Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist
- This topic has 89 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 18, 2016 at 1:13 pm #58856wvParticipant
Well what do we know about the “Deplorable climate science blog”?
I mean who are they? What are their qualifications? Who funds them?
w
vIt’s independent. They’re funded by donations.
The entire article is here: http://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
And it’s sourced throughout.————
Well, I dont know what “independent” means. Funded by “donations” ? Donations from Exxon? Donations from BP?
I’m not saying they are right or wrong, but I tried to find out about them and got nowhere. Which makes me wonder. I would want to know more about them before I accepted their ‘science’. Ya know. I’d say that about any blog, btw. Just want to know more about where their funding comes from and who they are connected to, etc.
PS and fwiw, i never get into these climate-change arguments much. I prettymuch stay out of them cause I believe the ‘official’ conclusion that climate change is indeed caused by humans and their activities. I was a sceptic at one time, and then i was an agnostic and then I moved into the believe column. I’m not sciency so I cant evaluate the science — what swayed me was the breadth and depth and variety of scientists from every nation that support the official conclusion. The consensus is as great as the consensus on Evolution.
Now you can still find scientists that dont believe in evolution but the vast majority do.Personally since i aint a scientist and i can do my own experiments, i gotta go with the 97 percent of the climatologists who study this stuff. Frankly I’m concerned that things are WORSE than they are saying, not that climate change is a hoax.
w
vNovember 18, 2016 at 1:20 pm #58860wvParticipant<
Personally since i aint a scientist and i can do my own experiments, i gotta go with the 97 percent of the climatologists who study this stuff. Frankly I’m concerned that things are WORSE than they are saying, not that climate change is a hoax.
w
v
====================I meant to say CANT do my own x-periments…
w
vNovember 18, 2016 at 1:28 pm #58864bnwBlocked<
Personally since i aint a scientist and i can do my own experiments, i gotta go with the 97 percent of the climatologists who study this stuff. Frankly I’m concerned that things are WORSE than they are saying, not that climate change is a hoax.
w
v
====================I meant to say CANT do my own x-periments…
w
vOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 18, 2016 at 1:53 pm #58870— X —ParticipantWell, I dont know what “independent” means. Funded by “donations” ? Donations from Exxon? Donations from BP?
Independent as in not sponsored.
Donations via a PayPal button on their blog.You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 18, 2016 at 3:07 pm #58884nittany ramModeratorRevamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming…
November 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm #58887bnwBlockedNOAA September Temperature Fraud
Posted on November 17, 2016 by tonyheller
NOAA claimed record heat in numerous locations is September, like these ones in Africa and the Middle East.
This is a remarkable feat, given that they don’t have any actual thermometers in those regions. In fact, NOAA doesn’t have any thermometers on about half of the land surface.
Satellite temperatures showed that September was close to normal in those regions which NOAA declared to be record hot.
Not only is the land data fake, but much of the ocean data is fake too.
date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>Tom,
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.Cheers
Phildi2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
The global surface temperature record is garbage. This is the 21st century, and it needs to be replaced by satellite temperatures which show little or no warming this century.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm #58895nittany ramModeratorTony Heller (aka Stephen Doddard) claims debunked.
November 18, 2016 at 4:09 pm #58900bnwBlockedTony Heller (aka Stephen Doddard) claims debunked.
Again, WRONG. Politifacts, really? Temperature readings from the past were not taken in the middle of acres of pavement as they are with airports today. When you look at the requirements for a weather station to deliver accurate data- 4 feet above ground, grass surface surrounding area, white painted wood slat cabinet with set spacing between slats, etc., you find that nearly no such data is being used in the modeling of the man made global warming fraud.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 18, 2016 at 6:54 pm #58934nittany ramModeratorRural and urban regions show the same warming trends…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
November 23, 2016 at 5:56 pm #59347wvParticipantNovember 24, 2016 at 4:35 pm #59399bnwBlockedLike the 1920s.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 2, 2016 at 3:54 pm #60022MackeyserModeratorWell, Nittany beat me to it…
onward and upward, I guess.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
December 2, 2016 at 5:30 pm #60030ZooeyModeratorOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
December 2, 2016 at 5:44 pm #60035MackeyserModeratorThat’s bullshit.
The earth is only 6000 years old, ya freakin’ commie.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
December 2, 2016 at 5:59 pm #60038bnwBlockedOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
The cooling has been consistent for 65 million years. In case you don’t know that does predate mankind by about 64 million years.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 2, 2016 at 6:29 pm #60043ZooeyModeratorOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
The cooling has been consistent for 65 million years. In case you don’t know that does predate mankind by about 64 million years.
Right. Which is why the first 64.9998 million years of your data does not prove what you think it proves. That’s what I’m saying.
The deal is that the global temperatures have been rising strikingly very recently, corresponding with co2 emissions. That is the whole point. The fact that the earth was cooling consistently prior to the large increase of co2 due to industrialization is a strong part of the evidence that man-made global warming is a thing. The earth WAS cooling for 64.9998 million years. It isn’t cooling now. It is getting warmer. Dramatically. Quickly. So don’t tell me that because it was cooling over a period of 65 million years, that means it is still cooling now. It isn’t.
December 2, 2016 at 6:40 pm #60044wvParticipantThat’s bullshit.
The earth is only 6000 years old, ya freakin’ commie.
===========
According to Mermaids, its only 4000 years old.Damn mermaid-denier.
w
vDecember 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm #60045bnwBlockedOK, fine. But what type of science ignores historic data going back 65 million years that contradicts the theory of man made global warming? Its like a physician ignoring a patients health history when diagnosing and treating.
What kind of scientific argument has to go back 65 million years to find a cooling pattern when humans have been emitting CO2 only for the past couple of hundred years, and that’s the cause scientists are concerned about?
The cooling has been consistent for 65 million years. In case you don’t know that does predate mankind by about 64 million years.
Right. Which is why the first 64.9998 million years of your data does not prove what you think it proves. That’s what I’m saying.
The deal is that the global temperatures have been rising strikingly very recently, corresponding with co2 emissions. That is the whole point. The fact that the earth was cooling consistently prior to the large increase of co2 due to industrialization is a strong part of the evidence that man-made global warming is a thing. The earth WAS cooling for 64.9998 million years. It isn’t cooling now. It is getting warmer. Dramatically. Quickly. So don’t tell me that because it was cooling over a period of 65 million years, that means it is still cooling now. It isn’t.
No, you’re completely wrong. You’re looking at a minuscule data set and drawing a wrong conclusion as a result. 200 years vs. 65 million years. Which is good data? Which is good science? Again as I’ve stated in this thread before, there is practically NO CORRELATION between rising CO2 and rising temperature in earths past. El Nino is ending and so is the very brief so called “warming”.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 2, 2016 at 9:07 pm #60062MackeyserModeratorThat’s like saying, “for 65 million years, the planet was intact. For the last 10 minutes, it’s been in pieces due to cometary impact. But really, what’s the better data set? The last 10 minutes? Or 65 million years?”
“I’m pretty sure the planet is fine.”
Meanwhile…among the chunks of planetary debris…
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
December 2, 2016 at 10:22 pm #60074bnwBlockedThat’s like saying, “for 65 million years, the planet was intact. For the last 10 minutes, it’s been in pieces due to cometary impact. But really, what’s the better data set? The last 10 minutes? Or 65 million years?”
“I’m pretty sure the planet is fine.”
Meanwhile…among the chunks of planetary debris…
Drama much?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 3, 2016 at 6:44 am #60093nittany ramModeratorDecember 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm #60109PA RamParticipantThat’s like saying, “for 65 million years, the planet was intact. For the last 10 minutes, it’s been in pieces due to cometary impact. But really, what’s the better data set? The last 10 minutes? Or 65 million years?”
“I’m pretty sure the planet is fine.”
Meanwhile…among the chunks of planetary debris…
Drama much?
What I don’t get–and will never understand, is even IF there is conflicting data(and there isn’t really in any credible way that I’ve seen)why would you not err on the side of caution? We have exactly ONE planet. This is it.
The right is ready to get hysterical at the drop of a hat over terrorism coming to our shores but honestly–you have a better chance of drowning than getting killed by a terrorist. This doesn’t stop them from going through –“what if” scenarios to justify a host of solutions.
But Trump doesn’t even want NASA to study our own planet anymore—he’s more focused on making them use the money for other planets.
I do not understand that mentality.
I just don’t.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
December 3, 2016 at 1:00 pm #60111bnwBlockedThat’s like saying, “for 65 million years, the planet was intact. For the last 10 minutes, it’s been in pieces due to cometary impact. But really, what’s the better data set? The last 10 minutes? Or 65 million years?”
“I’m pretty sure the planet is fine.”
Meanwhile…among the chunks of planetary debris…
Drama much?
What I don’t get–and will never understand, is even IF there is conflicting data(and there isn’t really in any credible way that I’ve seen)why would you not err on the side of caution? We have exactly ONE planet.
Reasonable question though you don’t even believe the real data that shows the earth is COOLING and that cooling trend has been stable for the past 65 million years. To err on the side of caution is to realize that if you truly believe elevated CO2 levels cause temperature to rise then with the undeniable COOLING of the earth you should not be wanting to lower CO2 levels.
Time for your thinking cap. What is worse to mankind and life in general? Prolonged global warming or prolonged global cooling? Earth’s history comes down squarely on one side and you’re not on that side. My question to you is why? Why when “We have exactly ONE planet.”?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 3, 2016 at 3:27 pm #60119PA RamParticipantTime for your thinking cap. What is worse to mankind and life in general? Prolonged global warming or prolonged global cooling? Earth’s history comes down squarely on one side and you’re not on that side. My question to you is why? Why when “We have exactly ONE planet.”?
Prolonged global warming is Venus. That planet can’t support life.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
December 3, 2016 at 5:52 pm #60124bnwBlockedTime for your thinking cap. What is worse to mankind and life in general? Prolonged global warming or prolonged global cooling? Earth’s history comes down squarely on one side and you’re not on that side. My question to you is why? Why when “We have exactly ONE planet.”?
Prolonged global warming is Venus. That planet can’t support life.
I said thinking cap. Global cooling throughout earths history is famine, disease, loss of habitat and extinction. Periods of global warming have always been times of plenty with increase of habitat and proliferation of life. Even today with our modern technology we would be hard pressed to not suffer major famine and resulting pandemics when the earth enters its next mini ice age or worse exits its post glacial warming phase. Just a few degrees cooler over a lifetime can have devastating consequences.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 3, 2016 at 6:16 pm #60126TSRFParticipantSo, bnw, are you saying that yes, man made global warming is going on, but it’s a good thing because it will help stave off the next ice age?
December 3, 2016 at 7:52 pm #60129bnwBlockedSo, bnw, are you saying that yes, man made global warming is going on, but it’s a good thing because it will help stave off the next ice age?
No I am not saying there is manmade global warming but I do appreciate the question. I do not believe CO2 has anything but perhaps a negligible effect on temperature since the geologic data doesn’t support CO2 effecting an increase in temperature. Again this data goes back 65 million years. Over those 65 million years the data supports the undeniable trend of global cooling. However if one does believe that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in global warming (which again I do not) then yes the increase should be viewed as good since the earth is cooling. Again, just a few degrees cooler from the present over merely a human lifetime ~70 years devastates grain production in the northern hemisphere which feeds most of this planet. Then theres the need for heating that outstrips the capacity of energy infrastructure worldwide.
You might find this interesting from http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
What causes ice-ages?
Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth’s orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth’s spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth’s rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth’s spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete. In the growth of continental ice sheets, summer temperatures are probably more important than winter.
How does the ice build up?
Throughout the Quaternary period, high latitude winters have been cold enough to allow snow to accumulate. It is when the summers are cold, (i.e., summers that occur when the sun is at its farthest point in Earth’s orbit), that the snows of previous winters do not melt completely. When this process continues for centuries, ice sheets begin to form. Finally, the shape of Earth’s orbit also changes. At one extreme, the orbit is more circular, so that each season receives about the same amount of insolation. At the other extreme, the orbital ellipse is stretched longer, exaggerating the differences between seasons. The eccentricity of Earth’s orbit also proceeds through a long cycle, which takes 100,000 years. Major glacial events in the Quaternary have coincided when the phases of axial tilt, precession of equinoxes and eccentricity of orbit are all lined up to give the northern hemisphere the least amount of summer insolation.
What makes the ice melt when the glaciation is over?
Major interglacial periods have occurred when the three factors line up to give the northern hemisphere the greatest amount of summer insolation. The last major convergence of factors giving us maximum summer warmth occurred 11,000 years ago, at the transition between the last glaciation and the current interglacial, the Holocene. During the late Pleistocene, the Rocky Mountain regions of Canada and the regions farther west were almost engulfed in the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, while most of Canada east of the Rockies and the north-central and northeastern United States were covered by the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The divide between the two ice sheets lay east of the Rockies, with the two ice bodies meeting near the U.S.-Canadian border in eastern Montana. The Laurentide ice sheet is thought to have been as much as two miles thick at the center.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
December 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm #60447wvParticipantI’ve been looking at ‘the list’ of sites where ‘fake news’ and ‘russian propaganda’ are supposed to be prevalent. Todays blog was: “Activistpost”
The article i read was from a climate change denial point of view.
Almost all the denial articles read link the climate-change view with ‘globalism’ — ie, an attempt by the powers that be to ‘use’ the climate-change idea to make money and gain power.
btw, James Lovelock, the ‘gaia’ guy, has changed his mind and now thinks climate change is not real. He also thinks robots will rule the world someday.
link:http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/global-warming-hustle-finally-falling-apart.html
“…Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”
Al Gore is one of their front men….
…Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout planet Earth, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”Yes, citizen by citizen.
This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.
Slavery imposed through energy.”
w
vDecember 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm #60449nittany ramModeratorWeather Channel to Breitbart News: The earth is not cooling, climate change is real and stop using our video to mislead people…
Link: https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change?cm_ven=T_WX_CD_120616_2December 6, 2016 at 11:49 pm #60482 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.