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.
How did this info blow AGW? Science is well aware of this, and have taken it into account....
because the agw people seem to froget the cyclical nature of climate change. they look onlt at evidence that suits their claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs
.....except Milankovitch cycles are longer than 10,000 years, not 150 years. Forgot about that part?
nope, i count on that part. i dont look at 150 years of evidence, i look at much longer cycles, in fact i look at cycles more on the order of 125,000 years. i also look at climate change trends over millions of years, not just the 150-200 years that agw people look at.
The experts from the community college you cited earlier?
Community college?
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.
Dr. John Abraham is a Professor of Thermal Sciences where he researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world.
Rasmus E. Benestad is a physicist by training and works as a senior scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no). He earned a D.Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics at Oxford University (U.K.), a M.S. in physics (cloud micro-physics) from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (U.S.A.), and a B.Sc. (Hons) in physics and electronics from Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology
Scott is Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, New York, USA. He has been teaching introductory meteorology and climatology courses for 22 years.
because the agw people seem to froget the cyclical nature of climate change. they look onlt at evidence that suits their claim.
nope, i count on that part. i dont look at 150 years of evidence, i look at much longer cycles, in fact i look at cycles more on the order of 125,000 years. i also look at climate change trends over millions of years, not just the 150-200 years that agw people look at.
You do realize that conditions on earth were much different in the distant past, don't you? Science does not ignore past climate forcings or conditions.
I asked for an explanation for the graphs, not more excuses.
The scientific method was used to draw those conclusions. You are free to do as much research onto the subject as you want.
I know it is a sound "theory" because I studied Earth systems in college. Climatic changes in the Earth are cyclical. Recent (last 50-150 years) changes far exceed the natural climatic patterns of the Earth. What happened 50-150 years ago?
Why is the Earth suddenly warming at an unprecedeted pace?
The question is there.. you just don't like the answer and don't want it answered. That makes it easy to deny.
Scientific method? More like politically motivated crap to perpetrate a lie.
Again, therein lies the BIG QUESTION: WHY is nothing being done to adapt and ensure the survivability of mankind!
NOTHING is being done! WHY NOT?
Could it be that all the doom and gloom scenarios are fallacious, and nothing NEEDS to be done?
Or it could be there are still enough people who believe nothing is happening even when they are given proof and think the "market" should decide how mankind adapts to climate changes.
You don't know the data collection methods, so you have no basis to call them inaccurate (which is exactly what you are doing by calling them "questionable").
You are DENYING based off ZERO insight into data collections. You are merely moving the goal post to a place that cannot be proven (which is the point).
Science is based on inferences, for we cannot accurately document 100% of what happened 4.4 billion years ago. Based on that fact alone, you will never be "convinced" of anything. Don't act like you believe in science when you are clinging to that premise.
You have no idea of the data collections as well. And you are basing your screeching's on unproven theory, not fact.
You do realize that conditions on earth were much different in the distant past, don't you? Science does not ignore past climate forcings or conditions.
You do realize they are different now? And will be different in the future.
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.
Dr. John Abraham is a Professor of Thermal Sciences where he researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world.
Rasmus E. Benestad is a physicist by training and works as a senior scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no). He earned a D.Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics at Oxford University (U.K.), a M.S. in physics (cloud micro-physics) from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (U.S.A.), and a B.Sc. (Hons) in physics and electronics from Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology
Scott is Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, New York, USA. He has been teaching introductory meteorology and climatology courses for 22 years.
Community college indeed.
Yeah, that guy from the community college you are citing, is he one of the experts? Which I guess is about as good as the other guy with only a masters that works in the private sector.
Why would you attack the credentials of a guy that is an ISI highly rated scientist, using guys like that? I guess that's an issue for the other thread. To be fair, you didn't attack his credentials in this thread.
Anyway, I was just giving you a hard time. I don't mean any offense.
I would have to see their actual criticism before I knew what to make of 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.
