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.
Because science cannot yet explain the cause of the missing heat in the deep does not disprove AGW....There are a lot of things that science can't explain...If it could explain everything, there would be no need for science.
Then it is pretty foolish to be saying "this doesn't disprove AGW" or "The Science is Settled" or "The Debate is Over", isn't it?
You say these types of things from a position of authority where you CAN say with certainty that you know how something will behave. We cannot say that about the climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
By the way there are people still who say that the earth is not warming at all, even some who claim that it is cooling.
Yes. There has been a "pause" in warming that even the IPCC and NASA have to admit to now. Some say it may last a decade or more longer, again, we can't say for certain because we don't fully understand the climate.
Also, calling it a pause as many in the AGW crowd do, presumes that it will resume warming or in their case, resume runaway warming because their bread and butter is alarmism. We don't know that. As you yourself said,
science can't explain everything. It may resume warming, it may cool, it may cycle between warming and cooling as it has in the past.
Because science cannot yet explain the cause of the missing heat in the deep does not disprove AGW....There are a lot of things that science can't explain...If it could explain everything, there would be no need for science.
By the way there are people still who say that the earth is not warming at all, even some who claim that it is cooling.
Actually, the easiest and least convoluted explanation (Occam's razor) is that their models and therefore their hypothesis is just plain wrong. But that they refuse to consider that as the explanation, as simple and straightforward as it might be.
And the only people who even come close to denying that the Earth's climate is changing are the AGW alarmists, who appear to believe that a static climate is somehow normal, achievable and sustainable.
...and I have no problem with that. My problem, is with making alarmist predictions of runaway warming year after year, claiming the science is settled when we are still learning so much about the climate as this issue proves and ridiculing anyone who dares to question all of this as a "denier" or a "flat earthier".
1. You don't ask questions-- you post these threads because you want to make fun of liberals.
2. Hansen, Lindzen, etc. are dismissed because their science is bad and because they openly align themselves with PR machines like the Heartland Institute.
3. The low-end runaway greenhouse is a product of the most severe and catastrophic exploitation of every fossil fuel source on the planet with zero intervention, and it is a combination of both manmade emissions and feedback loops. But that is the worst case scenario where even in the face of obvious signs of warming and obvious catastrophic effects, governments continue to support the oil, coal, and gas industries and continue to promote the use of fossil fuels. It is very very unlikely-- Hansen mentions it to call attention to the fact that there are enough greenhouse gases on the planet (CO2 in fossil fuel, methane in the ice caps, etc.) for this to be the result.
4. The fact that the planet has been warming since industrialization took off is impossible to ignore, impossible to deny, and impossible to explain... UNLESS humans are the cause. Natural cycles have been studied and ruled out. The sun has been studied and ruled out. The existence of AGW isn't being disputed. There is no other explanation that fits. None. Zero.
5.The effects of the warming, and whether or not there could be natural buffers to the warming is still debatable. Does this mean that AGW isn't real? No. Does it mean that we can keep pumping out as much CO2 as we want and it will be fine? No.
1. You don't ask questions-- you post these threads because you want to make fun of liberals.
2. Hansen, Lindzen, etc. are dismissed because their science is bad and because they openly align themselves with PR machines like the Heartland Institute.
3. The low-end runaway greenhouse is a product of the most severe and catastrophic exploitation of every fossil fuel source on the planet with zero intervention, and it is a combination of both manmade emissions and feedback loops. But that is the worst case scenario where even in the face of obvious signs of warming and obvious catastrophic effects, governments continue to support the oil, coal, and gas industries and continue to promote the use of fossil fuels. It is very very unlikely-- Hansen mentions it to call attention to the fact that there are enough greenhouse gases on the planet (CO2 in fossil fuel, methane in the ice caps, etc.) for this to be the result.
4. The fact that the planet has been warming since industrialization took off is impossible to ignore, impossible to deny, and impossible to explain... UNLESS humans are the cause. Natural cycles have been studied and ruled out. The sun has been studied and ruled out. The existence of AGW isn't being disputed. There is no other explanation that fits. None. Zero.
5.The effects of the warming, and whether or not there could be natural buffers to the warming is still debatable. Does this mean that AGW isn't real? No. Does it mean that we can keep pumping out as much CO2 as we want and it will be fine? No.
Liberals do a good job making fun of themselves without any help! Thanks for the laugh though!
You can blame fossil fuels, and C02 all you want, but there is no proof they're causing climate/weather change. Stop trying to mess with nature, and change things, everything will be ok.
Oh I forgot to mention, natural gas is claimed as clean, yet it is still a fossil fuel. Are we going to stop using that, since it technically puts out C02 emissions.
1. You don't ask questions-- you post these threads because you want to make fun of liberals.
Oh cry me a river. People are picking on the poor liberals by posting articles that are inconvenient to their dogma. As someone else just said, you don't need any help, you do a fine job of embarrassing yourselves on your own!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo
2. Hansen, Lindzen, etc. are dismissed because their science is bad and because they openly align themselves with PR machines like the Heartland Institute.
Correction. Any scientist who goes against the dogma is immediately accused of either being a bad scientist or in the pocket of big oil or a conservative group. Meanwhile, there are TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars spent YEARLY on more research and green initiatives that are predicated on alarmism in order to justify their existence. People have made their careers and their fortunes off of the alarmism. Organizations like NASA and the EPA, which had been struggling for relevancy and funding dollars are now enjoying tremendous amounts of both.
Besides, I've said it before and I will say it again. If science is corrupt and for sale, it is naive and stupid to think that only the scientists that you disagree with are guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo
3. The low-end runaway greenhouse is a product of the most severe and catastrophic exploitation of every fossil fuel source on the planet with zero intervention, and it is a combination of both manmade emissions and feedback loops. But that is the worst case scenario where even in the face of obvious signs of warming and obvious catastrophic effects, governments continue to support the oil, coal, and gas industries and continue to promote the use of fossil fuels. It is very very unlikely-- Hansen mentions it to call attention to the fact that there are enough greenhouse gases on the planet (CO2 in fossil fuel, methane in the ice caps, etc.) for this to be the result.
Governments continue to support oil, coal and gas because there is no realistic, feasible or attainable alternative right now. We aren't going to revert back to the pre-industrial age and we are going to stop developing economies in China and India from using them either.
I have to ask though.. if this is such a huge crisis and emergency, how come the president needs to take the 747s out and burn through carbon like there was no tomorrow in order to vacation on a particular beach in Hawaii or jaunt off to Africa? How come Hansen jets around the world to spread his alarmism? How come the people shouting the loudest about how bad this is fail to lead by example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo
4. The fact that the planet has been warming since industrialization took off is impossible to ignore, impossible to deny, and impossible to explain... UNLESS humans are the cause. Natural cycles have been studied and ruled out. The sun has been studied and ruled out. The existence of AGW isn't being disputed. There is no other explanation that fits. None. Zero.
Horsecrap! The warming has STOPPED for the past 16 odd years while the emissions have remained the same or increased! If humans are the only only possible explanation, explain THAT! It ain't "hiding out in the ocean" either as the link at the top of this thread references.
So if you really want to hitch your wagon to that theory, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo
5.The effects of the warming, and whether or not there could be natural buffers to the warming is still debatable. Does this mean that AGW isn't real? No. Does it mean that we can keep pumping out as much CO2 as we want and it will be fine? No.
It doesn't mean that it IS real either. I agree with you that we should strive to use less CO2 and use cleaner energy, my problem is with the alarmism and the politicization of science.
It has been documented that the Oceans warm and cool on 25 year cycles.
What cause the mini-iceage in the 12th Century?
What caused the dust bowls of the 1840's, 1880's, 1930's and 1950's
I'm one of those silly people who believe that there can be more than one single cause to most things climate.
The LIA "began" in the late 13th century. Lower solar radiant output but who knows secondary causes. Could not have been CO2 since CO2 was about the same as it was at the end of the last great glaciation some 12,000 years ago.
You note a 25 year cycle. and yet your references do not add up to fitting such a cycle.
That is my frustration with the AGW crowd. They are so fixated with CO2 that they are blind to any other contributing factor.
I'm one of those silly people who believe that there can be more than one single cause to most things climate.
The LIA "began" in the late 13th century. Lower solar radiant output but who knows secondary causes. Could not have been CO2 since CO2 was about the same as it was at the end of the last great glaciation some 12,000 years ago.
You note a 25 year cycle. and yet your references do not add up to fitting such a cycle.
That is my frustration with the AGW crowd. They are so fixated with CO2 that they are blind to any other contributing factor.
The medieval times, were warmer globally than today.
Just last night on the History channel, they were talking about this and scientist being stumped as to why the Atlantic Ocean is cooling, causing less Hurricanes these past two seasons.
They also were talking about the mini-iceage, which was the end to medieval era and they said in 1340 the plague started,
1250 for when Atlantic Ice Pack began to grow
1275 to 1300 based on radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation, the Thames river froze over
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe, snowing during the summer
1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317
1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
1650 for the first climatic minimum.
The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century.
...and I have no problem with that. My problem, is with making alarmist predictions of runaway warming year after year, claiming the science is settled when we are still learning so much about the climate as this issue proves and ridiculing anyone who dares to question all of this as a "denier" or a "flat earthier".
I suppose "environazi" is a term of endearment?
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.
