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.
It is too soon to show a peer-reviewed research paper or citation that directly links damage from tropical storms this fall in the NE US to AGW.
That is not what I asked. Surely the contingency of your claim is not dependent on this season alone? Can you not cite previous seasons as evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
However, the likelihood of being able to attribute the extreme weather conditions to AGW is rather high.
And how do you come to this conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
We'll have to wait a few years. That's really not a problem since the first accepted theory of AGW and carbon capping and trading were published in the 1800s.
We have been waiting decades so far to have the observed trends fit the hypothesis of AGW and still, it doesn't fit it. Just a little while longer though eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
The bigger question really is simple.
There is no scientifically valid, peer-accepted evidence that refutes AGW theory.
That is an extremely ignorant claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
Sure, there are editorials. Sure, there are strawmen. Sure, there are well written considerations of cosmic rays as a climate force.
Ignoring, dismissing, and hand waving away the issues isn't a legitimate claim, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
Every seriously researched challenge to AGW theory has been countered. (Very similar to challenges of other accepted scientific theory, the challenges are vital to science, don't get me wrong, but AGW holds up.)
Countered? You mean like the Spencer and Bradly paper having a counter published by Trenberth in a record breaking 1 day turn over through peer review? *chuckle* So much for that roubust and diligent peer review process. (hint: a 1 day acceptance of a paper is never done unless the journal is a political hack site as the usual process of review takes weeks, months if it is a skeptical paper).
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
None of them challenge the empirical evidence that man's activity is directly contributing to a warming of the climate.
Now you are really showing your ignorance. What empirical evidence? AGW doesn't use empirical evidence, it uses models and untested speculations as its position. Though I would love to see any "empirical" evidence you can provide from research. Heck, I am sure many climate scientists would love to see such as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleged return of serfdom
If there is one in the future that can pass review, the authors will surely win a Nobel prize.
Actually, many have chllenged (hence the many retractions of papers used by the IPCC), but you go ahead and act like you know what you are talking about. Frankly, I was willing to discuss with you, but you are so ignorant of the topic that there would be no point. You aren't even in the ballfield of "normal" understanding concerning the topic. My discussion would only confuse you and end up with you dismissing, and resorting to the stupid "denier" argument.
Carry on there, I don;t want to get in the way of this gold you are pronouncing as it is quite the comic relief for some of us here.
What would you like me to cite concerning my mention?
That El nino's and La ninas are a normal cycle of occurrence?
Would you like me to provide a definition for every word I type as well?
What i mentioned isn't exactly a point of contention, in fact it is common knowledge.
What is amusing is that you asking me to source that mention is like asking me to source the mention of day and night cycles. If you don't understand the common knowledge aspect of my mention, then you have no business objecting in this topic.
What would you like me to cite concerning my mention?
That El nino's and La ninas are a normal cycle of occurrence?
Would you like me to provide a definition for every word I type as well?
What i mentioned isn't exactly a point of contention, in fact it is common knowledge.
What is amusing is that you asking me to source that mention is like asking me to source the mention of day and night cycles. If you don't understand the common knowledge aspect of my mention, then you have no business objecting in this topic.
Whatever you say buddy
El ninos and la ninas are normal cycles but that doesn't mean that can't be more extreme or prolonged. You seem to only tell half the story.
An el nino, or la nina is a normal process of ocean changes. They warm and they cool, but how does that prove the position the poster made?
Try using citation to affirm your position please.
El Nino and La Nina are not really in play in the European North Atlantic, they are both part of what is known as the Southern Oscillation. The North Atlantic oscillation is what comes into play there and there is no evidence that that caused ocean warming this year. If anything it should have made Europe colder. The fact is AGW is causing ocean temperatures to rise ever so slightly so that tropical storms can reach further North.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 09-17-2011 at 10:18 PM..
What are your qualifications? This is the internet, anyone can repeat anything they hear, but why should I believe you.
I am not asking you to "believe" me, or to take my word.
Qualifications do not invalidate the strength of an argument.
What you can do is take into consideration a point of contention made by another, evaluate the questions they pose, and read the citations they provide.
That is all that is ever requested in these discussions. There is no demand to submit to a position through any conclusive means unless we are dealing with a tangible fact that shows another claim to obviously be false.
El Nino and La Nina are not really in play in the European North Atlantic, they are both part of what is known as the Southern Oscillation. The North Atlantic oscillation is what comes into play there and there is no evidence that that caused ocean warming this year. If anything it should have made Europe colder. The fact is AGW is causing ocean temperatures to rise ever so slightly so that tropical storms can reach further North.
Again, I am asking you to please cite such a claim with evidence that supports such a conclusion.
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.
