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.
Um, damn, sorry, I got to laugh my ass off for a few minutes.....
You just debunked AGW.
Hahahahaha....
Why don't you learn what "Dome C" is and get back to us.
It's the site of an ice core drilling... so what?
Are you saying that climatologists focus EXCLUSIVELY on that single data set for EVERYTHING they believe?
That's just flat out wrong.
So wait, it's okay that this particular study ONLY uses data from Antarctica and ignore Greenland completely? Of course tree rings, mountaintops, and other glaciers are totally irrelevant.
Here is a nice question from a grade 9-12 student in Canada that will help you understand how the nice scientists form their CO2 records:
Also, did you notice how I didn't include obnoxious laughter in my post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Those are lies used to create a tautological argument.
Isn't there a glacier on Greenland?
Oooops....
Do ships have free passage through the Atlantic Northwest?
Oooops....
Is it warmer than the last Inter-Glacial Period?
Nope.
Is it warmer than any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Nope.
AGW Tautology:
1. We want the average global temperature to be 53°F.
2. The average global temperature should be 53°F because we said so.
3. If the average global temperature is greater than 53°F then something is wrong.
4. If something is wrong, Humans are at fault.
So many lies and weird misconceptions I don't even know where to begin.
Are you just going to keep throwing out lies and weird references to timeframes in which humans didn't exist? The medieval warm period may have been warmer in the Northern Hemisphere and possibly Europe, but the PLANET (ie: the GLOBE, which becomes the adjective GLOBAL and can be placed in front of the word WARMING to describe the PLANETWIDE warming trend that we are now experiencing) was cooler.
This debate just keeps going in circles because once one lie has been exposed you just throw the rest of the lies out there and then responding to them only means the lies you think I forgot about come back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes, they have. They've been 10x higher than now. There has been serval time periods when no Water Ice existed on Earth -- there was no snow, no glaciers, no polar sea ice and now snow-covered mountains.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
But that's irrelevant, since we're only interest in Earth as it appears now, which has been since 23 Million Years Ago, and more or less within the last 10 Million years.
So why are you bringing it up?
Oh right, because you think you're showing off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's not what the evidence shows.
When Earth's atmosphere was 95% CO2 -- such as in the period prior to the Great Oxygenation Event --- there were periods of heavy regional glaciation, including at least one known period of global glaciation.
Inexplicably, there is about 1.5 Billion years (post-GOE) with no evidence of glaciation at all, and CO2 levels would have had no impact on that one way or another.
You're talking about BILLIONS of years ago as if that somehow provides a great comparison to today? Do you even care how much lower the solar levels were at that time? Oh right, solar activity is only relevant when it's helping to prove your point, which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to believe that all liberals are stupid.
I have repeatedly said that CO2 is NOT the only driver of climate... if the sun is cooler it will take MORE CO2 to warm the Earth.
So what, your pointing out that CO2 levels have been higher on a cooler Earth is supposed to be some sort of grand revelation where I bow down to your wisdom? LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Um, the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics is not an on-line blog, no matter how much your handlers are paying you to say it is.
Obviously I meant the original link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You know don't even know what the study says.
When you get smart enough to understand Dome Concordia, maybe someone will take you seriously.
Well, I can read this graph rather well:
So yes-- a stable relationship between CO2 and warming cycles, and then suddenly CO2 levels go way way up and warming with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Likewise, you cannot assume they are.
In before you start your racist chant of "denialist blog," the ESA is the European Space Agency.
I'm not assuming anything.
I'm not chanting anything.
I know how to spot denialist blogs, and know when valid information is being used to 'support' a fallacious argument like yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I posted that image back in June on another AGW Fantasy Thread.
Here is Earth as of November ...just 5 months later...
Wow....look at the freaking differences.
The Blue areas on the images are areas of low magnetic flux. The Red areas of high flux.
Magnetic flux is measured in nanoTesla or nT.
Blue = 20,000 nT
Orange = 50,000 nT
The Blue areas are where you have the highest level of Ultra-Violet A/B and soft X-Rays.
The Orange and Red areas screen out an higher percentage of the UV-A/B and the soft X-Rays.
The Earth's Magnetic Field Flux is the #1 Climate Driver, followed by Sun, the Milankovitch Cycle, and the relationship of tectonic plates to one another (as continents).
Flexing...
Mircea
I have no idea how the data you posted bridges to the conclusion you have reached, and I'm pretty sure that it's because it doesn't. On the other hand:
Your argument basically follows the same denialist mindset that insists 'global warming, if it even exists, is caused by anything and everything EXCEPT CO2-- only an idiot would believe CO2 could cause warming LOLOLOL.'
I truly do believe that if someone told you warming was being caused by space rabbits hopping around on the moon, you would believe that such a thing before you would ever admit that CO2 might play a role.
I'm done with this thread... the leaps of logic you're willing to take more than demonstrate that you're not ever going to be convinced by anything I say. If reality isn't enough, then I know for a fact I won't be.
Stringent EPA standards are the number one risk to their current business as purveyors of fossil fuel?
The problem is that correlation and causation still aren't the same thing. Correlation is merely suggestive, but ultimately meaningless unless you can explain a mechanism; if you can't, you're not really making an argument so much as speculating. Or in this case, cherry-picking. And the last thirty years of solar cooling demonstrate... you know what, you cited Usoskin, so:
So no, Nature isn't a heretical right-wing denialist blog, no matter how much you selectively interpret otherwise.
You clearly are seeing the world through liberal colored glasses. Major corporations write the legislation that congress rubber stamps. Obamacare was written by the health care industry and the Senators admitted they did not even know what was in it. It did not matter if they read it or not, they were being paid to vote for it no matter what it said. The same is true for NAFTA and every other piece of legislation that supposedly regulates the business world. GW is a scheme to monopolize industrial production and to eleminate any kind of competition. Environmental laws are written to ensure small and middle size companies are bankrupted trying to comply with government regulations while the major conglomerates gobble up more and more market share. The science that supports it is sponsored by laboratories and universities who depend on corporate grants and studies for their very existence. It is not that hard, to find the truth just follow the money.
It is you liberals, that dispute that fact! Since you global warmers/climate changers have to resort to using a derogatory term, you have no real argument to disprove the claim. Next study: Why are the left so intolerant of other view points?
I don't even have to type anything. You just have to read the thread lookb4youcross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
There is currently no scientific evidence that disputes the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Saying the Sun influences climate is certainly true. So do green house gases. The two assertions are not in conflict.
Seriously, of all the denialist tripe, the notion that there's just no money in climate change denialism is easily the strangest.
No, the massive hoax involving thousands of scientists over decades without one single scientist either getting caught or blowing the whistle; that's the strangest.
Oh, hell. Who are we kidding. All denialist arguments are strange. Denialists are strange.
No, the massive hoax involving thousands of scientists over decades without one single scientist either getting caught or blowing the whistle; that's the strangest.
Oh, hell. Who are we kidding. All denialist arguments are strange. Denialists are strange.
Nah, denialists are constantly patting themselves on the back for catching scientists "admitting conspiracies", claiming so-and-so "real scientist" blew the whistle on the whole thing, and whatever. But I have yet to see one even halfway claim that the oil industry has no money.
GW is a scheme to monopolize industrial production and to eleminate any kind of competition. Environmental laws are written to ensure small and middle size companies are bankrupted trying to comply with government regulations while the major conglomerates gobble up more and more market share.
Prove this. Show us the memos detailing the collusion between . . . whoever it is you think concocted this hoax.
Quote:
The science that supports it is sponsored by laboratories and universities who depend on corporate grants and studies for their very existence. It is not that hard, to find the truth just follow the money.
If it's not hard to find you should be able to prove your claims with little difficulty. Please do so. Because in my experience your claims are the claims made by denialists who are upset at science because it shows right-wingers to be liars.
It is you liberals, that dispute that fact! Since you global warmers/climate changers have to resort to using a derogatory term, you have no real argument to disprove the claim. Next study: Why are the left so intolerant of other view points?
No scientist disputes the sun is the major factor in Earth's temperature. Insolation is in every climate model.
According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.abstract
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.
