How far have we already gone?

[IanC]

Crusader -

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?

Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?

When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.

I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.

 

[bripat9643]

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

Unsurprising that you would gravitate to a picture site rocks. Especially a site like skeptical science which is so profoundly bias that you are probably doing yourself irreprable inellectual damage by simply clicking on the link. If you would like to see actual peer reviewed papers demonstrating that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature, just ask. I have provided them before.

His pictures are from a children's fantasy book.

 

[bripat9643]

If there's NO greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

 

[Old Rocks]

If there's NO greenhouse effect then how could the earth have possibly been warmer than today 100 million years ago? A good 8-14c in some periods with tropical like conditions in the polar lats.

The sun was dimmer at this time as it was a cooler star. So the theory that all warming comes from our star is challenged.

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

Now PattyCake, look up the Wilsonian Cycles.

 

[skookerasbil]

....................still talking temperatures, snow and ice.

fAiL


But nobody cares about the science anymore!!!


Poll: Support slips for measures aimed at curbing global warming - USATODAY.com

 

[logical4u]

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube

Well, if all you "believers" would stop having children, stop using energy (or products made by energy) and hold all your bodily gases inside of yourselves, the planet would stabilize.

Forward! Lemmings

 

[Old Rocks]

Wonderful example of the epitomy of 'Conservative' intelligence.

 

[logical4u]

Wonderful example of the epitomy of 'Conservative' intelligence.

Forward!




Lemmings.

 

[bripat9643]

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

Now PattyCake, look up the Wilsonian Cycles.

How would that contradict what I posted?

 

[Saigon]

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

Actually Gondwana land extended into both polar regions. There are maps here:

Gondwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

Actually Gondwana land extended into both polar regions. There are maps here:

Gondwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact is most of the land was near the equator, not near the poles as it is now. Furthermore, currently, cold water circulates around Antartica shutting it off from warming currents from the equator. That makes it even colder than it might otherwise be. The arctic ocean is also shut off from warm currents from the South.

 

[wirebender]

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

And what is that based on rocks? Computer models, simulations, assumptions? It certainly isn't based on observations.

 

[IanC]

Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?

When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.

I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.

I found the original article. The Inconvenient Skeptic » The Integrity of Science. I misremebered Canadian funding but canadian research disclosure policy was part of the story.

I then googled Bona-Churchill ice core and found quite a few hits. Lonny Thompson (famous for not correcting blatant errors in Gore's AIT even though he was a consultant) did the cores in 2002, made a preliminary presentation in 2004, and the data has been supressed ever since. the website still says the data is 'in processing' 10 years later. the 18O levels show no recent warming even though Thompson said they showed unpresedented warming, there was no ash layer that they were looking for, and the lifespan of the glacier was shorter than they had hoped. all round total failure, good thing they didnt have to publish the results and give fodder to the skeptics.

oh, and BTW, Steve McIntyre predicted the whole fiasco once he noticed that the gang had shut up about the cores. the Hockey Team is so predictable in their churlish behaviour.

 

[IanC]

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

And what is that based on rocks? Computer models, simulations, assumptions? It certainly isn't based on observations.

good grief! you're an astrophysicist too? the H-R diagram of stellar lifecycles has been around a long time. but I guess once you've overturned classical radiative physics you needed a new topic to keep you busy

 

[Old Rocks]

The reason is that all the continents were grouped around the equator. There was no dry land at the North or South Pole where snow and ice could accumulate.

Actually Gondwana land extended into both polar regions. There are maps here:

Gondwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact is most of the land was near the equator, not near the poles as it is now. Furthermore, currently, cold water circulates around Antartica shutting it off from warming currents from the equator. That makes it even colder than it might otherwise be. The arctic ocean is also shut off from warm currents from the South.

PattyCake, you profound ignorance is a source of amusement. Do a little research on plate tectonics. And you might also check out prior glacial periods in geological history. Not that I expect you to do any of this, but it would increase your knowledge base a great deal should you choose to.

 

[Old Rocks]

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

And what is that based on rocks? Computer models, simulations, assumptions? It certainly isn't based on observations.

My, what an ignorant fuck you are proving yourself to be. The H-R Diagram is absolutely based on observations.

 

[wirebender]

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

And what is that based on rocks? Computer models, simulations, assumptions? It certainly isn't based on observations.

My, what an ignorant fuck you are proving yourself to be. The H-R Diagram is absolutely based on observations.

Really? Describe which stars anyone on earth ever saw evolve. Which probes have been sent to stars, decended through their depths and transmitted back data? For that matter which probe has actually landed on the surface of a star? And again, which stars did you say humans have observed evolving?

You operate on faith rocks and accept computer models as if they were actually observations and theories as if they were laws of nature.

 

[westwall]

[/SIZE]

HR Diagram and Stellar Evolution

And what is that based on rocks? Computer models, simulations, assumptions? It certainly isn't based on observations.

My, what an ignorant fuck you are proving yourself to be. The H-R Diagram is absolutely based on observations.

Really? My gosh but you are priceless!

From wiki so a simpleton such as yourself can understand it....


Although the two types of diagrams are similar, astronomers make a sharp distinction between the two. The reason for this distinction is that the exact transformation from one to the other is not trivial, and depends on the stellar-atmosphere model being used and its parameters (like composition and pressure, apart from temperature and luminosity). Also, one needs to know the distance to the observed objects and the degree of interstellar reddening.[citation needed] Empirical transformations between various color indices and effective temperature are available in literature.[2]


Hertzsprung

 

[IanC]

the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'd go with laughing in his face....It's more entertaining.

Wake me when we get to real greenhouse levels of 1400ppm I'm sure the biome will be going berzerk with it's good fortune sequestering the CO2 into itself.