The science against climate change

[Saigon]

Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?

Any thought?

This thread is intended for people like yourself to present the science which you believe best undermines climate change, or which presents alternative theories.

Present a case on glaciers, and I will respond to it.

My own thinking is along the lines of Milankovitch's theory of changes in the worlds tilt. This seems to be widely accepted by experts in the field, but I'll look at anything sensible you present which puts forward a counter case.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

If you wish to present a case that climate change is caused by solar radiation or sunpots - by all means go ahead.

If you wish to have a go at making a point based on Old Rock's material - feel free to do so.

The point is that you're ignoring variables based on the "just because we say so" method.

If AGW were anything resembling science, you'd be able to show us experiment that control for a wisp of additional CO2, but you never do that

You link to local weather event and say, "See that?! Manmade Global Warming"

That's not science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?

Any thought?

This thread is intended for people like yourself to present the science which you believe best undermines climate change, or which presents alternative theories.

Present a case on glaciers, and I will respond to it.

My own thinking is along the lines of Milankovitch's theory of changes in the worlds tilt. This seems to be widely accepted by experts in the field, but I'll look at anything sensible you present which puts forward a counter case.

So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

No, you did not. The satellite observations and the ground weather station observations match. Muller's study settled this issue once and for all.

 

[Saigon]

So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?

No, I don't see anyone saying that, or anything remotely like that.

Milankovitch described a cycle. To put this in simple terms, it's a bit like saying that we expect it to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer. When it is cooler in winter - that matches the cycle as we understand it. When it is warmer in winter - it does not match the cycle.

I'd happily explain this in more detail, but I don't believe you will front up for any real discussion.

That's not science

It also is not what anyone is saying. Not by a million miles.



I don't get the point of all of these strawmen and deflections at all. You spend a fair amount of time on these climate threads - why not actually discuss the issue sensibly and honsetly?

 

[westwall]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

AGW cultists don't want discussion. They just want to talk AT you.

 

[westwall]

So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?

No, I don't see anyone saying that, or anything remotely like that.

Milankovitch described a cycle. To put this in simple terms, it's a bit like saying that we expect it to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer. When it is cooler in winter - that matches the cycle as we understand it. When it is warmer in winter - it does not match the cycle.

I'd happily explain this in more detail, but I don't believe you will front up for any real discussion.

That's not science

It also is not what anyone is saying. Not by a million miles.



I don't get the point of all of these strawmen and deflections at all. You spend a fair amount of time on these climate threads - why not actually discuss the issue sensibly and honsetly?

Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?

No, I don't see anyone saying that, or anything remotely like that.

Milankovitch described a cycle. To put this in simple terms, it's a bit like saying that we expect it to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer. When it is cooler in winter - that matches the cycle as we understand it. When it is warmer in winter - it does not match the cycle.

I'd happily explain this in more detail, but I don't believe you will front up for any real discussion.

That's not science

It also is not what anyone is saying. Not by a million miles.

I don't get the point of all of these strawmen and deflections at all. You spend a fair amount of time on these climate threads - why not actually discuss the issue sensibly and honsetly?

A very short while ago the entire northern US and Canada were under a sheet of ice, that ice melted and those areas are now ice free. That process apparently was not started by anyone burning "Fossil fuels"

The ice continue to melt up in the northern hemisphere and now suddenly, this melting is due solely to burning "fossil fuels"

Your "theory" (Exactly what is this "theory" can you state it?) doesn't make a lick of sense and “If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true.” ― Judy Sheindlin

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

No, you did not. The satellite observations and the ground weather station observations match. Muller's study settled this issue once and for all.

AGW the only "Science" that is "Settled once and for all"

LOL

Relativity does not enjoy the certainty of AGW

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we were warming enough for the entire Northern US and Canada to deglaciate relatively recently but for your "Theory" to make sense you'd have to assume that the deglaciation stopped (like yesterday) and then CO2 started it back up again.

Is that what you're saying?

No, I don't see anyone saying that, or anything remotely like that.

Milankovitch described a cycle. To put this in simple terms, it's a bit like saying that we expect it to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer. When it is cooler in winter - that matches the cycle as we understand it. When it is warmer in winter - it does not match the cycle.

I'd happily explain this in more detail, but I don't believe you will front up for any real discussion.

That's not science

It also is not what anyone is saying. Not by a million miles.



I don't get the point of all of these strawmen and deflections at all. You spend a fair amount of time on these climate threads - why not actually discuss the issue sensibly and honsetly?

Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.

lag? what lag? I've heard it explained away, the explanation is pretty funny

 

[rickeybj]

No loss of life should go without acknowledgement. But the comparison between lives lost under the Bush administration (including 9/11) and the current administration is like comparing an ocean to a creek.

 

[mamooth]

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.

You ignore that temperature and solar activity have been going the opposite way since 1980, thus conclusively disproving your "the sun did it!" theory.

Okay, you don't ignore it. You just wave your hands around and shout "It doesn't have to be linear!". That is, when increased solar activity raises temps, it supports your theory, and when decreasing solar activity raises temps, that supports your theory. Your theory is not disprovable, meaning it's pseudoscience. That's the opposite of how AGW theory works, since if temps started dropping over the long term, AGW theory would be disproved.

 

[mamooth]

Their models assign a zero value to the effect that Big Yellow Thing in the Sky might have on our climate

Being Frank is a gibbering cultist, he probably actually believes this. His cult masters have told him those silly eggheads at NASA have no common sense. Since Frank so badly wants to believe anything that helps him hate liberals, it's easy to get Frank to swallow even the most insane claims.

Now, back in the real world, the sun was the first thing everyone looked at, and which everyone continues to look at it closely.

 

[mamooth]

Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.

First explain why you think it needs to be explained.

All you've shown is you have a poor grasp of logic. Your logic here is that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. That's really bad logic. Since present conditions are not like past conditions, the present will not behave like the past.

 

[mamooth]

Saigon what caused the northern US and Canada to deglaciate these past 14,000 years?

Like we've been telling you, Milankovitch cycles. Orbital factors. And it's more like 11,000 years.

The cycle is a fast warmup to end the ice age, then a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The warmup ended 10,000 years ago. We're way into the cooldown phase now. That's what "natural cycles" say should be happening, a slow cooling, but instead we're warming strongly.

 

[daveman]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

No, you did not. The satellite observations and the ground weather station observations match. Muller's study settled this issue once and for all.

Oh, is that the one where they changed the data to fit the model? You know, exactly the way real scientists don't do it?

 

[daveman]

Dave -

If you want to have a go at the topic, by all means do so, and I promise to respond to it.

The topic here is scientific evidence or alternative theories to so-called "AGW".

You really are dishonest. You mentioned measuring stations -- I showed you there are problems with them.

You don't want discussion. You want agreement. Just admit it.

Saigon negged me for this post, calling me "liar".

He took the time to neg me, but still refuses to discuss the post in question.

So he's a liar AND a coward.

 

[westwall]

Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.

First explain why you think it needs to be explained.

All you've shown is you have a poor grasp of logic. Your logic here is that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. That's really bad logic. Since present conditions are not like past conditions, the present will not behave like the past.

Because it absolutely refutes your claim that CO2 causes temperature increases. That's kind of how science works. Not that you would understand that.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.