Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

First one, yes. It does get warmer, cooler, and stays the same. Cycles.

Second one, same answer as first.

College grad, and there are thousands of experts that all interpret the same data differently.

No, and those models can't even show the weather we have now from past data.


This argument can go on for decades or at least until we have another global cooling scare.
interesting.

so we have two extremes here. those that agree that the globe is getting warmer and will continue to get warmer and those who think it is unchanged.

no one said the globe is getting cooler.

the truth? the people who claim it is unchanged and will remain unchanged are goofy. the earhts temps will ALWAYS change up or down. always. so we can safely remove those votes from contention since they are quite obviously very wrong.

none of you are climatologists qualified to interpret the data so one strike there, too. some of you have access to supercomputers that model climatic data which is quite interesting. so interesting that i'm going to have to call BS on that.

but, interestingly, the rest of us agree the globe has been getting warmer and believe it will continue to do so. aka, global warming.

so, i win.

thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
none of you are climatologists qualified to interpret the data so one strike there, too. some of you have access to supercomputers that model climatic data which is quite interesting. so interesting that i'm going to have to call BS on that.

but, interestingly, the rest of us agree the globe has been getting warmer and believe it will continue to do so. aka, global warming.

so, i win.

thank you.


Not so fast. The planet has seen no net warming for about ten years despite the continuing rise in CO2, and it actually has been cooling quite precipitously for the past five months.



As a scientist I definitely can and have interpreted climate data pertainant to my field. And by the way, only about 20% of IPCC panelists had any experience with climate science.

Link
.
.
Last edited by Winston Niles Rumfoord
quote:
none of you are climatologists qualified to interpret the data so one strike there, too. some of you have access to supercomputers that model climatic data which is quite interesting. so interesting that i'm going to have to call BS on that.

Look again, unob. You have a climatologist on board.

You put up the poll and didn't read it.

You can call BS all you want to. The fact that it is snowing again in an area that sees snowfall once every few decades tells me that AGW is BS.
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
interesting.

so we have two extremes here. those that agree that the globe is getting warmer and will continue to get warmer and those who think it is unchanged.

no one said the globe is getting cooler.

the truth? the people who claim it is unchanged and will remain unchanged are goofy. the earhts temps will ALWAYS change up or down. always. so we can safely remove those votes from contention since they are quite obviously very wrong.

none of you are climatologists qualified to interpret the data so one strike there, too. some of you have access to supercomputers that model climatic data which is quite interesting. so interesting that i'm going to have to call BS on that.

but, interestingly, the rest of us agree the globe has been getting warmer and believe it will continue to do so. aka, global warming.

so, i win.

thank you.


Not quite one reply stated the correct answer it gets warmer then colder in cycles it always has even before civilized man.
I saw this a few days ago and thought it was interesting.
this seems more likely to me than Algore's prophecies, given the evidence we've seen in the last few years.
it's been hot in the summer, but not amazingly so - no worse that it was when i was a kid. however, this year has seen more instances of disruptive snow and winter weather that i remember going through any other year in my lifetime.
people can tell me the earth is getting warmer.. but when 150 millions people are snowed in from the most massive snowstorm in 40 years it's a little hard to buy it. when i'm watching the 4th snowfall stick to the ground when on average we get 1.5 inches of muck once a winter people telling me that the c02 and methane are going to cause us all to boil to death make me chuckle.
i understand the idea that winters will be more harsh, and that's why they are pushing to drop 'global warming' in favor of 'climate change' or like one blowhard called it "detrimental climatological alterations". (how pompous can you get?) but that seems an awful lot like people caught with their knickers down and trying to cover their bums because record snow fall doesn't fit with their predictions of melting polar ice.

anyway.
i don't buy 'global warming'.
i reject the concept that we've had enough impact to alter the climate of this planet.
the climate IS changing... we didn't do anything to change it, and we can't do anything to stop it.

i present this as an interesting possibility. i'm not trying to convince anyone it's fact that the poles are about to flip and kill us all, i'm not sure i believe it my self, but i do think it's more possible Al's Crock-Pot Earth idea.



Feb-04-2011 00:50
Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms
Terrence Aym Salem-News.com
Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.



(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.

When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.

Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.

The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.

The superstorms have arrived

The first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010.

On the heels of the lashing the British Isles sustained, monster storms began to lash North America. The latest superstorm — as of this writing — is a monster over the U.S. that stretched across 2,000 miles affecting more than 150 million people.

Yet even as that storm wreaked havoc across the Western, Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern states, another superstorm broke out in the Pacific and closed in on Australia.

The southern continent had already dealt with the disaster of historic superstorm flooding from rains that dropped as much as several feet in a matter of hours. Tens of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. After the deluge tiger sharks were spotted swimming between houses in what was once a quiet suburban neighborhood.

Shocked authorities now numbly concede that much of the water may never dissipate and have wearily resigned themselves to the possibility that region will now contain a new inland sea.

But then only a handful of weeks later another superstorm; the megamonster cyclone Yasi, struck northeastern Australia. The damage it left in its wake is being called by rescue workers a war zone.

The incredible superstorm packed winds near 190mph. Although labeled as a category-5 cyclone, it was theoretically a category-6. The reason for that is storms with winds of 155mph are considered category-5, yet Yasi was almost 22 percent stronger than that.

Yet Yasi may only be a foretaste of future superstorms. Some climate researchers, monitoring the rapidly shifting magnetic field, are predicting superstorms in the future with winds as high as 300 to 400mph.

Such storms would totally destroy anything they came into contact with on land.

The possibility more storms like Yasi or worse will wreak havoc on our civilization and resources is found in the complicated electromagnetic relationship between the sun and Earth. The synergistic tug-of-war has been compared by some to an intricately constructed cat's cradle. And it's in a constant state of flux.

The sun's dynamic, ever-changing electric magnetosphere interfaces with the Earth's own magnetic field affecting, to a degree, the Earth's rotation, precessional wobble, dynamics of the planet's core, its ocean currents and—above all else—the weather.

The Earth's northern magnetic pole was moving towards Russia at a rate of about five miles annually. That progression to the East had been happening for decades.

Suddenly, in the past decade the rate sped up. Now the magnetic pole is shifting East at a rate of 40 miles annually, an increase of 800 percent. And it continues to accelerate.

Recently, as the magnetic field fluctuates, NASA has discovered "cracks" in it. This is worrisome as it significantly affects the ionosphere, troposphere wind patterns, and atmospheric moisture. All three things have an effect on the weather.

Worse, what shields the planet from cancer-causing radiation is the magnetic field. It acts as a shield deflecting harmful ultra-violet, X-rays and other life-threatening radiation from bathing the surface of the Earth. With the field weakening and cracks emerging, the death rate from cancer could skyrocket and mutations of DNA can become rampant.

Another federal agency, NOAA, issued a report caused a flurry of panic when they predicted that mammoth superstorms in the future could wipe out most of California. The NOAA scientists said it's a plausible scenario and would be driven by an "atmospheric river" moving water at the same rate as 50 Mississippi rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Economist wrote a detailed article about the magnetic field and what's happening to it. In the article they noted:

"There is, however, a growing body of evidence that the Earth's magnetic field is about to disappear, at least for a while. The geological record shows that it flips from time to time, with the south pole becoming the north, and vice versa. On average, such reversals take place every 500,000 years, but there is no discernible pattern. Flips have happened as close together as 50,000 years, though the last one was 780,000 years ago. But, as discussed at the Greenland Space Science Symposium, held in Kangerlussuaq this week, the signs are that another flip is coming soon."

Discussing the magnetic polar shift and the impact on weather, the scholarly paper "Weather and the Earth's magnetic field" was published in the journal Nature. Scientists too are very concerned about the increasing danger of superstorms and the impact on humanity.

Superstorms will not only damage agriculture across the planet leading to famines and mass starvation, they will also change coastlines, destroy cities and create tens of millions of homeless.

Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.

A Danish study published in the scientific journal Geology, found strong correlation between climate change, weather patterns and the magnetic field.

"The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

"'Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics,' one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.

"He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman."

In the scientific paper "Midday magnetopause shifts earthward of geosynchronous orbit during geomagnetic superstorms with Dst = -300 nT" the magnetic intensity of solar storms impacting Earth can intensify the effects of the polar shift and also speed up the frequency of the emerging superstorms.

According to some geologists and scientists, we have left the last interglacial period behind us. Those periods are lengths of time—about 11,500 years—between major Ice Ages.
One of the most stunning signs of the approaching Ice Age is what's happened to the world's precessional wobble.

The Earth's wobble has stopped

As explained in the geology and space science website earthchangesmedia.com, "The Chandler wobble was first discovered back in 1891 by Seth Carlo Chandler an American astronomer.
The effect causes the Earth's poles to move in an irregular circle of 3 to 15 meters in diameter in an oscillation. The Earth's Wobble has a 7-year cycle which produces two extremes, a small spiraling wobble circle and a large spiraling wobble circle, about 3.5 years apart.
Good to see you Nagel!

Nasa says its a hoax though. Although the magnetic poles do shift and sometimes even flip, it won't cause any of these extreme events. Here are a couple of articles about it:


http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear...c_magneticfield.html


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html


"Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway."
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
You can call BS all you want to. The fact that it is snowing again in an area that sees snowfall once every few decades tells me that AGW is BS.


good god. b50, snow requires two components: cold air and moist air. cold air does not hold moisture. warm air does. the warmer it is, the more water it will hold. so what happens when you mix warm moist air with an arctic blast? SNOW. if the ocean is getting warmer, so is the air, it hold more water, moves into the southeast, mixes with cold air from the north and we have what we have right now.

someone claims there is an actual climatologist here, or one that is even more fluent in the sciences than i am. will they be kind enough to tell this person that snow is NOT indicative of anything but weather on a local scale? perhaps explain the difference between weather and climate as well? ive done so to no avail.

that same person, if they are who they say they are, will also support the fact that more snow events (and more extreme events in general) are predicted with a warming climate. they will also state the truth that snow does not necessarily "prove" global warming. it's just an interesting data point. for now.
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…


nagel, this is utter BS, sir. i know you said you were just throwing it out there but it is actually BS.

the pole will always travel as long as the earth has a molten core. the north pole moves a few miles every year towards russia. aviation maps have to be adjusted to compensate. some airports are having to repaint their runway identifies to coincide with the magnetic heading. this is something that has been done for years and will continue.

what WILL suck is of the magnetic pole "flips" and south becomes north and vice versa. happens regularly on this planet - every few million years or so . that will wreak havoc on all sorts of gadgets.
quote:
Originally posted by Upsidaisium:
what WILL suck is of the magnetic pole "flips" and south becomes north and vice versa. happens regularly on this planet - every few million years or so . that will wreak havoc on all sorts of gadgets.

And some migratory animals.

But, let's get back on topic.

We can do absolutely nothing about the strength, location, or polarity of the magnetic poles, just as we can do absolutely nothing about the climate.
.
Last edited by Winston Niles Rumfoord
UNOB,
Thanks for giving me a snow lesson. I didn't know you was so smart. (insert sarcasm here). LOL
Look at this list. Notice that the ones pushing for AGW state the snowfall has increased. The ones not pushing it state it has remained steady over the last 50 years.
That strong La Nina means the Pacific is COLDER than normal, not warmer.

Overall Antarctic Snowfall Hasn't Changed in 50 Years - NSF.gov
Aug 10, 2006 ... The most precise record of Antarctic snowfall ever generated shows there has been no real increase in precipitation over the southernmost ...
www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=107920 - Cached - Similar

Increased snowfall in the Antarctic over the past 30 years: Must ...
Oct 26, 2010 ... However, these events of greater snowfall in the Antarctic and drought in WA also coincide with human induced changes in the atmosphere that ...
kt***.wordpress.com/.../increased-snowfall-in-the-antarctic-over-the-past-30 -years-must-be-global-warming/ - Cached

Antarctica Snowfall Not Curbing Sea Level Rise, Study Says
Aug 11, 2006 ... Snowfall in Antarctica has stayed the same for the past 50 years, new research shows, suggesting that the snows aren't slowing sea level ...
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/.../060811-south-pole.html - Cached - Similar

Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models
Aug 11, 2006 ... An improved method of measuring Antarctic snowfall has revealed that previous records showing an increase in precipitation are not accurate, ...
www.scienceagogo.com/.../20060...data_trunc_sys.shtml - Cached - Similar

Antarctic Snowfall Doubles
Antarctic Snowfall Has Doubled Since 1850. Snow accumulation rising like a rocket page delimiter . 21 Jan 08 - A new paper has just appeared in Geophysical ...
www.iceagenow.com/antarctic_sn...ubled_since_1850.htm - Cached

Overall Antarctic Snowfall Hasn't Changed In 50 Years
Aug 10, 2006 ... For an animated graphic of snowfall variability across Antarctica and over time and b-roll of the U.S. ITASE traverse on Betacam SP, ...
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Good to see you Nagel!

Nasa says its a hoax though. Although the magnetic poles do shift and sometimes even flip, it won't cause any of these extreme events. Here are a couple of articles about it:


http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear...c_magneticfield.html


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html


"Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway."


*magnetic* shift... just the magnetic poles, the rotation doesn't change...

heh.. if the rotation changed, i'd already be trying to build a boat off this rock, ya know?

according to the stuff i read, yeah magnetic reversal happens, as you said, every 400k-500k, and the last time was @780k years ago.

as far as we know, such a shift doesn't harm life here on earth.
however, while the shift iteslf wouldn't be harming anyone, it could potentially play merry hell with the weather... that's all I am suggesting Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…


nagel, this is utter BS, sir. i know you said you were just throwing it out there but it is actually BS.

the pole will always travel as long as the earth has a molten core. the north pole moves a few miles every year towards russia. aviation maps have to be adjusted to compensate. some airports are having to repaint their runway identifies to coincide with the magnetic heading. this is something that has been done for years and will continue.

what WILL suck is of the magnetic pole "flips" and south becomes north and vice versa. happens regularly on this planet - every few million years or so . that will wreak havoc on all sorts of gadgets.


you lost me bro.

it's utter BS, but then you point out that the magnetic poles do flip every million or so years?
are you saying that the shift is real, and the occassional magnetic flip is real, but that it won't have any effect on the climate?

i'm not sure exactly which part you think is BS?
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
i'm not sure exactly which part you think is BS?


sorry, the part that is BS is the claim that it is about to happen now so hide yo' wife and hide yo' kids 'cause dey flippin ev'ybody around heah.

in short, we all aren't going to die if the pole shifts tomorrow.

From Wiki: "Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the Earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals, though they did not depend on computer systems that could be damaged by large coronal mass ejections."
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Thanks for giving me a snow lesson. I didn't know you was so smart. (insert sarcasm here). LOL
Look at this list. Notice that the ones pushing for AGW state the snowfall has increased.


in the climatology world, the statement "it's snowing, therefore no global warming" is on the same ignorant level as "i didn't come from no monkey!" in the evolutionary world. it is an ignorant statement that reveals your lack of understanding of climate versus weather.

your post included other data points concerning WEATHER from antarctica. again, weather is not the same as "climate." the overall picture is drastically different:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

says, "For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, ....The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record,.....The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, .....The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record,"

one of the links you provided from a reputable source, (the NSF) says "The findings also suggest thickening of Antarctica's massive ice sheets haven't reduced the slow-but-steady rise in global sea levels, as some climate-change critics have argued."

the other links you provided are from nutcases, b50, who claim we are about to enter an ice age. goodness. you are smart enough to tell the difference between these nutty sites and official non-biased sources.

like any true believer, you'll accept just about anything as long as it agrees with what you want to believe.


the el ninia is a pretty well known phenomenon that certainly does have an effect on short term climate. global warming is NOT a steady, uninterrupted rise in temps. it is a "ratcheting" that occurs in fits and starts with the overall trend to warmer. despite the cooling and mitigating effects phenomenon, the temps are still on the rise on a GLOBAL SCALE.
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
We can do absolutely nothing about the strength, location, or polarity of the magnetic poles, just as we can do absolutely nothing about the climate.
.


i tend to agree with you there. the consensus seems to be that we have passed the point of no return IF the human-caused theory is correct.

but to bury our collective heads and scream "na-na-can't-hear-you" on the overwhelming consensus seems to be very unwise. IF the consensus is correct, we are in for some changes in society that we would do well to prepare for.

that will not happen as long as so many allow politics to shape their opinion instead of the science.
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
like any true believer, you'll accept just about anything as long as it agrees with what you want to believe.
quote:
Truer words were never spoken about the Gore worship crowd. The links were a page from a search. As you clearly saw, some were good, some were bad. But you ignored the agenda behind the links.



the el ninia is a pretty well known phenomenon that certainly does have an effect on short term climate. global warming is NOT a steady, uninterrupted rise in temps. it is a "ratcheting" that occurs in fits and starts with the overall trend to warmer. despite the cooling and mitigating effects phenomenon, the temps are still on the rise on a GLOBAL SCALE.


If you are going to argue using weather phenomenon, at least get it straight.
La Nina and El Nino.
quote:
temps are still on the rise on a GLOBAL SCALE.

2008 Coolest Year Since 2000, But Global Temps Still Expected to Rise

January 14, 2009 2:22 PM


ABC's Clayton Sandell reports:

NASA climate scientists released a new analysis today showing 2008 was the coolest year on record since 2000, but warned a new high temperature record could be broken in the next couple of years.

“Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average,” said the report from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Notice the chart of temps. It took off after 1980. Why? There were less stations measuring the weather and more heat island effect.


So the temp stayed at the average or below from 1850 to 1980. Then it suddenly took off. Of course, the whole thing is a scale of 4 degrees plus or minus.

Unob, you believe the numbers you like, and I'll believe what makes sense.

The earth has cycles of warming and cooling. Even if Al Gore had a glacier in his backyard, he would deny the earth is not warming.


quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
temps are still on the rise on a GLOBAL SCALE.

2008 Coolest Year Since 2000, But Global Temps Still Expected to Rise

January 14, 2009 2:22 PM


ABC's Clayton Sandell reports:

NASA climate scientists released a new analysis today showing 2008 was the coolest year on record since 2000, but warned a new high temperature record could be broken in the next couple of years.

“Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average,” said the report from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


which succinctly illustrates why so many people are so easily confused on this issue. no, 1 year does not measure global climate trends. NASA said exactly what you need to understand: there will be "cool" years and warm years. there will even be cool and warm decades. there will always be cool seasons and warm seasons. but ON AVERAGE over the next 100 years, conditions are conducive (not "certain") to result in a 2 to 11 degree positive difference. that kind of difference will not necessarily be felt over the course of a year or even a decade. we have to look at long-range predictors that are often contradictory and confusing to people like you.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:

When summer comes and the temp hits 100, all the AGW crowd will scream "SEE!, I told you it was gw.".

Funny how a snowy day doesn't count against AGW, but a hot summer day does count for it.



and i'll call those people idiots, too. you will NOT hear that from a climatologist. what you will hear is that future summers will tend to be a bit hotter over the next few decades, droughts will happen in places that are normally wet and wet will happen in places that are normally dry. you will see MORE extreme weather events, not less, if the theory is correct.
Upsidaisium, you need to look at some of the skeptical literature and maybe you can shake off that Algore brainwashing. Hope this helps.



"The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.

The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.

The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.* [Green arrow points to present temperature.]

This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.

The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one. However, they cannot give the reason. Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.

The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.

It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future."

Source
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Upsidaisium, you need to look at some of the skeptical literature and maybe you can shake off that Algore brainwashing. Hope this helps.
Source


tell me, is this what you would consider an unbiased, science-based organization that is respected by its peers?'

does this one individual reflect the overwhelming consensus?
For the first 40 years of my life, it was always too cold to swim in my parent's unheated pool on my birthday. But for the past 10 or 12 years, the people who bought my parent's house have grandchildren swimming in that same pool, sometimes three weeks after my birthday has passed.

Is that conclusive evidence of global warming? Of course not. But it shows ME that summers are generally warmer in that area than they were for the first 40 years of my life.
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
i'm not sure exactly which part you think is BS?


sorry, the part that is BS is the claim that it is about to happen now so hide yo' wife and hide yo' kids 'cause dey flippin ev'ybody around heah.

in short, we all aren't going to die if the pole shifts tomorrow.

From Wiki: "Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the Earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals, though they did not depend on computer systems that could be damaged by large coronal mass ejections."


Oh.. yeah, no argument.. i wasn't trying to say that's what would happen.. sorry if that was the impression i put across..

i was just speculatin that such a magnetic shift could and would have an effect on our weather.
even if it did kick off a new ice age, it'll take years for it to get rolling good, and humanity adapts pretty well.
nah.. al gore is predicting our extinction by global warming.. i'm prediting an increased sale on heavy winter coats and space heaters Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
For the first 40 years of my life, it was always too cold to swim in my parent's unheated pool on my birthday. But for the past 10 or 12 years, the people who bought my parent's house have grandchildren swimming in that same pool, sometimes three weeks after my birthday has passed.

Is that conclusive evidence of global warming? Of course not. But it shows ME that summers are generally warmer in that area than they were for the first 40 years of my life.


ono,

that is a rational assessment. you are, of course, correct that the weather in your parent's back yard does not global warming make.

but you are not imagining things. i'm an avid gardener. i verify that every plant i purchase will withstand the cold temps that often occur in our area. i don't like to spend $200 on some tropical palm or specimen plant then have the winter kill it. so i have always relied on the USDA's hardiness zone map. we are in zone 7. zone 8 is the one below us that Birmingham resides in.

for a number of years, i've actually been "cheating" and planting plants that are actually geared more for the zone below us and have been getting away with it. well, there is a reason for that. the zones have changed.

i'm sure the "skeptics" here will claim that the USDA (and the arbor society) is obviously a part of the Illuminati that is conspiring to control society. but for the rest of us who depend on this map, reality is a bit different. all farmers use this map for reaping and sowing of crops so you ARE affected by this map whether you accept the reality of a warming climate or not.

check out the following map comparing the old map to the new one. we used to be in zone 7 but really close to zone 6 (6 is above us in tennessee). now, we are still in zone 7 but really close to zone 8 below us. so i am justified in risking money on warm-zone plants -- thanks to global warming.

with no further adieu, check out the animation here (click "play" then "reset" so view animation):

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

LIES, LIES, LIES!
quote:
Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
tell me, is this what you would consider an unbiased, science-based organization that is respected by its peers?'

does this one individual reflect the overwhelming consensus?

What overwhelming consensus? Can you not see that the IPCC climate predictions are wrong right out of the box?


i note that you conveniently dodged the question.

i will never do so: you know exactly what "consensus" i am speaking of. virtually every single professional organization that was in existance before the AGW debate started is in agreement. yes, a few dissenters that comes with ANY good science.

so, no, i do not accept that the IPCC's data is wrong because i am not qualified to do so. i've critically examined the evidence for the whole "climategate" scandal and have determined that the effects of the "doctored" data are vastly overblown and exaggerated by loons with a political agenda instead of a scientific one..
quote:
exaggerated by loons with a political agenda instead of a scientific one..


And so is the IPCC report.

If there was a consensus, we would not have so many skeptics. Legitimate, trained, qualified, skeptics.

If you examined the data from climategate then you know that 'they' knowing used data that was not valid. That was cherry picked. That had no reproducible results. That came from non-peer reviewed research.

If you want to say there is a consensus of government funded agencies that agree, I'll go with that.

But I don't trust this government and I sure don't trust any one else's.
Last edited by b50m
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
tell me, is this what you would consider an unbiased, science-based organization that is respected by its peers?'

does this one individual reflect the overwhelming consensus?


To which organization do you refer?

The author of that quote is:

"Akasofu earned a B.S. and a M.S. in geophysics at Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, in 1953 and 1957. respectively. He earned a Ph.D in geophysics at UAF in 1961. Within the framework of his Ph.D. thesis he studied the aurora. His scientific adviser was Sydney Chapman. Akasofu has been a professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964.

Akasofu was director of the Geophysical Institute from 1986 until 1999, during which time the Alaska Volcano Observatory was established and Poker Flat Research Range was modernized. He went on to become the first director of the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) upon its establishment in 1998, and remained in that position until 2007. The same year, the building which houses IARC was named in his honor.

Akasofu has served as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research (1972–74) and the Journal of Geomagnetism & Geoelectricity (1972–present), respectively. Furthermore, he has served as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Planetary Space Science (1969–present), the Editorial Advisory Board of Space Science Reviews (1967–77), and the Editorial Committee of Space Science Reviews (1977–present)."

Source

Do you think he is science based enough? And scientists aren't as unbiased as you might think. Most of the academic scientists are very liberal.

Did you dodge the question about a consensus?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×