2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[IanC]

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?

while the case being made is very weak that CO2 is disrupting the climate in a disadvantageous way, the case for spending billions and trillions of dollars to stop it is non existent.

 

[Zander]

We'd better call Al Gore ! Only He can save us!!

Can't he?

NO!!! It's too late....... gasp....

If only we'd have listened to him........

 

[Zander]

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?

It really depends upon one's definition of "evidence"....

 

[Saigon]

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?

Yes - but you won't read it. You won't even look at it.

And I am willing to make a bet on this.

 

[SSDD]

At one point SSDD will figure out that the article from the Guardian isn't what I was referring to.

I was referring to the science that explained why more snow forms in warmer, more humid temperatures.

I do love these threads!

Here is what climate science had to say regarding snow not very long ago....

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

And that was the consensus opinion till snow started falling in record amounts...then the consensus opinion was that global warming causes more snow.....You people are a sad, pathetic joke.

 

[SSDD]

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?

Yes - but you won't read it. You won't even look at it.

And I am willing to make a bet on this.

You claimed unequivocal evidence exists that man is the primary driver of climate change in the 20th century...when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...

I promise to read it if you post it.....lets see it or at least get an apology from you for spreading alarmist lies about non existent evidence.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?

Yes - but you won't read it. You won't even look at it.

And I am willing to make a bet on this.

You claimed unequivocal evidence exists that man is the primary driver of climate change in the 20th century...when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...

I promise to read it if you post it.....lets see it or at least get an apology from you for spreading alarmist lies about non existent evidence.

Ah yes....the "non existent evidence" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9SGw75pVas]What We Know about Climate Change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[anotherlife]

I thought it was proven that the modern ice ages were started by the closing of the land bridge between the Americas, and thus altering sea currents.

It would be interesting to know if the resulting new water temperature profile is only oscillatory, as observed, or also gradually shifting upwards in its baseline.

If yes, then the ice ages must get progressively milder and the last one may have been the last one with actual ice in it.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

You see? I knew you weren't really interested.

And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.

No, stupid. We're very interested in SCIENCE. You post propaganda and there is a huge difference. You are no doubt a firm disciple of Goebbels....This is the mantra of Saigon and all the other left wing nutjobs/corporate rapists, who are pushing this scam on the world.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

 

[westwall]

I thought it was proven that the modern ice ages were started by the closing of the land bridge between the Americas, and thus altering sea currents.

It would be interesting to know if the resulting new water temperature profile is only oscillatory, as observed, or also gradually shifting upwards in its baseline.

If yes, then the ice ages must get progressively milder and the last one may have been the last one with actual ice in it.

Nothing is "proven". There is some evidence to support the hypothesis, but there is also some that doesn't.

 

[Saigon]

We're very interested in SCIENCE

Seriously, dude, I think it's a little late for you to start pretending that.

If that were true, you wouldn't simply run away from threads where you are proven wrong. When you recommended a source like Der Speigel or the Innut people, you wouldn't then be forced to back track when you found they also accept climate change science. You would accept that 97% of glaciers are melting, that ocean levels are rising and that the Arctic is melting. Those are all facts, all proven by hard science.

People who are interested in science want facts. When faced with facts which contradict your beliefs, you run away.

 

[Saigon]

You claimed unequivocal evidence exists that man is the primary driver of climate change in the 20th century...when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...

I promise to read it if you post it.....lets see it or at least get an apology from you for spreading alarmist lies about non existent evidence.

Well, actually that isn't what I said, but the key here is that you do commit to reading what is posted.

In my experience neither you, nor Frank nor Westwall will ever take a serious look at anything posted - regardless of the source, rendering the entire basis for discussion pointless.

The specific point we were discussing was Arctic vs Antarctic ice, so I'll post that for you on a new thread in the next day or two.

Just to clarify what I did say, perhaps go back and check. I said there was unequivocal evidence that we are experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that overwhelming scientific evidence exists of that. Feel free to post my original quote if you need clarification.

 

[SSDD]

Ah yes....the "non existent evidence" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.

Billions in grant money is what convinced the political heads of scientific organizations....the bodies of those organizations are not onboard the sinking ship AGW and the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit while they still have some credibility left.

 

[SSDD]

We're very interested in SCIENCE

Seriously, dude, I think it's a little late for you to start pretending that.

If that were true, you wouldn't simply run away from threads where you are proven wrong. When you recommended a source like Der Speigel or the Innut people, you wouldn't then be forced to back track when you found they also accept climate change science. You would accept that 97% of glaciers are melting, that ocean levels are rising and that the Arctic is melting. Those are all facts, all proven by hard science.

People who are interested in science want facts. When faced with facts which contradict your beliefs, you run away.

Thus far siagon, the only thing that you have mangaed to prove is that you will believe anything so long as it is in line with your political leanings.

By the way, the output of computer models is not fact and certainly not hard science.

 

[SSDD]

Well, actually that isn't what I said, but the key here is that you do commit to reading what is posted.

Of course that is what you said when you posted the statement from the Meteorological society as evidence in support of your position.

In my experience neither you, nor Frank nor Westwall will ever take a serious look at anything posted - regardless of the source, rendering the entire basis for discussion pointless.

Of course we take a serious look...that is how it is so easly torn to pieces. For every newspaper article you post, one of us posts some peer reviewed, published science contradicting it. It is you who is failing to read our posts.

The specific point we were discussing was Arctic vs Antarctic ice, so I'll post that for you on a new thread in the next day or two.

Actually, the specific point was a claimed ice free arctic in 2 years. The antarctic tangent only serves to prove that you are operating from an unfalsifible, and therefore false hypothesis. Today you claim that growing antarctic ice doesn't disprove global warming, but not so long ago, climate science expressed high confidence that increasing global temperatures would melt the antarctic faster than expected and increase sea level at "unprecedented" rates. That was the consensus till it failed to happen at which time the consensus opinion was that global warming wouldn't cause the antarctic to melt.

You people are pathetic. The antarctic tangent only brings another failed prediction into play.

Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected - News Release

Uh-oh. Greenland and Antarctica melting faster than expected | Ars Technica

Nature: Antarctica Is Melting From Below, Which 'May Already Have Triggered A Period of Unstable Glacier Retreat' | ThinkProgress

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/medi...ctic+Ice+Sheet+would+influence+global+climate

Just to clarify what I did say, perhaps go back and check. I said there was unequivocal evidence that we are experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that overwhelming scientific evidence exists of that. Feel free to post my original quote if you need clarification.

Here are the first two sentences of your quote: (emphasis: mine)

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

You posted it here.

So lets see the large body of evidence that proves that man is the dominant cause of warming since the 1950's. Hell, lets see even a single shred of hard, unequivocal evidence that man is even a minor player in the movement of the global climate.

So waffle on your statement all you like, the fact remains that you can't produce a single piece of hard, unequivocal evidence proving that man is even in part responsible for changes in the global climate.

 

[Saigon]

Of course that is what you said

Actually, no, it isn't. At least - not unless I am now the American Meterological Society.

 

[SSDD]

Of course that is what you said

Actually, no, it isn't. At least - not unless I am now the American Meterological Society.

Guess you never actually participated in a debate either. There is so much that you don't know. When you make an appeal to authority, you implicitly make that authority's position your position. They say that there is unequivocal proof that man is the dominant driver of the climate since 1960...you post their statement as support for your positon...you make their position yours.


Lets see the unequivocal evidence or an admission that their statment and by default, your statement is a lie.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

No, not really. I quoted the American Meterological Association and consider their position worthwhile and based on solid science. That doesn't mean I would necessarily choose the same words myself.

I broadly support their position, but elsewhere I posted my own thoughts in my own words, and I'd prefer to be quoted on that.

Either way, I'll wait and see what you have to say on the Antarctic material.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

No, not really. I quoted the American Meterological Association and consider their position worthwhile and based on solid science. That doesn't mean I would necessarily choose the same words myself.

Solid science that you don't seem to be able to produce even when asked repeatedly. Which solid science is that?....blog entrys?....self published web pages?.....newspaper articles?

I broadly support their position, but elsewhere I posted my own thoughts in my own words, and I'd prefer to be quoted on that.

You rather obviously don't have any of your own thoughts.

Either way, I'll wait and see what you have to say on the Antarctic material.

Which material? The blog entry? The self published web page? The possibly peer reviewed paper which is nothing more than the output of a computer model? What do you want me to say? You get a big old donkey laugh for posting that drivel up and claiming it to be unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of the climate since 1950?

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD -

No, not really. I quoted the American Meterological Association and consider their position worthwhile and based on solid science. That doesn't mean I would necessarily choose the same words myself.

Solid science that you don't seem to be able to produce even when asked repeatedly. Which solid science is that?....blog entrys?....self published web pages?.....newspaper articles?

I broadly support their position, but elsewhere I posted my own thoughts in my own words, and I'd prefer to be quoted on that.

You rather obviously don't have any of your own thoughts.

Either way, I'll wait and see what you have to say on the Antarctic material.

Which material? The blog entry? The self published web page? The possibly peer reviewed paper which is nothing more than the output of a computer model? What do you want me to say? You get a big old donkey laugh for posting that drivel up and claiming it to be unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of the climate since 1950?

On the
Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere
and
Interplanetary Space
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf

The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

John Tyndall

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

XXXI. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. By
Prof. Svante Arrhenius *.

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Arrhenius1896-ocr.pdf