Global warming
- Thread starter mthbstr8
- Start date
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Let us know when you got that scientific data to dispel the climate change " myth ". I'm eagerly waiting.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Fortunately that's not how it works. You made the claim, you then claimed you had scientific data to back it up, but when asked for it resorted to name calling. You really think someone could take you seriously now?
oldngray
nowhere special
So you are closed minded to anything that disproves your opinions?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
In the absence of scientific proof he made up his mind and everyone else is close minded. That's modern flat earth society stuff there.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
You are like a fish out of water gasping for air. Still no data backup your claims. Until then peace brotha.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
60 minutes did a piece on "GLOBAL WARMING" about 10 or so years ago. They had scientists on saying that the high tech weather gauges that were put out in the 1950's in open fields were now sitting by large a/c units or are now in the middle of black top parking lots. All of those gauges were reading higher temps than in the 1950's.
They also said that the " GLOBAL WARMING" scientists didn't want to hear this new evidence.
Last time I looked, the guys at 60 Minutes were not Republicans.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
You are like a fish out of water gasping for air. Still no data backup your claims. Until then peace brotha.
Why? I haven't claimed anything but your "scientific study" was unscientific of which I provided proof. You are turning out to be a poor mouthpiece for this.
What real scientist(I mean besides you) doesn't want their finding questioned? Maybe that's an easier question for you to answer.
upschuck
Well-Known Member
Back in 1975, everybody was saying the same thing about the cooling earth. Read Newsweek article here Since that didn't work they trying the warming side of things. Just normal fluctuations in weather...nothing to see here.
How so?
"The IPCC is an international scientific body that provides policymakers with an authoritative view on climate change, its causes, and its likely impacts... IPCC reports are written based on the best available science."
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I already posted several quotes the authors of that report said about it. There are hundreds of other quotes.
A better question is if the people that compiled that report know it isn't scientific why should I disagree with them?
Phil Jones did not write any of the 2013 report. He did reach these conclusions in his 2004 report 'Climate Over The Last Millennia':
"The dramatic differences between regional and hemispheric/global past trends, and the distinction between changes in surface temperature and precipitation/drought fields, underscore the limited utility in the use of terms such as the “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” for describing past climate epochs during the last millennium. Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century."
When you rely on a FreedomWorks posting to bolster your argument, you already have lost.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” (whose degree is actually in mechanical engineering), seems to have had a problem during his ‘debate’ on “climate change” on ‘Meet The Press’ with host David Gregory. The designated “let’s beat up and call anti-science” opponent/target was Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
Nye held up a graphic as he said, ‘Would you say that the Antarctic has less ice than it used to?’
One small problem. The graphic was of the Arctic, not the Antarctic, which the “Science Guy” apparently couldn’t recognize.
His claim that the Antarctic has less ice than it used to is also open to attack, since the minimum ice levels are actually above normal levels, as Climate Depot points out.
Not of course to mention the fact that there hasn’t been warming in 17 years.
Read more here.
Nye held up a graphic as he said, ‘Would you say that the Antarctic has less ice than it used to?’
One small problem. The graphic was of the Arctic, not the Antarctic, which the “Science Guy” apparently couldn’t recognize.
His claim that the Antarctic has less ice than it used to is also open to attack, since the minimum ice levels are actually above normal levels, as Climate Depot points out.
Not of course to mention the fact that there hasn’t been warming in 17 years.
Read more here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I realized you copied that article, but you may want to read up a bit on the difference between sea ice and land ice.
Here is a fairly straightforward explanation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Even though the global warming community has recently turned their backs on him there are more interesting quotes from him.
"There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."
Wait, what? Isn't the debate supposed to be over?
On why new temperature data is dismissed.
“was not well enough organized.”
Doesn't seem very scientific to me. It's also convenient to claim that the director of the CRU has nothing to do with it's reporting or conclusions. Even though the IPCC reports no global temperature change in the last 16 years, yes even including Phil Jones, we are supposed to take your word that we are in a period of global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate no change, sorry whatever you want to call it today?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
They want to return to the dark ages, so I'm guessing they think that was perfect for them.
Phil Jones, from the above mentioned scientific paper:
We review evidence for climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate “proxy” data sources and climate modeling studies. We focus on changes over the past 1 to 2 millennia. We assess reconstructions and modeling studies analyzing a number of different climate fields, including atmospheric circulation diagnostics, precipitation, and drought. We devote particular attention to proxy-based reconstructions of temperature patterns in past centuries, which place recent large-scale warming in an appropriate longer-term context. Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales.
av8torntn, if you would like to link to actual, peer reviewed papers, and post conclusions from them, that is fine, and I will discuss them, but WSJ and other editorial interpretations do not constitute 'science'.
Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also stated during the BBC Q&A, "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also said that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" supports the conclusion that recent warming has been largely man-made while previous periods of warming were caused by natural forces.
We review evidence for climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate “proxy” data sources and climate modeling studies. We focus on changes over the past 1 to 2 millennia. We assess reconstructions and modeling studies analyzing a number of different climate fields, including atmospheric circulation diagnostics, precipitation, and drought. We devote particular attention to proxy-based reconstructions of temperature patterns in past centuries, which place recent large-scale warming in an appropriate longer-term context. Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales.
av8torntn, if you would like to link to actual, peer reviewed papers, and post conclusions from them, that is fine, and I will discuss them, but WSJ and other editorial interpretations do not constitute 'science'.
Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also stated during the BBC Q&A, "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also said that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" supports the conclusion that recent warming has been largely man-made while previous periods of warming were caused by natural forces.
