Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Outraced the sea monster too.

How do you think I managed to paddle so fast? That, and trying to keep from getting run over by Daniel....

[Maddie]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Climate is not the same thing as weather, and climate predictions have little or nothing to do with short-term weather forecasts. Nor does pointing out that there have been other reasons in the past for climate changes prove in any way that the causes this time aren't human-related.

Climatologists actually do know... but there are plenty of non-climatologists who are letting religious or political beliefs get in the way of knowing, or denying it for the sake of short-term profits.

Climatologists are somewhat like statisticians, who can accurately predict how many people out of a thousand will die of cancer in the next ten years -- but are completely unable to say whether you will develop cancer, or whether you will survive it if you do.

Yes, we are aware that climate has nothing to do with short term weather.

The point being made was the variables in short term weather are many times less than the ones in the time periods used for global warming. If you can't predict these things accurately, you cannot have a chance for AGW.

In case you did not notice we said NO ONE KNOWS why its happening.

By the way. In any complex system with feedback loops, there is always change. Saying the climate is changing is stating the inevitable. Fear and hysteria over climate change is equivalent to panicking over changes during puberty.

Outside of saying that we are in an interglacial and recovering from the last ice age, climatologists are not accurate, even statistically. Show me one and I will show you God. You should really read the published pdf research papers instead of saying these things.

For example, the paper I quoted. + 5C degrees and 1000ppm CO2. Far above present values. The tropical rain forests flourished.

All of the climate change doomsayers predict devastation at those CO2 levels. Tell me, what will you believe. The physical climate record or a "scientist" claiming his model shows destruction? When choosing between fact and theory, fact always wins.

[hoytedow]

Trouble is, Maddie, these folks take theory for fact, and lack the power to discern fantasy from reality. Sad, really. One even thinks his goose is Cillie.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Trouble is, Maddie, these folks take theory for fact, and lack the power to discern fantasy from reality. Sad, really. One even thinks his goose is Cillie.

what verifiable facts do you have to the contrary?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

what verifiable facts do you have to the contrary?

OK, I'll give you, your goose is Cillie, but that's all. Any recent pictures?

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

OK, I'll give you, your goose is Cillie, but that's all. Any recent pictures?

none lately

she is molting and i'm not sharing my goose porn

[hoytedow]

We don't like goose bumps anyway, especially in this heat.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Maddie

Yes, we are aware that climate has nothing to do with short term weather.

The point being made was the variables in short term weather are many times less than the ones in the time periods used for global warming. If you can't predict these things accurately, you cannot have a chance for AGW. Sorry but your not comparing apples to apples, the time periods in anthropogenic induced "global" warming are many times "less" than those considered in natural warming events. Your time frames are way off if your talking temp change due to alterations in the atmospheric chemistry like in Rapid Global Climate Shift. There is no precedence for the present rate of change in any of the proxy records

In case you did not notice we said NO ONE KNOWS why its happening.

we know exactly why the atmospheric chemistry is changing and its directly attributed to human pollutants, we also know exactly why there has been so much warming in the last hundred years or so and once again its directly attributed to human activity

By the way. In any complex system with feedback loops, there is always change. Saying the climate is changing is stating the inevitable. Fear and hysteria over climate change is equivalent to panicking over changes during puberty.

yes change is inevitable however that does not mean that we are unable to artificially illicit change for the worse

Outside of saying that we are in an interglacial and recovering from the last ice age, climatologists are not accurate, even statistically. Show me one and I will show you God. You should really read the published pdf research papers instead of saying these things.

you might try a little reading yourself cause the reality is that the vast majority of scientists are willing to say we know what is causing this and there are countless articles and papers to that effect

For example, the paper I quoted. + 5C degrees and 1000ppm CO2. Far above present values. The tropical rain forests flourished.

and over what time period did that +5°C occur
kinda makes a big difference if it was over say 1000 years or over 30 years like what the arctic has seen lately

All of the climate change doomsayers predict devastation at those CO2 levels. Tell me, what will you believe. The physical climate record or a "scientist" claiming his model shows destruction? When choosing between fact and theory, fact always wins.

your last statement is particularly interesting cause isn't your study based on proxy data and some pretty shaky data at that given your studying a period from the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary or roughly 55.8 million years ago. Please who are you trying to kid with this last bit about considering facts before you consider theory and then presenting a study based purely on really wide ranges of error like what is found in the paleoclimate recreations from that long ago.

you might read back a bit in the thread and see whats already been discussed and were those discussions landed us cause you might find most of these type arguments have been thoroughly debunked already

cheers and welcome to the group
hopefully your of good sound character cause although I'm clearly going to be disagreeing with you on this one its nothing personal
unfortunately some of our members in the past have taken affront to an effective debate to the contrary but I'm hoping we can keep it down to good clean fun

cheers and welcome
B

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Maddie

Yes, we are aware that climate has nothing to do with short term weather.

The point being made was the variables in short term weather are many times less than the ones in the time periods used for global warming. If you can't predict these things accurately, you cannot have a chance for AGW.

That is one of those statements that sounds reasonable, but makes no sense when you parse it out. I repeat: weather forecasts have nothing to do with climate predictions. You might as well say, "if you can't predict whether that duck is going to turn left or right accurately, you cannot have a chance for AGW." To claim that because some short-term predictions are inaccurate it's impossible to make any long-term predictions is preposterous on the face of it.

In case you did not notice we said NO ONE KNOWS why its happening.

In case you did not notice, I said CLIMATOLOGISTS know why it's happening. Maybe you should go discuss it with them instead of with me, and instead of blowing it off as some sort of conspiracy cooked up by politicians and bankers.

By the way. In any complex system with feedback loops, there is always change. Saying the climate is changing is stating the inevitable. Fear and hysteria over climate change is equivalent to panicking over changes during puberty.

Another irrational statement. No one has ever claimed that all change in climate is invariably bad. What they're saying is that we aren't going to like the results of this particular set of changes -- and we're causing them.

Outside of saying that we are in an interglacial and recovering from the last ice age, climatologists are not accurate, even statistically. Show me one and I will show you God. You should really read the published pdf research papers instead of saying these things.

Apparently, the vast majority of scientists in the world haven't 'read the appropriate pdf research papers' either, or they wouldn't be saying thEse things.

For example, the paper I quoted. + 5C degrees and 1000ppm CO2. Far above present values. The tropical rain forests flourished.

All of the climate change doomsayers predict devastation at those CO2 levels. Tell me, what will you believe. The physical climate record or a "scientist" claiming his model shows destruction? When choosing between fact and theory, fact always wins.

No one has ever claimed AGW means the 'destruction' of the world. It means there are going to be changes we don't like, and a different environment than the one in which we and our modern civilization evolved, and that those changes are going to be relatively rapid and hard on us.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I said CLIMATOLOGISTS know why it's happening.

If they know, which I doubt, they are either being paid to lie or they are using corrupted data from an unreliable source. Remember East Anglia?

Quack.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No one has ever claimed AGW means the 'destruction' of the world. It means there are going to be changes we don't like, and a different environment than the one in which we and our modern civilization evolved, and that those changes are going to be relatively rapid and hard on us.

What is not to like about longer growing seasons and less frostbite?

[Boston]

I do remember East Anglia
weren't those the guys that were falsely accused of some improprieties and then exonerated fully
the findings were that the unsubstantiated accusations were brought about by some climate deniers

pretty sure I remember that

how about you

[hoytedow]

No, that was the other East Anglia. The bunch I am talking about fudged the data.

[Boston]

actually the accusations were dropped entirely

some climate deniers guilty of theft ( and anonymously making wildly false accusations ) had hacked into the private mail of the university and after looking through tens of thousands of E mails sent or received over about a ten year period found less than a dozen that they then claimed "prove" wrong doing regarding how information is disseminated

simply making the accusations again do little to fool those actually paying attention

The climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been under relentless attack from sceptics since the exposure of emails at East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, was cleared of research misconduct by a university investigation yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...l-mann-cleared

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

What is not to like about longer growing seasons and less frostbite?

Where I live, the growing season lasts year-round. Any increases in average temperature are just going to be frying crops and evaporating water.