Register to Comment
Page 892 of 6567 FirstFirst ... 39279284288289089189289389490294299213921892 ... LastLast
Results 8,911 to 8,920 of 65668
Like Tree13908Likes
  1. #8911
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    Quote Originally Posted by rebellin View Post
    Directly taking on the environmentalist movement, who say human beings and their carbon
    dioxide emissions cause global warming, a group of Argentine
    scientists is asserting that it is the Sun--not man--that is
    responsible for climate change, and that this has been the case
    for tens of thousands of years.
    Scientists from the Argentine Oceanographic Institute (IADO)
    and the Geological Institute of the South (Ingeosur) collected
    data from an estuary in the city of Bahia Blanca, in the province
    of Buenos Aires, at a depth of 15 meters, which they say
    contradict several studies and forecasts made by radical
    environmentalist groups. "We intended to prove a theory that
    opposes several [environmentalist] dogmas," says Dr. Eduardo
    Gomez, IADO's deputy director.
    The studies, performed over two decades, show that that
    climate change isn't a simple anomaly but rather has always
    existed, as verified in geological records corresponding to the
    last 10,000 years. The data show that during that period, there
    have been oscillations in average sea level caused by alternating
    periods of freezing and melting, due to global climate change,
    and that these variations are uncontrollable.
    Dr. Gomez explained that this theory implies that human
    activity cannot stop global warming, which will reach its maximum
    point in 600 years. "It's clear to us that at least over the past
    10,000 years, the Sun determined--and determines--global
    temperatures on Earth; climate change obeys natural cycles, and
    the evidence of same is beneath the sea where variations in sea
    level produced by fluctuation in solar activity, can be found.
    When the sea level dropped, it was cold, and when it rose, it was
    hot."
    The Argentine scientists used carbon-14 dating to determine
    the age of sedimentary deposits and also conducted
    paleo-environmental studies of microfossils. These analyses
    indicated the existence of many different sea levels, well below
    today's level, spaced out over time. "These studies show that
    global temperature changes {always existed}, including during
    historical eras: there are clear indications that approximately
    1,000 years ago, the Vikings colonized Greenland during a period
    of heat, when there was less ice on the surface of the Earth than
    today," Gomez said.
    "Man's action on the planet is important," Gomez said. "But
    in this case, it's not a determining factor for changing the
    climate on a planetary scale, because this doesn't depend on
    human activity, but rather on the Sun."
    In fairness, rebellin, you are publishing "evidence" of sorts - not great evidence, but it is a step up from irrelevant remarks about Al Gore and hockey sticks we have been getting from others.

    These Argentine guys are having great fun attacking a straw man. If you are in touch with them, perhaps you could tell them that it is almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists that the bulk of energy in the earth's climate system comes from the sun.

    You might point out the them that basic physics and chemistry, known since about the 1900s and confirmed since the 1950s, say that greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere trap the sun's heat and warm the earth. Otherwise the earth would have much the same temperature distribution as the moon (allowing for size).

    It is the increase is greenhouse gases from man's industrial and agricultural by-products that is causing the current warming.

    I presume they would agree with this - if not, they are pretty much outside the pale of science.

    So this guy Gomez then makes a few, off-the-cuff remarks about the Vikings, natural variation and ice extent. He quotes no sources, reports no experiments, or refers to no paper in the peer reviewed literature. Where did he get the evidence for this? Much of what he says has been "out there" from science deniers for a long time, and has been pretty much debunked.

    Finally, where did you get this report? I can give you science references, but you go first.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #8912
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    John Nielsen-Gammon examines what climate scientists believe about global warming, and comes to these conclusions:

    • 90% or 97% (depending on the study) believe that global average surface temperatures have increased over the past century or two.
    • 82% or 84% believe that human activity is significantly contributing to this warming.
    • 85% think that the warming is at least moderately dangerous.
    • 41% believe that the warming will pose a very great danger to the Earth in the next 50-100 years
    He goes on:

    This is not rocket science. The Earth is warming; there’s an important human contribution, and it’s something to worry about. This is the scientific consensus. Earth scientists are substantially split only on whether the warming is potentially catastrophic.
    In a related post, He discusses the related acronym "CAGW", which mean "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". As evidence mounts for AGW, this term is being used by the denialist community to change the goalposts. Not that it stops them spreading confusion at every opportunity.

    Presumably CAGW means "climate change with effects that are worse than moderate". N-G ends:

    I’m a climate scientist. I agree with most of my colleagues about global warming. Please stop telling people what we believe, unless you’re going to be careful enough to get it right.
    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2...-what-i-think/
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 20th September 2011 at 08:30 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #8913
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    John Nielsen-Gammon examines what climate scientists believe about global warming, and comes to these conclusions:

    • 90% or 97% (depending on the study) believe that global average surface temperatures have increased over the past century or two.
    • 82% or 84% believe that human activity is significantly contributing to this warming.
    • 85% think that the warming is at least moderately dangerous.
    • 41% believe that the warming will pose a very great danger to the Earth in the next 50-100 years
    Don’t Tell Me What I Think | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    It is interesting to compare N-G's figures with the recent Reuters/IPSOS poll taken in the United States.

    • 83% believe that global warming is real.
    • 59% believe that it is caused mostly or partly by humans.
    • Other questions: not asked.


    So 10% to 15% difference on the first, which is not surprising, but the 20%+ difference on the second is quite wide. Indeed, the difference is mostly made up of US Republicans, particularly Tea Party members. And these are the ones who are most sure (i.e. least skeptical) of their own beliefs. A case of faith trumping science?

    More Americans believe world is warming: Reuters/Ipsos | Reuters
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #8914
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by rebellin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    Ms Rebel obviously can only read stuff at the LaRouche website. She seems to be blind for anything
    The only thing worse than being blind is to have no vision--- Helen Keller
    Be sure I have plenty of visions (=> my signature), but I also see the reality. Reality is that 97% of world's climatologists are saying that humanmade CO2 is warming the planet and that the outcome and the forecast are anything but a bagatelle. Reality is that We can see worldwide how far humanmade climate change has brought us in a (geologically) very short period of time. You are seemingly blind enough not to see that.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #8915
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Tombo View Post
    More accurately, you can't "debunk" anything with a Hokey Schtick - as you attempted to do. Once that even makes an appearance, readers justifiably disregard your post and move on.

    It is the climate equivalent to Godwin's.
    That's what you guys like to see. But it's only an ignorant minority who doesn't accept peer reviewed science. You're only trying to make things up, because you cannot disprove evidence, data and conclusions. Where are your peer reviewed studies disproving the "hockey stick" graph of Mann et al would be incorrect?





    Only because you declare a graph as "the climate equivalent to Godwin's" does not make it less important, silly.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #8916
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    A soon-to-be-published report states that unless emissions are brought under control by 2020, then geo-engineering solutions will have to be seriously considered.

    Analysis: Extreme steps needed to meet climate target | Reuters

    "If we want to stay below 2 degrees and possibly achieve 1.5 in the 22nd century then we're not going to get around these negative emissions," said one lead author, Malte Meinshausen, of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

    "This is a crucial change in perception, that there is a point and it is very close at which time if we put CO2 into the atmosphere future generations will have to take it out again."
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #8917
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    Bill Clinton on climate denial in the US



    John Huntsman on same

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8918
    Tombo Tombo is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    7,251

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    That's what you guys like to see. But it's only an ignorant minority who doesn't accept peer reviewed science. You're only trying to make things up, because you cannot disprove evidence, data and conclusions. Where are your peer reviewed studies disproving the "hockey stick" graph of Mann et al would be incorrect?



    Only because you declare a graph as "the climate equivalent to Godwin's" does not make it less important, silly.
    MM is the key to understanding the destruction of hte Hokey Sticks in all there incestuous forms.:

    McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003 MM03 SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c, Reply to Von Storch and Zorita
    McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d, Reply to Huybers, GRL


    Go and read those and then understand why both the Wegman report and the NAS panel enquiry (North enquiry) found the criticisms on this entire field of multproxy studies to be seriously flawed due to BOTH the flawed and inappropriate proxies they used as well as the flawed statistical methodology.




    You are the most stupid person on this forum, without exception.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #8919
    Tombo Tombo is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    7,251

    Here it comes,


    The Warmy Alarmists are getting so seriously worried about the direction of not only public opinion of their antics, but also the building encroachment of peer reviewed research that is making a complete mockery of their "consensus".


    Note in recent weeks we have had three (three) separate independent peer reviewed papers that indicate tht clouds have (in the real world) a significant net negative feedback effect on warming - in direct conflict with the Warmy Alarmist Hypothesis.

    That slimy Trenberth is trying to fight a rearguard action, but he is already looking for another way out of this dilemna. So now they are trying to position a "a pause in warming is consistent with our awarmy alarmist hypothesis" line. And here it comes.


    And it all boild down to Trenberths "missing energy" The models using the alarmist hypothesis don't fit what we observe, so Trenberth makes the really scientific claim that the problem is the data not the models:
    Pielke Sr. on that hide and seek ocean heat | Watts Up With That?


    I predict more and more and more scientists will be piling in on the fun as there will be some easy academic points to earn here as the political stranglehold that had intimidated proper research and publication is ever weakened. Recent weeks are but a taste and Trenberth's increasing desperation is evidence he knows the writing is on the wall for him and that he has painted himself into a corner.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #8920
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,314

    Quote Originally Posted by Tombo View Post
    MM is the key to understanding the destruction of hte Hokey Sticks in all there incestuous forms.:

    McIntyre and McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003 MM03 SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick, GRL 2005a SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick, E&E 2005b SI
    McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c, Reply to Von Storch and Zorita
    McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d, Reply to Huybers, GRL


    Go and read those and then understand why both the Wegman report and the NAS panel enquiry (North enquiry) found the criticisms on this entire field of multproxy studies to be seriously flawed due to BOTH the flawed and inappropriate proxies they used as well as the flawed statistical methodology.

    You are the most stupid person on this forum, without exception.
    M&M - nothing published since 2005, E&E is a joke of a journal and these guys are still teaching Dead Horse Flogging 101 to Tombo and his mates. The gratuitous insult at the end sums up the tone and content of denialism.

    PS The North Report for the National Research Council substantially back up Michael Mann.

    The panel published its report in 2006.[103]
    "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...


    The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 21st September 2011 at 10:59 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment