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.
yes we should be and are warming...just as the cycles have shown in the past
instead of DENYING everything... I really dislike how many people on here are science deniers
Will you please explain what about that graph tells you we should be warming? Not knowing anyhthing it would be expected to follow the trends in the graph, which would point towards cooling, no?
yes we should be and are warming...just as the cycles have shown in the past
instead of DENYING everything... I really dislike how many people on here are science deniers
Are we posting links and not explaining?
Go look at either graph 2 or 3. The last 150 years have a rate of warming exponentially different than normal Milankovitch and we are even well outside the normal variation or anomalies.
You acknowledge that Milankovitch explains most climate change. And that Milankovitch is a function of orbital variation by not that we have not seen any of those things to account for a rate of warming well outside of the Milankovitch bounds. Chery picking us just denial by parts.
Will you please explain what about that graph tells you we should be warming? Not knowing anyhthing it would be expected to follow the trends in the graph, which would point towards cooling, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Are we posting links and not explaining?
Go look at either graph 2 or 3. The last 150 years have a rate of warming exponentially different than normal Milankovitch and we are even well outside the normal variation or anomalies.
You acknowledge that Milankovitch explains most climate change. And that Milankovitch is a function of orbital variation by not that we have not seen any of those things to account for a rate of warming well outside of the Milankovitch bounds. Chery picking us just denial by parts.
nearly EVERY interglacial cycle has brought us (the globe) to an average temp of about 73'f....we are WELL BELOW that at a global average temp currently at 59'f
what is it that you are not getting????? why do you deny that nearly every cycle has had a warm peak at around 73'f-75'f...we are still way short....by you deny, deny, deny
Go look at either graph 2 or 3. The last 150 years have a rate of warming exponentially different than normal Milankovitch and we are even well outside the normal variation or anomalies.
You acknowledge that Milankovitch explains most climate change. And that Milankovitch is a function of orbital variation by not that we have not seen any of those things to account for a rate of warming well outside of the Milankovitch bounds. Chery picking us just denial by parts.
Climate scientists are irrelevant. Their motivation is envy, their emotion is hatred, and their goal is to dismantle freedom and establish global collectivism. That is why it is so hard to find a climate scientist who promotes Capitalism. There are one or two, but they are outliers.
In fact, if you go to any serious climate science website, dig a little, click on a few of the people in charge, follow some links. You will almost ALWAYS be able to take a very short link trip to other sites that decry income inequality and promote left wing collectivism in some form.
Envirofascism and collectivism are 2 peas in a rotten pod.
Well let's just start with the IPCC. Did you know that one of the prime methods of selecting its contributing scientists is "gender balance"? And another is emphasis on inclusion of members from the "developing world" and "economies in transition".
So we see that an essential qualification in being accepted as an author of IPCC pronouncements is nakedly political. Shouldn't it be solely about the quality of the "science" and the certitude of the data? But right from the start - selecting the spokesmen - the selection process is political, not scientific.
I mean, gender balance???????!!!!!! AYFKM?
So at genesis, we start with political considerations. Interesting, no?
nearly EVERY interglacial cycle has brought us (the globe) to an average temp of about 73'f....we are WELL BELOW that at a global average temp currently at 59'f
what is it that you are not getting????? why do you deny that nearly every cycle has had a warm peak at around 73'f-75'f...we are still way short....by you deny, deny, deny
Do you understand what the word "rate" means? Do you understand it's significance? If we are roughly half way through an interglacial, it should take us 50k or so years to get back to the maximum interglacial. At the rate we are increasing, we will go from your 59f (btw tell your blog writer scientists don't use farenheit) to your 73 degrees in a little over 1k and that's assuming no more input of CO2.
Do you really not get that? We are spreading up the rate of warming from well over 50,000 years to well less than 1k. And there is nothing to say that anthropogenic change will stop at your 73. Because this is NOT Milankovitch warming. YOUR OWN SOURCE says it would take at least another 50k years.
No I said "rate of warming". We are so outside the normal rate of warming found of even the anomalies, that if you accept Milankovitch theory you would be shaking in your boot. If we really have 80k to go on the natural cycle, and our current rate of warming is a degree every 100 years (and that ignores the fact that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temp is logarithmic) than in 80,000 years when we should reach our maximum warming, we would be 800 warmer than now. Seems a bit ridiculous doesn't it? And if you look at Milankovitch curves, you see the warming is a log relationship and does not slow down.
Therefore we are well outside the normally Milankovitch cycles any way you look at it. Either it is getting warm much faster than normal, or we have drastically shortened the warming period, or some combination of the two. But endlessly pretending that this is normal Milankovitch cycling is disproven by anyone who can do simple math like "rate".
Well let's just start with the IPCC. Did you know that one of the prime methods of selecting its contributing scientists is "gender balance"? And another is emphasis on inclusion of members from the "developing world" and "economies in transition".
So we see that an essential qualification in being accepted as an author of IPCC pronouncements is nakedly political. Shouldn't it be solely about the quality of the "science" and the certitude of the data? But right from the start - selecting the spokesmen - the selection process is political, not scientific.
I mean, gender balance???????!!!!!! AYFKM?
So at genesis, we start with political considerations. Interesting, no?
Omg you think the IPCC conducts research? All it does is assess research and compile it. AND NO ONE IS PAID FOR THEIR IPCC WORK. Since they aren't the ones conducting the research, what does it matter if people are chosen to make the group diverse? It does not change the product which is determined by the researchers not those compiling it.
Omg you think the IPCC conducts research? All it does is assess research and compile it. AND NO ONE IS PAID FOR THEIR IPCC WORK. Since they aren't the ones conducting the research, what does it matter if people are chosen to make the group diverse? It does not change the product which is determined by the researchers not those compiling it.
So let's follow that. They assess the research? Do you know what assessment means? It means they evaluate the research. Which means, they determine which research is valid and which is not. Evaluation of research is a critical task that determines what conclusions are reached, what conclusions are reported, and what conclusions move forward in formulating political policy. It could be argued that evaluation of research is as important as the research itself. Evaluation determines inclusion. And, evaluation determines exclusion.
Evaluation is literally determining the validity of research to be included in IPCC assessment reports. So does this matter? Is the IPCC that important?
Quote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.
So we see that the IPCC is in fact regarded as the preeminent purveyor and transmitter of climate data used in formulating political and economic policy. And the selection of its lead authors has to be considered to be a primary and fundamental factor in determining what data moves forward to its constituencies.
And so we would assume that selection is based in merit and certitude and qualification.
And we would be wrong. Among the primary factors are "GENDER BALANCE", "GEOGRAPHY", AND INCLUSION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND TRANSITIONAL ECONOMIES.
It's utterly preposterous that the sex of the applicant MATTERS in assigning the lead authors. And the second part is designed to make absolutely sure that the 3rd world hell holes who are going to be PAID OFF with the carbon taxation are present and accounted for.
The whole thing is political, political, political. It's not about what is true. It's about gender balance and geographical "diversity"
And this is just the tip of the iceberg - the selection of the EVALUATORS. This doesn't even go to what the IPCC actually does, only the selection criteria for deciding who gets to pull the strings.
Gender balance. Geographical diversity. THAT is who we are to trust.
Think about it.
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.
