 28Likes
 |
|
08/31/12, 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozarks Tom
Doesn't the fact roberte and his cohorts have changed the panic cry from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE pretty much tell you all you really need to know?
|
So you are complaining about changing to a more accurate name?
A change that happened in 1975?
"... we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change
And the term "Anthropogenic Climate Change " has been in use from before the turn of the century.
|
08/31/12, 01:38 PM
|
 |
earth human
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: CA (I know I need to move)
Posts: 209
|
|
not sure all of you know roberte,
but I have seen him on other forums talking about the same topic,
and he has ruined at least one other forum doing it.
he will never give up,
he will not listen to reason,
when he gets trapped he just starts in on a new thread,
he is good at trying to sway public opinion with logic flaws.
just a heads up, he only has 25 posts now, but that will grow into the thousands fast trying to sell us all on man made global warming,
also he does not post on the topics of the actual forums he is on.
on the actual topic of this thread,
there is a wonderful pattern to the sun spot cycle,
and it works like this,
the sun is a plasma and the orbiting planets have magnetic fields,
this makes the sun a generator,
and the sun spot cycles match this very very close,
read about all of it with future predictions here
Beyond Landscheidt.... | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next Level
and it looks like we have a good chance for an ice age soon,
we already have an ice age weather pattern on earth now.
|
08/31/12, 02:02 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Back in the USSR
Posts: 9,961
|
|
|
It's very obvious that Roberto is stuck on ______. Thanks for the heads up. His last post confirmed it for me. I'm not going to waste anymore time on an obvious AGW apologist.
Returning to the original topic, is anyone else concerned about the lack of sunspot activity?
|
08/31/12, 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0
....
he will not listen to reason,
....
|
IF anyone on the denier side would / could post some sort of reliable information that supports their pov, I'd like to see it.
At best in this thread were claims there is data; but those posters made a conscious choice to not bring any of it forward.
Which is about as good an admission as we are going to get that those attempting to support that denier position are fabricating their claims from whole cloth
|
08/31/12, 02:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Interesting that no one has come forward with what evidence they need to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DryHeat
Well, as I discussed in a posting in a different, similar, thread, I saw "greenhouse effect" theories presented while in college in the 60's. Now over 40 years later, it's clear to me the intervening data... that global CO2 levels rising are are correlated with global temperature rise... have held up. Sure, people like the Koch brothers with their tens of millions pin money can publicize variant opinions and discussions, but ignore "their own" funded researcher who just did an about-face on the issue when it turned out he has real intellectual integrity in contrast to many of the others sucking up their publicity money. The Kochs aren't stupid fellows as far as I can tell, so perhaps they can still decide to re-invest oil funds into other technologies and stick their super-pac cattle prods into public opinion from at least somewhat different angles.
But, OK, here's a serious question. If you're arguing *science* you should be able to lay out results, information, data, that will, should they be observed within a reasonable time frame, *contradict* your claims and theories. So, WHAT would *human-caused-climate-change deniers* accept as clear indication that they are wrong-headed? Ten years of very low sunspots with NOAA, etc, measured global temperatures continuing to rise? What would it take to *prove* your claims? (You sure haven't come close so far.)
Frankly, I think it's simply that fossil fuel usage is so ingrained, that we're so addicted to it (liquid petroleum as vehicle fuel, especially), that there's really nothing at all that will shift opinions (held in place by true cognitive dissonance) fast enough to result in a *planned* change in humanity's headlong rush into much deeper agony, if not outright oblivion. There's just too much money being made by entrenched industries. Imo, we'll stutter and lurch into a collapse process, or continue the one we're already clearly embarked upon, until even internet debates like this are things of the mythical past. So it goes. So, also, pardon me if I pretty much scoff at the usefulness of any sort of "collect more data for several more decades" proposal to settle things to "deniers" satisfaction. Make it percent changes of CO2 (atmospheric, NOT US emissions... silly apples and oranges), increase or lack of methane positive feedback releases, further opening or re-closure of the NW Passage for several years, more dying or regeneration of coral reefs, stuff like that, and over the next five years, say, as data to prove things one way or the other. Not that *I* much care, the time frame will be too long to matter, and *I've* already looked at the theory over 40+ years that haven't contradicted it.
|
|
08/31/12, 02:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
|
the original topic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren
Returning to the original topic,...
|
easy peasy
Quote:
Originally Posted by YuccaFlatsRanch
... a cooling period anything close to either of the Minimum's would be devastating to the worlds ability to grow food. If I were considering relocation to the northern states or to a place at high altitude, I might want to reconsider my choice.
|
And no one seems able to bring forward evidence that sunspots or a lack of them will do anything of the sort.
In fact, it is barely even mentioned in the paper as a possibility, citing only pre-Anthropogenic CO2 events.
Last edited by roberte; 08/31/12 at 02:48 PM.
|
08/31/12, 02:46 PM
|
|
earth human
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: CA (I know I need to move)
Posts: 209
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren
Returning to the original topic, is anyone else concerned about the lack of sunspot activity?
|
I am worried and getting ready,
the issue with this solar cycle is that it was disrupted at the start of the cycle,
when this happens it tends to dump all the energy at the end of the cycle,
so we may be in store for massive solar activity (like the kind that can take out power grids)
if it does go the other direction we will almost for sure be in for an ice age,
either way it will likely be very bad.
and there is a good chance that it will flair up and fry the power grid and still send us into an ice age after.
I have been getting ready for it from before this solar cycle started based on the data showing what will happen, and so far it has been correct.
it is not easy to get ready for what is likely to come,
by the way, as long as you are not under the future ice, the weather we have had the last few years is ice age weather, so plan for that kind of weather and no power grid and you should be good.
|
08/31/12, 02:53 PM
|
|
earth human
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: CA (I know I need to move)
Posts: 209
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roberte
Interesting that no one has come forward with what evidence they need to see.
|
others have done this so many times it is funny, you ignored it back then on idigmygarden and you will likely do the same here, if you ever decide to find answers, then go look for them yourself, start with all the old threads, but being that your user is gone over there it will make it a bit harder to find them all,
just out of curiosity, did you delete your user to make it hard to find what you have said in the past, or did they finally ban you and delete you for violating the forum rules so much ?
|
08/31/12, 03:30 PM
|
 |
Miniature Horse lover
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Central WI.
Posts: 21,252
|
|
|
ALl this man is causing the world to heat up and that man has the ability to either slow up the GW that is happening Naturally, or stopping it dead in its tracks, is VooDoo science at its very best.
|
08/31/12, 03:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian knight
ALl this man is causing the world to heat up and that man has the ability to either slow up the GW that is happening Naturally, or stopping it dead in its tracks, is VooDoo science at its very best.
|
Evidence of " GW that is happening Naturally," is where, exactly?
|
08/31/12, 04:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,567
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0
others have done this so many times it is funny, you ignored it back then on idigmygarden and you will likely do the same here, if you ever decide to find answers, then go look for them yourself, start with all the old threads, but being that your user is gone over there it will make it a bit harder to find them all,
just out of curiosity, did you delete your user to make it hard to find what you have said in the past, or did they finally ban you and delete you for violating the forum rules so much ?
|
Do you have an answer for this?
|
08/31/12, 05:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DryHeat
....
...*I've* already looked at the theory over 40+ years that haven't contradicted it.
|
A well made point; there is an unbroken thread of research - starting before Svante Arrhenius in 1896 with his calculating that man's CO2 emissions could cause a warming climate - either showing the mechanics of that warming or showing the results.
Those who attempt to deny the breadth and scope of Anthropogenic Climate Change hang their hat on 'just announced' and 'to be published' and unpublished papers that quite often don't hold up to the close scrutiny papers are subjected to.
All too often, authors go on record showing how those who deny the science behind Anthropogenic Climate Change have misinterpreted the findings of their papers.
Further, those who bring up the talking points (well scrutinized at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy ) all too often can't or won't bring the evidence that they used in forming their opinion. This is glaringly obvious in this thread.
We have 97-98% of the scientists with expertise in the fields of climate science in agreement with the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change ( Expert credibility in climate change - PNAS
).
We have virtually every government developing policy based on the science.
We have virtually every scientific organization agreeing with those tenets.
And this is what they are in agreement with:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales.
AR4 SYR Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers - 2 Causes of change
And rather than even attempt to bring forward any support for a position denying those basic tenets, we get attempts at personal attacks and empty claims.
Maybe those who are making that conscious choice to behave that way should be thinking about why they won't or can't engage in a meaningful dialog.
|
08/31/12, 05:22 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 34,240
|
|
Quote:
|
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming
|
There is also MUCH evidence it's happened before there were humans.
We can spin in this circle forever if you keep ignoring that fact
Quote:
|
Maybe those who are making that conscious choice to behave that way should be thinking about why they won't or can't engage in a meaningful dialog.
|
Et Tu, Roberto
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|
08/31/12, 06:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm
There is also MUCH evidence it's happened before there were humans.
We can spin in this circle forever if you keep ignoring that fact
....
|
And covered way back on page one. Guess it is time to review,
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
BTW, that presentation has been on-line for over two and a half years; what evidence can you bring forward showing errors, omissions, evidence that shows his conclusions to be incorrect, ......
The facts presented there are those they who deny the science have to "keep ignoring".
Here is the basic fact: In over a hundred years of research - research that brings forward evidence from thousands of years of geological events - nothing has been brought to the table that substantively contradicts the basic findings:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}
Causes of change: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report - Summary for Policy Makers
As exemplified by
Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers
|
08/31/12, 06:53 PM
|
|
Miniature Horse lover
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Central WI.
Posts: 21,252
|
|
|
The UN
Yes sir re a nice World organization to control all of its people Credibility now of the OP is Off This Planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
You betcha a nice biased place to get ones answers now isn't it. LOL
Laugh myself all the way out to my gas guzzling air polluting lawnmower. LOL So funny how some can get sucked into such a thing as this? WOW
Last edited by arabian knight; 08/31/12 at 06:57 PM.
|
08/31/12, 07:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 555
|
|
|
I don't usually play these games but when someone is trying to convince me .... these comments/quotes are not the best avenue
"nothing has been brought to the table that substantively contradicts the basic findings"
"very high confidence"
"very likely"
"It is likely"
"would likely have"
"Difficulties remain"
Sounds like definitive scientific evidence to me. How about fixing that?
Reminds me of one of my favorite lines from an excellent movie .... "Funny thing about that little white speck on top of chicken *hit .... It is chicken *hit too"
__________________
 Going hungry ain't much of a plan 
|
08/31/12, 07:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by a'ightthen
"very high confidence"
|
Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Seems most of your argument is based on..... well, what exactly?
There isn't a body of evidence out there that can bring any other conclusion to the table. Those attempting to disprove the 2007 report have had 5 years to come up with substantive evidence.
The next report is being written now; the minor errors, the weak parts of the writing in AR4 will be addressed.
And there will be 5 more years worth of research strengthening the basic tenets - which have only been strengthened in each iteration of the IPCC reports.
And in this thread alone, we have a fairly representative effort from those attempting to deny the science - just a bunch of personal attacks and some claims there is some science out there somewhere.
Doesn't it seem the least bit logical that if those who want to disprove the science would be jumping all over the chance to bring their best evidence? To make the most compelling argument?
Oh, maybe they are.....
|
08/31/12, 07:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 555
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roberte
Confidence Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Seems most of your argument is based on..... well, what exactly?
There isn't a body of evidence out there that can bring any other conclusion to the table. Those attempting to disprove the 2007 report have had 5 years to come up with substantive evidence.
The next report is being written now; the minor errors, the weak parts of the writing in AR4 will be addressed.
And there will be 5 more years worth of research strengthening the basic tenets - which have only been strengthened in each iteration of the IPCC reports.
And in this thread alone, we have a fairly representative effort from those attempting to deny the science - just a bunch of personal attacks and some claims there is some science out there somewhere.
Doesn't it seem the least bit logical that if those who want to disprove the science would be jumping all over the chance to bring their best evidence? To make the most compelling argument?
Oh, maybe they are..... |
LMAO! I think that 8 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest ... and Colgate ... and .... yet many exist.
"the minor errors, the weak parts of the writing in AR4 will be addressed."
And ye argue over points that will be corrected in the future to respond to FAILURE.
And exactly, "Doesn't it seem the least bit logical that if those who want to disprove the science would be jumping all over the chance to bring their best evidence?"
Not a finding to soon be represented? One that will be redone in the future and presented after the bugs are worked out???
A'ight then, You fret for both of us .... I'll have a bit more fun, for you, to keep things balanced out
__________________
Going hungry ain't much of a plan
Last edited by a'ightthen; 08/31/12 at 07:54 PM.
|
09/01/12, 08:05 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North Eastern Missouri
Posts: 1,629
|
|
I too am worried about global cooling from the lack of sun spot activity.
I see graphs like this one:
The big spike on some graphs that Bobe posts, becomes unnoticeable.
No big fear of more CO2 in the atmosphere. It can't be helped, people need to live. If the poorest areas of the world are able to get their economy's going it is bound to go up. We are going to need more food, more crop land.
__________________
I'm in my own little world, but it's ok. They know me here!
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.
|
|
