| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Scientists predict 'mini ice age' will hit in 15 years | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 13 2015, 06:19 PM (1,613 Views) | |
| Larry | Jul 14 2015, 10:48 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
It doesn't matter how hard you spin Moonbat, the fact remains your argument is built on sand, historical data destroys your argument, and your scientists you put so much faith in are admitting they faked it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 14 2015, 10:55 AM Post #52 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Larry the survey cited by the Forbes article is of professional experts in petroleum and related industries. (Source) Even 36% of people who are actually paid to help dig up carbon and dump it into the atmosphere believe it's contributing to climate change. If you look at data for climate science then you find 97.2% of all papers on the topic over the last twenty years support the anthropogenic mediated hypothesis for global warming. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jul 14 2015, 11:15 AM Post #53 |
|
Shortstop
|
I still say global warming is good. I only wish we could get more of it. I hate cold weather. I'll never understand all this screaming about warm weather. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 14 2015, 11:31 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Standard dodge, but it won't fly. ALL of the scientists on your side of the fence are dependent on grant money. Besides, the article you cite as your source isn't hardly a reliable one, anyway. It was obviously written to get grant money...
Of course it does. And in the 70's about the same % of papers on the topic supported "global cooling". When you depend on grant money to keep your job, and the ones holding the purse strings won't give any grant money to anyone who disagrees with the political narrative.. then you'll get numbers like that. But do you know what the oil industry and the purse keepers for grant money *can't* do? They can't change the historical record. Edited by Larry, Jul 14 2015, 11:33 AM.
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 14 2015, 11:49 AM Post #55 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
But... that isn't how science works. You don't get your funding cut for disagreeing. You can disagree all you like in science and as long as you are honestly presenting evidence/new models there is no consequence at all. In fact science rewards dissent: if you overturn a big theory you can win a nobel prize! Whilst it's true that there is a certain element of hype involved in science it's just a nonsense conspiracy theory to dismiss an entire field.
The historical record shows Earth is warming from the industrial era onwards. You can't just make your own graph and call it "the historical record". The graphs I posted are the currently accepted historical record. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 14 2015, 11:54 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
How naive...... lol
So..... you deny the little ice age? You deny the warming periods shown on that graph? Interesting. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 14 2015, 11:59 AM Post #57 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Why wait, then. You could move to a warmer climate right now. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jul 14 2015, 12:11 PM Post #58 |
|
Shortstop
|
Tell my wife. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 14 2015, 12:41 PM Post #59 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This single statement exposes Larry's absolute and total ignorance of climate science. The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been understood since the 19th century. Without it, the earth would be an icebox. Arguing with such a complete and ignorant fool is, and continues to be a waste of time. I would warn everyone not to expend any effort whatsoever on it. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Nobody's Sock | Jul 14 2015, 01:13 PM Post #60 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
|
| "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Jul 14 2015, 01:51 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Scientific consensus is fairly suspect when most of the data on both sides has been corrupted to serve ideology rather than truth. It's absurd to believe that human activities have not had an effect on the environment. It's also equally absurd to believe the calamitous models when time and again they don't come to pass. God designed a pretty damned resilient planet, but he also commanded us to be good caretakers of this world. I think we can do a heckuva lot better without destroying our economies. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jul 14 2015, 02:17 PM Post #62 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
1 Peter 4:7
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 14 2015, 02:24 PM Post #63 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Al, there was no call for you to make such a nasty personal attack on me like that. I have debated hard, but I have not attacked you, nor have I attacked Moonbat. I expect sh!t like what you wrote from the three ankle biters, but I thought you were better than that. Now to address your quote of what I said, piece at a time: "Climate changes and always has." Do you disagree? "It gets warmer, it gets cooler." Do you disagree? "CO2 has nothing to do with it." Al, if you think CO2 is the sole cause of global warming cycles, then perhaps you can explain to us why CO2 levels were 12 times higher during the last ice age than they are now. Lastly, by calling me a "complete and ignorant fool", you are also calling some very highly respected scientists complete and ignorant fools as well, because they agree with me, and while I may not know as much as you do (apparently you think you're a climate scholar) I assure you Al, they know more than you will ever know. Your attempt to "warn everyone" is quite revealing by the way. It means, just as the rest of your post shows, that you can't defeat my argument so you'll just sling rocks. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 15 2015, 05:25 AM Post #64 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
"Climate changes." We agree on that. "It gets warmer, it gets cooler." No argument there, that's implicit in the first statement. "CO2 has nothing to do with it." This is where you clearly display your complete ignorance of the workings of the earth, its atmosphere, and the heat balance between insolation from the sun and heat radiated from the earth. Without CO2, we'd currently be in an icebox. I have never contended that C02 is the only variable affecting temperature, but it most definitely has something to do with it. It's the complexity of all the other potential variables that makes it harder to tease out how they work together to yield results that we observe. That, in a nutshell, is why I say you are ignorant fool. Your knowledge of issues related to climate and climate change seems to be extensive. Your wisdom in using that knowledge is where your ignorance is on full display. That is why I've concluded that discussion with you on this topic is fruitless. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 15 2015, 05:42 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
In other words, i don't come to the same conclusions as you do, but since you can't refute them, you'll just call me names......got it.. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Jul 15 2015, 06:05 AM Post #66 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Larry, I think that's a trick I learned from reading your posts for well over a decade. I'm otherwise not normally an uncivil person. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| brenda | Jul 15 2015, 10:43 AM Post #67 |
![]()
..............
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM SET THE FLAMINGOS FREE! |
|
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.” ~A.A. Milne | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jul 15 2015, 12:18 PM Post #68 |
|
Shortstop
|
Exactly |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 17 2015, 06:26 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I guess the people at Hunstville's satellite data center where they track the remote sensing systems that are circling our planet collecting global temperature data are complete and ignorant fools too, Al..... maybe you should call them up and explain to them why you know more than they do, and they are complete and ignorant fools: Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming I won't copy and paste the article, just go there and read it for yourself. No global warming has occurred in 21 years.... bahahahahahaha |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| AndyD | Jul 17 2015, 11:35 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 'skeptic' arguments - all are easily answered. Roy Spencer is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists whose research suggests that humans are playing a relatively minimal role in global warming. As one of those rare contrarian climate experts, he's often asked to testify before US Congress and interviewed by media outlets that want to present a 'skeptical' or false balance climate narrative. He's also a rather controversial figure, having made remarks about "global warming Nazis" and said, "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government." In any case, as one of those rare contrarian climate scientists, Spencer is in a good position to present the best arguments against the global warming consensus. Conveniently, he recently did just that on his blog, listing what he considers the "Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments," throwing in an 11th for good measure. He also conveniently posed each of these arguments as questions; it turns out they're all easy to answer. 1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so "settled", why did global warming stop 15 years ago, contrary to all "consensus" predictions? Quite simply, it hasn't. Even global surface temperatures (which is how Spencer is likely measuring 'global warming', although they only account for about 2% of the Earth's warming), have warmed about 0.2°C over the past 15 years, according to the best available measurements. More importantly, the planet has continued to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years. 2) Natural or Manmade? If we don't know how much of recent warming is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade? We do. The IPCC stated with 95% confidence that most of the global warming since 1950 is human-caused, with a best estimate that 100% is due to humans over the past 60 years. The IPCC was able to draw this conclusion with such high confidence because that's what the scientific evidence and research clearly and consistently concludes. 3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists "believe"? And when did scientists' "beliefs" translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party? The IPCC merely organizes the world's top climate scientists every 5 to 7 years. It's those scientists who summarize the up-to-date status of the scientific research in their respective fields of expertise. The IPCC report and the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming are themselves not proof of anything. They summarize and reflect the scientific evidence – that vast body of evidence is the reason the consensus exists. 4) Climate Models Can't Even Hindcast. How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast? Global surface temperatures have risen more than 0.5°C over the past 30 years. That rise is significant, both in the statistical and figurative sense. Climate models have accurately reproduced that rise. 5) …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can't even explain the past? Climate models have accurately reproduced the past, but let's put them aside for a moment. We don't need climate models to project future global warming. We know from past climate change events the planet will warm between about 1.5 and 4.5°C from the increased greenhouse effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the 'climate sensitivity'). In a business-as-usual scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are expected to surpass 900 ppm by 2100 – that's close to two doublings from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. Hence we know that business-as-usual will cause between 2.5 and 7.5°C (most likely 5°C) warming if we stop carbon dioxide levels from rising beyond about 900 ppm. This is based on simple math and what we know about the physics of the climate – no fancy models needed. 6) Modelers Lie About Their "Physics". Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain "fudge factor" tuning? Putting aside the accusation that hundreds of climate modelers are all liars – the answer is that their models are indeed based upon well established physics. NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt's TED talk on the subject is well worth watching. Spencer's question likely refers to the uncertain size of the cooling influence of aerosols. However, that is a physical uncertainty. We don't have very good measurements of this effect; unfortunately the rocket carrying NASA's Glory satellite that had instruments to measure the climate effect of aerosols crashed two years ago. Nevertheless, climate models use the available data to account for their influence, and their projections include the associated uncertainties. 7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing? We're headed for about 5°C global surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 if we continue on a business-as-usual path. 5°C is the difference between average temperatures now and those during the last ice age. That's not "small" by any stretch of the imagination. As for who decided that amount warming is a bad thing – climate scientists researching the impacts of climate change. 8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas? Carbon dioxide itself is not "bad." Water is also necessary for life. Too much water will kill you. Too much carbon dioxide causes dangerous climate change. Greenhouse gases were determined to be pollutants as defined in the US Clean Air Act . This was a ruling of the (politically conservative) US Supreme Court. 9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their "theory" is supported by both floods AND droughts? Too much snow AND too little snow? This question is a bit like asking, "Do I look fat?". Do you want an honest answer? The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly. This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas, which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them. Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms. A climate scientist should understand these concepts. 10) Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a regional fluke…yet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe had global significance? There is no contradiction here – a regional event can have global significance, for example via economic impacts. In any case, the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon and the planet as a whole was cooler than today. 11) (Spinal Tap bonus) Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites, which likely exists at virtually all of them — because no one yet knows a good way to do that. Ironically, most of the adjustments to Spencer's own satellite temperature data set have been in the warming direction, so this question may be an example of psychological projection. Scientists also recently identified a problem in Arctic temperature data analysis that's leading to an incorrect adjustment in the cooling direction, and there have of course been other cooling adjustments in the surface temperature record. The urban heat island effect has also been demonstrated over and over to have no significant influence on the surface temperature record. Notice a Pattern? You may have noticed some patterns in these questions. Most are based on false premises and are trivially simple to answer. These 'top ten good skeptic arguments' are frankly not very good or challenging. They also reveal a very one-sided skepticism, although to his credit Spencer did also list 10 'skeptic' arguments that don't hold water. These are glaringly wrong arguments like 'there is no greenhouse effect' and 'CO2 cools the atmosphere,' that some contrarians nevertheless believe. Interestingly, Spencer discusses the science disproving the 10 bad arguments, but there's no scientific discussion supporting his to 'good' arguments. From reading and answering Spencer's questions, we learn that the basic science behind how we know humans are causing global warming and that it's a problem are quite well-established. There are some remaining uncertainties, like how much warming is being offset by aerosol cooling, but overall we have a very strong understanding of the big picture. For quite a while now we've understood the Earth's climate well enough to know that we can't continue on our current high-risk path. When will we stop using these trivially wrong contrarian arguments as an excuse for climate inaction? Now that's a tough question to answer. |
|
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 18 2015, 04:05 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 18 2015, 04:41 AM Post #72 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/help/about/about.xhtml Founded in 1880 on $10,000 of seed money from the American inventor Thomas Edison, Science has grown to become the world's leading outlet for scientific news, commentary, and cutting-edge research, with the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general-science journal. Science's leading position stems from many factors: the journal's strong tradition of editorial independence; its high standards of peer review and editorial quality (of the more than 12,000 top-notch scientific manuscripts that the journal sees each year, less than 8% are accepted for publication); its Board of Reviewing Editors, consisting of more than 100 of the world's top scientists; its strong connections with the scientific community, which ensures a stream of lively, up-to-date, and authoritative news and commentary in its pages; the dedication of its professional staff in the U.S., the U.K., and other countries, including 26 Ph.D. editors, a creative production and art group, and a team of science writers, reporters, and journalists second to none; the support of its publisher, AAAS, the world's largest general-science society. Today, a century and a quarter after its founding, Science continues to publish the very best in scientific research, news, and opinion. Whether you're concerned with AIDS, SARS, genomic medicine, Mars, or global warming, or just want to keep abreast of where the scientific world is and where it's going, you will find something worthwhile in Science." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years Summary of this peer reviewed white paper: "Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future." But let's not pay any attention to that. After all, they're not the *real* scientists. The *real* scientists are the ones chasing grant money...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 18 2015, 06:06 AM Post #73 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
+1 |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 18 2015, 06:20 AM Post #74 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Make that a +2. As I have said over and over, does anyone think it is a good idea to exponentially increase our emissions in a developing world? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 18 2015, 07:23 AM Post #75 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Reason alone dictates that humanity must be a responsible caretaker of the environment. If we have to realign our operant man made economic models to accommodate the needs of environmental stewardship and sustainability then so be it. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |














4:56 PM Jul 10