I stand corrected. As you can see in the world temperature anomolies map I posted (the one with the different sized dots), the temperatures around the Antarctic ocean would also seem to show this.
Keep in mind that's only Antarctic sea ice, Neil, and not total Antarctic ice cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
All the facts I presented in the graphs above show the reality of the situation, and solar activity and changes and all the other myriad of factors are all taken into account.
No, Neil, they don't. Take a good hard look, and you'll see the only solar influence is infrared, visible, and ultraviolet. No mention of solar charge particles, no mention of sunspots, and certainly no mention of cosmic rays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
How could scientists have missed such a basic factor? Of course they have taken all known factors into account; and I'm sure they have run the models on a lot of "what if" scenarios, too.
But that's just it, Neil. They didn't take in all of the factors, just the ones they know about. In addition, they can't even model clouds correctly. That's why climate models are a poor choice for predicting what will happen with temperatures, and particularly poor for reliance upon for carbon dioxide regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Watch the video, please. James Hansen has probably forgotten more about global climate change than you and I and the rest of us all put together will ever know. It is the height of arrogance to dismiss his scientific presentation as anything but factual.
Oh, please. I DID watch that entire presentation. Alligators in Alaska... India crashing into Asia, and causing locked calcium carbonate to eject into the atmosphere via volcanic activity. All very nice and pretty, Neil. However, the presenter errs by then stating that carbon dioxide is the only driver of temperature changes, and that Mankind is the only driver of carbon dioxide changes. Don't lecture me about arrogance, Neil, since you continually ignore or deny (hey, I'm supposed to be the denier, right?) scientific data that shoots holes in AGW big enough to fly Al Gore's private jet through.
The mass emission of Carbon may just as likely turn out to be not that traumatic.
The major problem is that we're emitting CO2 at a very unsustainable rate.
Add the emerging economies (and consumers) to that, and it's bound to go wrong.
We're wasting perfectly good oil by burning it, while it could be used more efficiently to produce say composite materials.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
In the 1960's. It was first proposed in 1912 -- more recent than anthropogenic global climate change.
If you watched the videos that I posted a while ago, you would see that Richard Alley and/or Benjamin Santer do/es talk about sun spots -- they have included them in the models. They are able to model the factors, and the results are matched against the data.
Are the models literally 3D models -- I think they are data models; but maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure that things like clouds are data models. From the congressional testimony videos, you can get a glimpse of factors like sulfate aerosols.
Do you know how they measure the thickness of the Greenland and Antarctic ice? If you watched the earlier videos, you would know. Hint: it involves gravity and "roller coaster" satellites. Comment after you have found out the specifics.
Did you know that there is so much ice on Antarctica, that it is what is causing the Earth to be pear shaped? And the rotation makes it into a oblate spheroid -- so it is quite complex. The weight of the Antarctic ice is pushing the land down a lot, too -- don't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?
There are lots of overlaps between the various fields of science. Madam Curie's work with uranium helped establish the age of various strata of rock, and thereby the times that fossils lived. Geology has a huge part of understanding our climate over time. Biology and archaeology also play key roles.
Climate study involves geologists, biologists, oceanography, limnologists, ice scientists (like Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University), atmosphere scientists, dendrochronologists, astrophysicists, chemists, and a few others I am probably forgetting. How do all of these fields collaborate to make a fake?
You say there are holes in the theory -- are you qualified to say this? If not you -- who says there are holes? Those charts that supposedly show conflicts -- where is the data they are based on? Who's analysis is shown on the charts?
Which of the charts that I posted are false? If they are false, then where is your proof?
Watch this Congressional testimony, and please pay close attention. There is a skeptic (who works for the Cato Institute which was started by the Koch brothers, who made their money from oil), and there is a proponent of AGCC. One is leaving out facts, and conveniently skewing the charts; and the other is showing all the uncertainties. Which one is the better scientist?
The difference between AGW and all of the other scientific theories is that AGW is not proven. All of the other scientific theories you mention do not depend on computer models that use estimates or gross approximations. All of the other scientific theories you mention do not require pleas to authority or emotional appeals to work. All of the other scientific theories you mentioned are not being hawked by leaders who say one thing and do something completely opposite, with regard to those theories. And, most importantly, all of the other scientific theories you mentioned are not trying to be used to destroy the economy of Western nations by way of draconian cap and trade or other carbon "management" schemes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
If you watched the videos that I posted a while ago, you would see that Richard Alley and/or Benjamin Santer do/es talk about sun spots -- they have included them in the models. They are able to model the factors, and the results are matched against the data.
But Richard Alley and Benjamin Santer don't know how to quantify all the variables that should go into climate models, Neil. Hm... Santer himself said as much!
Quote:
There are many. I think it's tough to put your finger on any one and say this is the neuralgic point—like finding one pain point in the body and saying this is where it hurts the most. There are a number of obstacles that limit our ability to understand the nature and causes of climate change. One is clearly the climate models. We have an imperfect understanding of clouds and how they interact with incoming sunlight; how they modulate climate change. We have an imperfect understanding of important physical processes. Modeling rainfall, for instance, is very tricky, and clouds and rain are important for both the Earth's radiation budget and the hydrological cycle. What limits modeling is often observations. Or to put it this way, the limitations in climate modeling go hand-in-hand with limitations in the observations themselves: how well we can measure and understand very basic physical processes? Inadequacies in key observational records are another serious obstacle to continued progress in climate modeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Are the models literally 3D models -- I think they are data models; but maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure that things like clouds are data models. From the congressional testimony videos, you can get a glimpse of factors like sulfate aerosols.
What? You don't know how a computer model is generated? You don't know how the processes within are being modeled? You don't know what assumptions are made with respect to those models? A computer model is more than just running a couple of equations and getting a result, Neil. It's also taking finite points, running those equations with regard to the points immedately surrounding said finite points, and doing it ad infinitum, or until a set number of iterations are completed. By the way, here's a link to article which describes difficulties in modeling sulfated aerosols.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Do you know how they measure the thickness of the Greenland and Antarctic ice? If you watched the earlier videos, you would know. Hint: it involves gravity and "roller coaster" satellites. Comment after you have found out the specifics.
Then tell me what the cryosphere is doing, Neil. All you can focus on is sea ice. Oh, wait! You're not a scientist! You said so yourself! Therefore, since you're not a scientist, you shouldn't comment on it, because you keep implying that I should also shut up and listen to my betters!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Did you know that there is so much ice on Antarctica, that it is what is causing the Earth to be pear shaped? And the rotation makes it into a oblate spheroid -- so it is quite complex. The weight of the Antarctic ice is pushing the land down a lot, too -- don't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?
There are lots of overlaps between the various fields of science. Madam Curie's work with uranium helped establish the age of various strata of rock, and thereby the times that fossils lived. Geology has a huge part of understanding our climate over time. Biology and archaeology also play key roles.
Climate study involves geologists, biologists, oceanography, limnologists, ice scientists (like Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University), atmosphere scientists, dendrochronologists, astrophysicists, chemists, and a few others I am probably forgetting. How do all of these fields collaborate to make a fake?
And explain to me how wrong came to be fake? And why do you assume that I think that EVERYONE supporting AGW is some sort of conspiracy? Isn't it enough that this movement relies on useful idiots and zealots to shamelessly promote it in the face of conflicting evidence or compelling evidence to the contrary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
You say there are holes in the theory -- are you qualified to say this?
Oh, I now need to be qualified in order to be a skeptic? Where is the skeptic qualification card, Neil? What college courses do I need to take in order to become a qualified skeptic, Neil? Which universities confer a degree on being a qualified skeptic, Neil?
Let's turn the question around, Neil. Are you qualified to provide a defense of AGW? If you're not, then why are you defending AGW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Which of the charts that I posted are false? If they are false, then where is your proof?
You can't prove AGW with all of those pretty charts, and you can't disprove the alternate explanation with what I posted, so you resort to politely implying I should just shut up because I'm not "qualified." You already stated you are not a climatologist, Neil, so you should also take your own advice and shut up.
At least I'm more honest about it than you'll ever be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Watch this Congressional testimony, and please pay close attention. There is a skeptic (who works for the Cato Institute which was started by the Koch brothers, who made their money from oil), and there is a proponent of AGCC. One is leaving out facts, and conveniently skewing the charts; and the other is showing all the uncertainties. Which one is the better scientist?
Zealot-edited video removed
Oh, yes! Let's discredit Michaels because he happens to get money from sources you happen to dislike. Let's hold up as HOLY the IPCC report, even though it received data from a discredited source! And let's fill the discussion with gobbledygook about the cooling effect of sulfated aerosols, because maybe that will shift focus away from how little effect comes from Manmade carbon dioxide emissions!
Oh, and let's use a video edited by one of your AGW zealots, too! No bias there, right?
The major problem is that we're emitting CO2 at a very unsustainable rate.
Add the emerging economies (and consumers) to that, and it's bound to go wrong.
We're wasting perfectly good oil by burning it, while it could be used more efficiently to produce say composite materials.
Yep we are emitting it at an unsustainable rate, eventually we will run out of large quantities of stuff to burn, and when we can no longer sustain it economic forces will drive the switch to something more sustainable, the transition for the humans will not necessarily go smoothly *shrug*
Are all the fractions of oil good for composite materials? as I understand it some is good for burnin some is good for buildin.
__________________
Learn from the mistakes of others, that way when you mess up you can do so in new and interesting ways.
One mile of road will take you one mile, one mile of runway can take you around the world.
Did you know that there is so much ice on Antarctica, that it is what is causing the Earth to be pear shaped?
Says who, Neil? You?
Quote:
And the rotation makes it into a oblate spheroid -- so it is quite complex. The weight of the Antarctic ice is pushing the land down a lot, too -- don't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?
Oh, yes, "so it is quite complex". That's your escape clause, in case it isn't so, isn't it? "(D)on't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?" What, are you not certain? So Neil gets to spit out all this unsubstantiated crap and say "don't quote me" as an escape hatch, but he will hold his opponents responsible for proving everything they say?
Quote:
You say there are holes in the theory -- are you qualified to say this?
Wow. What a double standard! Neil can continually say all sorts of things at will but you will need to be "qualified" before you respond. What arrogance!
Quote:
Watch this Congressional testimony, and please pay close attention. There is a skeptic (who works for the Cato Institute which was started by the Koch brothers, who made their money from oil)...
Ah, now we are back to the real subtext here, the meat of the issue which irritates Neil so deeply: that if someone made money (which is a sin to a Socialist), and made it from oil production (an even more egregious sin) and had the nerve to be a founder of a think tank (which only the Left should be allowed to do) anything to do with it must be discredited at all costs! You see, Neil can be 'ad hominem' in his insinuations, but no one else should be allowed to.
Neil is not only an activist, but a Socialist or Communist (blatantly anti-capitalist), and an authoritarian in his mindset.
If he weren't, he would not have said what he did.
The Following User Says Thank You to Thymeclock For This Useful Post:
There is about 70% of the Earth's fresh water on Antarctica. It is so massive and so heavy, it is pressing the land underneath it down a lot. (Greenland has about 20% of all freshwater, and is also pressed down quite a bit.) The gravitational pull of the ice is changing the shape of the Earth, in as much as it affects sea level. The spin of the Earth already raises the sea level at the equator a fair bit, and the "extra" gravity of the Antarctic ice also affects the sea level.
And yes, alligators used to live in what we now call Alaska. James Hansen is not wrong. Plate tectonics was just confirmed in the 1960's. DNA is another late breaking science. David Attenborough mentions both these in his video called "
" -- in the 1940's if you had mentioned these, you got a lot of skepticism. Pangaea has a LOT to do with understanding global climate change -- and they didn't even know that the continents moved at all until the 1960's.
Many fields of science overlap, and discoveries in one field affect many others. Evolution and DNA has a huge effect almost across the board, as does plate tectonics; and these are both recent developments. Anthropogenic climate change was first proposed *before* plate tectonics and before DNA, and it overlaps with virtually all other fields of science.
Here's what David Attenborough says about anthropogenic global climate change:
If you choose not to believe the scientists about what the facts are, then that is up to you. If you selectively ignore them, like Pat Michaels, then you are lying to yourself.
fox news, if taken internally, is killer kool-aid (or tea), served up by Rupert Murdoch himself.
My, how clever, how witty! It earned two 'attaboys', one from the professional activist himself.
I guess the Koches and the Murdochs are the real villains here. Financial supporters and media entrepreneurs who are not Leftists shouldn't be allowed to influence anyone. They aren't politically correct. Let's find some way to take away their money and silence them.
At least they won't be hiring Dan Rather any time soon...
It would show candor that is completely lacking if Rupert called his material "Fox Op-Ed" or "This Is What Rupert Thinks" instead of Fox "News"... AND if the viewers recognized it as such. It's way too hard to locate objective reporting.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
