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.
Here's one. Fact: the Earth has been continually warming since the last ice age. Agreed or disagreed?
As a skeptic, let me go first.
False. The Earth's climate moves in cycles of varying duration. The longer term cycles can be broken down into shorter term cycles. Obviously that process has never stopped and is ongoing.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
The scientists are not falsifying data. Why do fake 'skeptics' gullibly swallow that conspiracy theory over and over again?
So they don't have to admit to themselves that the Republicans they support, the ones whose claims are not supported by any facts at all, aren't dolts.
The lies are from the blogger in your link and they are repeated by the tabloid journalist and you and other fake 'skeptics'.
Clearly, you just don't want to know the facts about why adjustments are made to raw data and why the data would be useless otherwise.
OK he compared the Raw data and the corrected data and found a discrepancy. That is it. their data doesn't match there data. He didn't lie. But someone did.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
You didn't bother to look at the graph I linked to, did you....It is a record of the temperature for the last 10,000 years.
Your problem is that none of the things you mention are effecting today's climate enough to account for the warming we are seeing.
and your problem is that you dont realize that tiny changes in solar output and the earths orbital path result in big changes on the earth. or so says many actual climate scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
There is a scientific consensus. Right wing denialists continuing to spout lies long after they've been exposed as lies is not debate, it's just people continuing to tell lies long after they've been exposed as lies. You know that guy who used to pop in and say temperatures haven't increased in X years? After I proved him wrong, the debate was over. It was still over even after even though he kept saying it, because repeating false claims doesn't make them true.
But perhaps you use a different definition of "debate" than those who are aware of the reality of things.
in other words you are saying that the science is settled and that you wont even bother listening to anyone who doesnt bend to your point of view, gotcha.
and your problem is that you dont realize that tiny changes in solar output and the earths orbital path result in big changes on the earth. or so says many actual climate scientists.
And does the data suggest that any of that is happening?
Quote:
in other words you are saying that the science is settled and that you wont even bother listening to anyone who doesnt bend to your point of view, gotcha.
The current science is showing that man's actions are causing the climate change. Present or publish something to suggest otherwise.
Now the current climate input from Albedo is for cooling. The relative strength of the input is a function of the amount of ice. Clean white snow is the most light reflective surface on earth. The darkest is the open water leads in Artic and Antarctic Sea ice. Soot is one of the darkest substances on earth.
Well, at least you're putting some degree of thought into it, which is more than I can say for most of the others.
Soot did play a role in ending the little ice age and it is still an issue today. Cutting soot emissions would be hugely beneficial.
The role of soot has been acknowledged by the IPCC:
I'm not sure where you're getting your 10% figure from... CO2 is clearly considered the most significant driver of climate change.
But soot is a short term climate driver-- it lasts only days in the atmosphere and a maximum of a few months on snow. It is either covered in fresh snow, or washed out to sea with the meltwater from glaciers. It also tends to be more of a local problem than global, as it is heavier and doesn't travel as much as CO2... this is why articles that talk about soot killing the Little Ice Age only really talk about the Alps-- that's where the effect would have been the strongest.
If soot is the biggest problem here, why do decreasing soot emissions coupled with decreasing solar activity and cloud albedo that points to cooling result in glacier retreat?
This is why you need to prove that cooling is only a matter of time, and rely on thermal inertia to explain why we're still warming...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
Thermal inertia and the North Atlantic Conveyor, how many thousand years does that thing take to go around? The difference between weather and climate is time scale. The heat input from the 1850's until 1900 is showing up now.
Thermal inertia is estimated to delay the effects of warming by about 40 years, not 100+.
The lag in the climate response to a forcing is a sensitive function of equilibrium climate sensitivity, varying approximately as the square of the sensitivity, and it depends on the rate of heat exchange between the ocean’s surface mixed layer and the deeper ocean. The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as ¼°C per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1°C per W/m2 or larger. Evidence from Earth’s history and climate models suggests that climate sensitivity is ¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2, implying that 25-50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60 percent of its equilibrium response.
I'm not completely sure what the North Atlantic Conveyor has to do with it... does it somehow throw off the above calculations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
Looking at the raw data vs. the corrected data. One of the three raw data graphs had what looked like an upwards trend with a discontinuity in it. The other two had a down wards trend. So what I think happened is this. They assumed that the discontinuity was an error like using two different thermometers. The first one read higher than the other one did and so they made the line straight. Then they adjusted the other to reporting stations to match the fixe one without much thought.
I highly doubt they would have been that careless... and the temperatures were adjusted for things like technology updates, movement of stations, etc.
If you had read the articles I posted on this (the rebuttals to the article just published days ago), you would see why the adjustments were made, and also that the largest adjustment (ocean temperatures) actually resulted in a COOLER result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
So if my theory is right. Then we are headed into an ice age and should do everything we can to avoid it. and a little thing like fixing an error with the data that wasn't an error could mask a cooling trend and waist time we could be spending reversing it.
This is where you lose me completely.
Rejecting CO2 as a primary driver and pegging AGW on a short-term driver and feedback loops is one thing. Hell, soot COULD play a larger role in climate change than we know and reducing it is probably a good way to at least somewhat mitigate the problem.
I can't imagine the IPCC or science in general being THAT wrong about CO2's relationship with infrared radiation, definitely not to the point where it's only 10 percent
But now you've gone all the way past 'everything is fine and it's a conspiracy' into a realm where the most educated, most respected climatologists in the world are less competent than you, make simple mistakes that any layman can see right through, and are endangering us all by denying the impending ice age.
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.
