Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Conservative, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,172
    Thanks Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,192
    More Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops for the k00ks

    Shit......it gets better every day. I swear to God.......every day the green k00ks are getting kicked in the balls.

    Since Climategate, the escalator has been steadily down..........EPA kicked in the balls........stimulus green company fail kick in the balls..........Gore is now a nobody kick in the balls.........Cap and Trade death kick in the balls............zero climate regulation in two years kick in the balls ( oh....except for light bulbs:lol:)........expansion of ice sheets kick in the balls.........hockey stick graph debunk kick in the balls.........Nobel Prize scientists debounks myth of "consenus" kick in the balls........UN admitting going green will cost 71 trillion kick in the balls........John Kerry saying in 2010 that talk of global warming on capitol hill is "radioactive" kick in the balls..........


    Oh.........but the deniers are losing!!!!:fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu:
     
  3. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,665
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,149
    Believe it or not I agree with this guy...People SHOULD question global warming as that's what we do within science. If you can disprove it, GOOD LUCK, but it has been done with many theories throughout history. The question right now is why it's not warming as fast? Well, I believe Aerosols and a low solar cycle is causing the negative forcing that is slowing any warming...Something that Hansen will agree with...Who's to say that's wrong? If you think it's wrong it must be proven with solid science! Not to do so would be unscientific.

    .8c may or may not be a big deal when you consider that in 1680--- we were 1.4c colder then today and human life survived. Humanity has survived through -6c colder then today through 100 thousand years of ice age...Yes, area's where we grow our food and build our homes, and lifes will change, but humanity will live on.

    There is NO question that we got a lot to learn...We got to learn a hell of a lot about the negative forcers within the system...That is for damn sure.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  4. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,665
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,149
    I hate the political side of it and don't support any regulations at all, but the ice sheets have trended downwards on the means through the past 5 years. Do you understand what a anomaly is? 2007 was one. The volume is down millions of km^2 since 2007 and you think they're recovering...Man the nuclear bomb, man the fucking bomb!!! :eusa_whistle:

    The hockey stick has been supported by over half a dozen papers since 1998. Tree rings, boer holes, ocean sediment. ect. The closes thing your side has is something that was made in the early 1990's that is based off of the northern Hemisphere. Well, I will say that it's possible that a large part of the world was warmer then today within the mid evil at times, but basing something out of a few places that made it possible for wine or farming on earth to go against all these data points may not be the best way to go about it...Wouldn't you agree?:eusa_pray: Consensus don't mean shit within science; one scientist can kick it straight in its balls either way!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    How does Ljungqvist's reconstruction compare to others?

    "Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

    "Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

    The green line ended in 1980, which is .4c below today.
    This takes the decade of the 2000's about .1c to .2c above the midevil.

    THIS IS NOT A GODDAMN POLITICAL ISSUE, but one of science!
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  5. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    Due to the abrupt and deep drop of temperaturtes during the Little Ice Age, the rise of temperature during the last 150 or so years is about the same as the rise in temperature over the last 2000 years.

    A physicist, I assume, would discount the accuracy of proxy temperature calcualtions and so, I again assume, he would rely on the insturment record only.

    The folks who claim to know about this stuff also say that the temperature has a net DROP of about 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

    The temperature inside my house varies more during any winter night than the planet has in 2000 years. To me, that sounds like astonishing stability.
     
  6. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    I'm always uncomfortable with using the instrument record in conjunction with the proxy record. The implication is that the instrumentally measured temps of today are no different than the proxy measured temps of the pre-instrument past.

    The instrument record is probably more accurate, but the proxy records reveal not just the results but the methodology. Changing the methodology completely will have to change the results entirely also.

    To compare apples to apples, current temperatures in this continuum need to be measured using the same methodologies as were used in the past. If the methodology is changed, the ethics of showing the current temperatures measured by instruments on the same chart as the proxies is called into question.
     
  7. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,665
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,149
    I'd love to see the proxies extended to today to compare them outright, but tree rings appear to have a "unnatural" problem, which throws them off. I think we could extend it to today using everything else like boer holes, sediment, ect.

    I wish they would do this...

    The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.
    The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic.
    The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.
    Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm

    The thing is every other method doesn't agree with it, so it is something that has changed over the past 50 years,,,Possibly related to warming we're seeing now.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  8. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,172
    Thanks Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,192

    Thats EXACTLY why I love this forum so much..........the politics is EVERYTHING with all this global warming BS. With the exception of Old Rocks, these other k00ks have no clue. The politics are inextricably tied to the science, like it or not. Up until 2007 or so, they were winning big. Now??????????

    Assholes have pushed themselves over the cliff...............:2up:
     
  9. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,665
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,149

    Not all of us are assholes that went to take your wealth away from you and use the system to inslave humanity under our fist. I'm sure some that believe in global warming sure as hell do...I understand why you're against it, but you can't seriously think that science isn't something that should be looked at with a critical eye at least. I find the science extremely interesting and it's a huge part of humanities knowledge and betterment. For without it we wouldn't have anything besides are fist and maybe a tree to craw up at night.

    Not all the data and physical understanding within science is something to look down at. I ask you to learn the basics and learn to think within the science; instead of just straight up downing it. Your smart enough to do it!!! I have faith in you:eusa_angel:
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,310
    Really dumb statements, Code. A physicist would compare the known proxies with an instrumentally measured period, and see if they match. If they do, there is a good chance that the periods when there were no instruments is accurately reflected in the proxies.

    What you are trying to do is throw out all the evidence prior to our instrumental records, leaving us with only a few areas covered for more than 200 years. You are doing that because the proxy record says you deniars are full of shit.
     

Share This Page