What Do We Think About Climate Change

Central Florida and the temperature hasn't gone above 60 degrees Fahrenheit for days now. Same in the Bahamas where they don't have heat for the homes. Damn that AGW. hehe haha. It was warmer in Vancouver, B.C., yesterday than it was in Tampa, Florida.

 

And thats one of the big misconceptions about Rapid Global Climate Change
that its only got to do with warming. It isn't

Instead its all about a disturbance in typical weather patterns resulting in a-typical occurrences. Like the Jet stream moving off course or an unusual arctic oscillation like what caused the cold weather in the south this year.
The mechanism might be well known but the strength of the reaction is outside of typical parameters.

Welcome to the new world. Try and notice how many plants and animals are having a hard time coping and then realize this is what Ive been saying all along. That the more frequent alterations from the norm are going to continue happening until the stress it puts on local intransigent populations simply overcomes them.

Those weather patterns that have been the norm for ~600,000 years are what has made for the ecosystems. Alter that and you disturb the balance of the system. If you create a change so rapid that the plants and animals cannot adapt or move fast enough and you get mass extinctions.

Manatee's, dropping like flies
fish, dropping like flies
birds ?
Reptiles, dropping out of trees

I read several articles that mentioned the smell is so bad its hard to go into some areas

I've also heard its not quite cold enough to kill off the invasive pythons though

B

 

Hitler Learns of Global Warming Collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js

 

ok now that was bloody priceless
lmao

 

little tid bit about plastics in the ocean

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/16/vbs.toxic.garbage.island/index.html?hpt=C2

 

Boston, my predictable one:
Those blogs where you get the info from seem to have not realized yet that when solar influence on Earth's temperature and climate is being talked about, it is not only solar irradiance alone (or then you are finding and quoting not enough up to date documents). A similar thing happens with the CFCs thing. I'm going to give you another chance: try to look for falsifying papers to the more recent info I have posted lately in this thread. Go for them, my boy, and bring them here for us to learn something new. You keep on posting info already known. C'mon, we deserve a better effort on your side (Although I have to recognize you are the only one in the "warmgnotist" side in this thread -let's call it like that- who at least does some effort. The rest only rant around. That's why I like you).

(Flee? :we may asume you want to say "fly" or "flea". I take it as "fly")

Quite true!
As we say in Spain, we can call you now "La Mosca": vuela, vuela, vuela... y donde se posa la caga.

Cheers.

 

Boston "la Mosca",

As it is quite clear now you do not read (or then understand) my posts, nor the linked info, let me give you a little clue quoting something else from Komitov:

"It has been marked by many authors that the ”overall sunspot activity −− > TSI −− > climate” relationship is far not enough to explain the real climate dynamics during the last 400 years since AD 1610. As it is pointed out by Thompson (1997) only 25% of the global warming effect after AD 1850 could be explained by the TSI increasing during the this time. Additional factors should be searched to explain the remaining 75%. Especially after AD 1975/80 there is a total divergence between the TSI and the global temperature changes (Solanki, 2002; Usoskin et al., 2005; Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007). This phenomena could not be explained satisfactory even if the GCR flux is taken additionaly into account. That is why for the last 30-35 years by the opinion of many researchers the human activity is the factor, which play the dominant role for the climate changes."

Hey! realize what I'm quoting here Boston! what the hell is happening? Is good old Komitov totally nuts...?

More to come....

Cheers.

 

oh very funny

pero no que le hace los caballos asno?

I must have "settled" on a sore spot eh

my take on what you are presenting is to go through the parameters one by one and check the veracity of the claim based on what we think we know so far

1) is there an increase in the level of CR

the answer seems to be no but that does not mean that there cant be a reaction with an increased or altering level of CFC's

2) are the levels of CFC's changing

answer seems to be that they look to have stabilized but that does not necessarily mean that what changes did occur in recent times didn't correspond to the rise in temp.

3) are the levels of CFC's corresponding to the changes in temp

I checked to see if the levels of CFC's might be mirroring the alterations in temp and again the answer seems to be no

not only do they not appear to be moving in unison but neither do they seem to be following or preceding an alteration in temp
basically depending on how you want to draw up the trend lines there is really very little observable comparison among the parameters

once you can establish that you have a viable paper you then might think of whether that paper is one of those famous bits of anomalous data I keep talking about
just because a paper is for real and based on good science does not necessarily mean it fits in the puzzle
a few pieces left over and science has a tendency to say "oh well a few loose ends but all in all a good theory"
whereas if you have a lot of anomalous data like in anthropology then then science tends to say "our theory is incomplete" or some such dismissive tripe like that rather than just admit it does not know something
point is that the amount of corroborating evidence far outweighs the amount of anomalous data when it comes to climate science

I might ask though whats up with taking 4679 posts to come up with one viable paper though

assuming that is it holds up to further investigation

cheers
B

our posts must have crossed

I skim a lot of stuff till I hit something of interest

the idea that there was some kind of increase in CR over the last say 1000 or even 600,000 years just is not born out in the data
our sun is dynamic through a predictable range and the data does not show it deviating from that range in quite some time.
Where you are getting the idea it is somehow growing in intensity is beyond me
CFC's at least had a shot at mirroring the warming but upon looking at more graphs Im just not seeing the correlation

looks to me like you might be about ready to crack and admit that mans activities are altering the climate
or at least thats what I'm reading into it

good on ya mate
I knew you would see reason eventually

where the hell is Jim by the way

is he off hacking the realclimate site again

 

Old Limerick I remember from my youth:

A flea and fly in a flue,
Were imprisoned so what could they do?
Said the flea let us fly.
Said the fly let us flee.
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

Unrelated but it does help con el vocabulario.

 

That one is even better than the one Jimbo posted a while ago!
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...about-climate-change-21390-78.html#post304844

Thanks a lot!

 

G me hombre los Caballos asno
where is Jim lately

I remember he was doing that atkins diet
he didn't go having a heart attack or anything now did he

 

Estas palabras no son muy simpatico.
Caballos asno indeed!

 

I do not know what has happened to Jim. He's most probably tired of the "let's arrive nowhere" game in this thread. All of the most nice contributors have also left. Now only we two remain stubborngly posting something related to science here, Boston, and debating once and again the same points. Most probably because we are either masochistic or insane. Or both.

Cheers.

 

For me it like watching ping-pong in slooooow motion.

 

Very sloooooo-ping-Boooooos-tong motion indeed!

(Time to go to bed: Good night and kisses everybody)