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.
Is it just me, or does the GW crowd seem like a bunch of kids stomping their feed and throwing a tantrum every time scientific evidence that does not support their position is posted. It is actually quite amusing.
We learned that in the 3rd Grade. With union teachers, I guess we shouldn't be surprised people don't understand how their own atmosphere works.
I'm pretty sure that his point is that atmosphere also has an effect on climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The original study isn't required or obligated to include the "timeframe in which AGW has occurred."
Right, because it's ONLY a study of temperatures before AGW occurred. So you're going to take these cycles and pretend that they can explain the current warming without actually studying the current warming? It's like they're leaving their study intentionally incomplete. Not to mention, the study is 100% localized and does not even begin to apply to the entire planet.
First of all, no matter how much denialists state otherwise, the planet is warmer than it has been throughout the entire duration of the Holocene. It's warmer than the medieval warm period, and warmer than the Roman warm period.
Second of all, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. CO2 isn't causing AGW because it's not supposed to be there at all, it's causing AGW because there is too much of it in the atmosphere with nothing drawing it out. It's not a big mystery as to why CO2 might not have been a climate driver in the past-- there wasn't enough of it to make a huge impact, unlike now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And the IPCC doesn't cherry-pick it's date ranges to cast everything in the most favorable light for AGW?
No.
You're seriously comparing an online blog that openly announces its contempt for climate science to a International panel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
No one was misled here. Which part of "Dome Concordia" do you not understand?
If you think that this study in any way applies to our current situation, you are being misled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It doesn't have to include the years after 1895.
The Sun doesn't cease affecting temperatures just because the calendar changes to 1895.
If you want to prove that the current warming is completely caused by the sun, then YES, you do need to include the years after 1895. You can't just assume that high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are having no effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Your claim that the Sun is on a mechanical on/off-timer and turns off in 1895 is nonsense.
You know I respect your opinions as you back up your points so take a step back and hear me out.
If I am missing the boat because of some of the lengthy exchanges had items I missed them I apologize in advance.
The study doesn't have to include stuff after 1895 if it's solely going to weigh in on solar affects and even base level CO2 impacts.
However, if the exclusion of available data from a study covering the greatest period of CO2 expansion and then they state that CO2 has little impact....that's not very good science now is it?
Just the exclusion of the latest 100+ years of data is enough to trip my BS meter because I've seen similar tactics used by other "studies" like the guy down in Florida saying that the insurance rates for hurricanes are too high based on his study starting the year after Andrew and before the bad cluster around 2006 or whatnot. Excluding data points without full disclosure of the merits as to why is an automatic red flag.
The basic question would be, what did the study results look like before the data was excluded?
Why was the apparantly arbitrary year of 1895 selected instead of 1952 or 1978 or 1492 etc?
Until I get those answers, the study is suitable only for cleaning my posterior.
Is it just me, or does the GW crowd seem like a bunch of kids stomping their feed and throwing a tantrum every time scientific evidence that does not support their position is posted. It is actually quite amusing.
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.
If it's real, I'll read about it in real literature on the matter. And there's no doubt that the denialist website will claim the study proves something it doesn't, otherwise the denialist website wouldn't bother. Reading denialist websites is a waste of time.
Wow, you people are really not happy with the news. Apparently you people can not form any coherent thought other then denialist denialist denialist denialist denialist denialist. OH! It's one of those denialist websites! Lets dismiss it, because I don't like the information on it, or that denialist website, is linked to another denialist website! I simply can't believe it, because the United Nations or some other government agency didn't tell me.
Oh My God, the Tea Baggers have discovered that the Sun is a factor in the Earth's global temperature. Next study: The Sun provides Light!
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?
Its bias is certainly relevant because it means that you need to be extra critical of their stories, and double check their 'facts' before jumping to conclusions.
In this case, I pointed out that the original study does NOT involve the timeframe in which AGW has occurred... you're not going to get that information from them and the story they've posted is written to deliberately mislead people.
They're counting on you not finding the original study or reading the abstract. And you obviously haven't done that, or you would know that celebrating the death of the AGW theory because of it is just making you look stupid.
'
Kinda like we have to be critical of AGW sources, because the AGW crowd usually finds them of alarmist blog site,
Second of all, CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. CO2 isn't causing AGW because it's not supposed to be there at all, it's causing AGW because there is too much of it in the atmosphere with nothing drawing it out. It's not a big mystery as to why CO2 might not have been a climate driver in the past-- there wasn't enough of it to make a huge impact, unlike now.
If you want to prove that the current warming is completely caused by the sun, then YES, you do need to include the years after 1895. You can't just assume that high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are having no effect.
What current warming?
An ice age (no matter how little in the grand scheme of things) ended 150 years ago. It has warmed ever since.
The massive CO2 releases of the last 60 years have NOT led to the catastrophes that the AGW crow have screamed about for the last 20 years
Yes but they can tax solar home power systems....after all Nothing is sacred from the almighty taxers!
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.
