number of which should have been found in peer review and anyone one of which would have been enough to prevent the paper from being published. Data was inverted, time series were shifted, and instrumental records were spliced onto proxy data without notation (a very big, very serious no-no in the science of Palio-Climatology). The paper is balderdash and isn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Its only value was to give a headline to those who are pushing for a Big Government political solution. It isn’t science.
This is what we on the skeptical side keep pointing out over and over again. You guys keep pretending the “science” is settled, but your settlers are lying their tails off and producing shoddy work that gets slapped down time and time again.
Peer Review has become a serious joke. Michael Mann and Phil Jones and others are ON RECORD as going after any Scientific Journal that is willing to publish papers that do not toe the party line. Peer Review has become a slap on the back to the Believers and it has become a roadblock to any paper that does not point to dire consequences if CO2 is not dealt with.
Since we are on the subject of what is science and what is talked about as science. Those scientists pushing the CAGW stuff are always in the news telling us that weather is getting worse. That there are more tornadoes, more hurricanes and more flooding all over.
Here is some hard core science for you.
on all three points, they are not only wrong, but they are lying about it. They KNOW this is not the case. The HARD DATA tells a very different story.
Abstract:
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
Flood data
Bouziotas et al. (2011) Long-term properties of annual maximum daily river discharge worldwide http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf
Conclusion:
Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
If the Climate Alarmists are lying to us about this, what else are they lying to us about?
Peer review is akin to a certificate of authenticity in the collectible markets. As if one could fake an autograph but not fake a certificate of authenticity.
Below normal? You just claimed scientists dont know what normal is...
I may be repeating information but at least Im not contradicting myself.
/sigh
Below the average temp data they have of the Arctic (30 year record) which they used as a baseline to claim that the current warming is abnormal. Seriously, don't be obtuse and don't confuse my arguments with others. I never made that argument.
So then is it of the opinion of climate change deniers that humans can't affect the Earth on a planetary scale in any manner?
Who is a denier? What do they deny?
As for if we can, I guess it depends to what level of effect. Obviously we do contribute CO2 and CO2 does contribute to warming. This is a fact, the problem is that the hypothesis that our contribution is significant and that CO2 is a primary driver. That has not been established. To not accept that fact, is what I would call a "denier".
So then is it of the opinion of climate change deniers that humans can't affect the Earth on a planetary scale in any manner?
Yes.
Its like telling someone that saltwater will oxidize and cause metal to rust, and that person responding with "Nuh uh! Metal is so much stronger than water!"
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.
Science Has Always Been Political
