TWO more Global Warming issues

[Treeshepherd]

You say that as if it were a fact.

If you think this ice age cycle would have been completely different from all the preceding ice age cycles, please give us your reasoning.
.

My reasoning;

A) Not all interglacial periods look alike.
The last interglacial period (Eemian) only lasted 15,000 years. The one before that (Holstein) was much longer, spanning 50,000 years.
Timeline of glaciation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Also, the Holstein was a double-bumper. Actually, you could argue that there were three massive temperature spikes during the Holstein. It all depends on which graph you're looking at because they all differ, leading me to my 2nd line of reasoning...

B) We don't know exactly what occurred before the era of modern instrumentation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even the Pentagon has joined the party. In their budget request for fiscal year 2015, they requested money to combat the destabilizing political effects of climate change

Of course you can't believe anything beyond your biases
but the Pentagon is correct on the request.....rather than building nuclear submarines to fight the Taliban in the caves of Pakistan, their budget should concentrate on issues such as this:

Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/s...to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

Obviously there were never any droughts in the Middle East before.
I blame myself.
Perhaps the Pentagon should send bottled water to Syria, to ease the tension?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Forums such as these are NOT the place to "fix" stupidity....You right wingers are guided by your biases and dumb political convictions...a-la, "if a democrat stated something...we obviously HAVE to be AGAINST it..."

So, carry on and deny if droughts contributed to the Syrian civil war....or if the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from sub-Sahara Africa are flooding Europe....or if the California drought will raise the price of your vegetables......after all, you ARE right wingers, and facts mean nothing as long as you're left alone to play with your guns and bibles.

a-la, "if a democrat stated something...we obviously HAVE to be AGAINST it..."

That's not true at all. If the debate was over a theoretical particle or the size/age of the Universe, the discusiion wouldn't get so heated, probably.
If the discussion was, "Isn't it interesting, the planet is warming/cooling/staying the same", not so heated.
When it becomes, "The planet is heating and we need to spend trillions and completely reorganize our economy", that's a much more contentious discussion.
That's why I bring up nuclear power. If liberals were serious about the threat of CO2 and didn't want to damage our economy, they'd be the biggest supporters of nuclear. But they aren't.
Because they're being dishonest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Forums such as these are NOT the place to "fix" stupidity....You right wingers are guided by your biases and dumb political convictions...a-la, "if a democrat stated something...we obviously HAVE to be AGAINST it..."

So, carry on and deny if droughts contributed to the Syrian civil war....or if the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from sub-Sahara Africa are flooding Europe....or if the California drought will raise the price of your vegetables......after all, you ARE right wingers, and facts mean nothing as long as you're left alone to play with your guns and bibles.

a-la, "if a democrat stated something...we obviously HAVE to be AGAINST it..."

That's not true at all. If the debate was over a theoretical particle or the size/age of the Universe, the discusiion wouldn't get so heated, probably.
If the discussion was, "Isn't it interesting, the planet is warming/cooling/staying the same", not so heated.
When it becomes, "The planet is heating and we need to spend trillions and completely reorganize our economy", that's a much more contentious discussion.
That's why I bring up nuclear power. If liberals were serious about the threat of CO2 and didn't want to damage our economy, they'd be the biggest supporters of nuclear. But they aren't.
Because they're being dishonest.

AGW zealots are as watermelons:
Green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Even the Pentagon has joined the party. In their budget request for fiscal year 2015, they requested money to combat the destabilizing political effects of climate change

Of course you can't believe anything beyond your biases
but the Pentagon is correct on the request.....rather than building nuclear submarines to fight the Taliban in the caves of Pakistan, their budget should concentrate on issues such as this:

Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/s...to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

Obviously there were never any droughts in the Middle East before.
I blame myself.
Perhaps the Pentagon should send bottled water to Syria, to ease the tension?

While warm weather as a result of any number of drivers of climate can exacerbate drought conditions, CO2 does not lead to droughts.

Syria and Iraq are slowly being shut off by Turkey as they build dams on the upper Tigris and Euphrates. Turkey is capturing the water before it flows south. That's the main factor that's totally ignored by your study.

Droughts are most often caused by ocean oscillations and their resulting wind patterns. Here in California, we've got a high pressure shield offshore that deflects everything north. NOAA says that it has nothing to do with warming. A guy at Stanford says it does have to do with warming. I have no bias. I just know that California has a convincing paleoclimatological record of mega-droughts that would make our present one look like nothing.
California drought Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years scientists say - San Jose Mercury News
If you're a climate scientist and you link something to climate change, you get noticed in the world of climate science. If you're a geologist and you dig around and make a convincing theory about droughts of the ancient world, you get noticed by your peers.

In the Middle East, droughts and famines have been documented going back to ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Bible.

A 200-year-long drought 4,200 years ago may have killed off the ancient Sumerian language, one geologist says.

Because no written accounts explicitly mention drought as the reason for the Sumerian demise, the conclusions rely on indirect clues. But several pieces of archaeological and geological evidence tie the gradual decline of the Sumerian civilization to a drought.

The findings, which were presented Monday (Dec. 3) here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, show how vulnerable human society may be to climate change, including human-caused change.
"This was not a single summer or winter, this was 200 to 300 years of drought," said Matt Konfirst, a geologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.

Drought May Have Killed Sumerian Language

Funny, in the Sumerian study they just had to throw in a little AGW, even though the event occurred 4,200 years ago.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You clearly miss the point.

No, we're well aware all deniers deliberately ignore any data that contradicts their religious teachings. That's why they're called deniers.

Natural variations in average temperature are commonplace; the vast swings in this average and the fact that the average temperature over the last several thousand years were higher than now indicates that any conclusion that industiral-age man is responsible for any claimed temperature increase over the lat 150 years is, well, specious at best.

The global temperature has been slowly cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have slowly cooled for at least the next 20,000 years. That's the natural cycle. Instead, the earth suddenly started warming, in direct opposition to the natural cycles.

On top of that, we directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation. There are no natural explanations for that directly measured data, hence it is considered a smoking gun for global warming theory. Human-caused global warming theory is the only theory that explains all of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory. If you have a different theory that explains all of the observed data, present it. You'll be the first to do so, and will be able to collect your Nobel prize.

But, mindless zealots like you -- your blind faith will not be shaken.

This is where you now find excuses to discard the data. You have to, otherwise you'll be tossed out of your herd, and the thought of that fills you with horror.

The global temperature has been slowly cooling for the past 5,000 years, and would have slowly cooled for at least the next 20,000 years. That's the natural cycle. Instead, the earth suddenly started warming, in direct opposition to the natural cycles.
Excellent! Ice ages really suck.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's an oil spill off the coast of California right now.

But, don't "fret" YOUR party will still push for the Keystone XL Pipeline....because some republicans have assured you that its totally safe......that is, until it isn't.

Safer than oil trains.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For right wingers to deny what a whopping 97% of the scientific community is stating...and opt, instead, to firmly believe the remaining 3%......is an indication that [perhaps] they'll wait until FOX tells them that we may indeed have a problem that we must begin to mitigate. Maybe then....

97% is really bad math.

 

[mamooth]

Excellent! Ice ages really suck.

An intelligent person would say it's a genocidally stupid idea to roast the earth now to prevent an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like saying you'll be running your house's furnace full blast starting in July, because winter is coming.

And yet deniers think it's a bright idea. Go fig.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! Ice ages really suck.

An intelligent person would say it's a genocidally stupid idea to roast the earth now to prevent an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like saying you'll be running your house's furnace full blast starting in July, because winter is coming.

And yet deniers think it's a bright idea. Go fig.

Warmer is better than colder. Roast the Earth? LOL!

 

[nat4900]

encourage you to investigate the methods of John Cook's survey which led to this 97% figure.

Well, I haven't relied on Cook's survey.....My more objective source is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..which is a UN sponsored panel.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Well, I haven't relied on Cook's survey.....My more objective source is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..which is a UN sponsored panel.

Cook's survey is the source of the 97% 'consensus' figure.

 

[nat4900]

That's why I bring up nuclear power. If liberals were serious about the threat of CO2 and didn't want to damage our economy, they'd be the biggest supporters of nuclear. But they aren't.
Because they're being dishonest.

B.S. Until...UNTIL you can figure out how to dispose or adequately store the poisons that are left behind from nuclear plants.....AND...until nuclear plants are truly secured from terrorist wackos.....nuclear energy will always be suspect.

I was recently involved in some failed negotiations from the Feds who.....looking to dump the toxic waste from nuclear plants, were offering billions to Indian tribes to please take it.

 

[nat4900]

Safer than oil trains.

For all you nitwits that echo what Fox tells you to echo....

Trains that carry oil DO derail more often BUT the spillage from pipelines cause more than 3 times the damage to the environment from spillages.

 

[nat4900]

Cook's survey is the source of the 97% 'consensus' figure.

Cook's survey is NOT the only source of the figure ....
Look believe what your biases tell you to believe, I really don't give a crap.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even the Pentagon has joined the party. In their budget request for fiscal year 2015, they requested money to combat the destabilizing political effects of climate change

Of course you can't believe anything beyond your biases
but the Pentagon is correct on the request.....rather than building nuclear submarines to fight the Taliban in the caves of Pakistan, their budget should concentrate on issues such as this:

Researchers Link Syrian Conflict to a Drought Made Worse by Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/s...to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

You bought the lie... Hook, line and sinker... Obama's staff used a paper which does not support his fantasy (if you had taken the time to read and evaluate it).

Obama read the lie that was put in front of him and the commie little bastards who are trying to get us to give up our rights to ourselves, our property and our income are using this to to do exactly that.

You have no facts. The link does not exist.

I am in awe at the stupidity that some of these left wing morons believe..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Safer than oil trains.

For all you nitwits that echo what Fox tells you to echo....

Trains that carry oil DO derail more often BUT the spillage from pipelines cause more than 3 times the damage to the environment from spillages.

Please present the facts to support your supposition..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Forums such as these are NOT the place to "fix" stupidity....You right wingers are guided by your biases and dumb political convictions...a-la, "if a democrat stated something...we obviously HAVE to be AGAINST it..."

So, carry on and deny if droughts contributed to the Syrian civil war....or if the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from sub-Sahara Africa are flooding Europe....or if the California drought will raise the price of your vegetables......after all, you ARE right wingers, and facts mean nothing as long as you're left alone to play with your guns and bibles.

Had you read the actual paper you would know that the drought conditions were normal and due to the ADO and PDO changes not CO2 or man made anything...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyway, the planet has been warming for 400 years.

Not really. In any case, the recent warming is much bigger and faster than what happened after the little ice age.

Quoting Mann Et Al again... The current rise is not unusual or out of the normal fluctuations of the earth..

Why dont you post your source and the break points on Mann's graph showing the different duration of plots and where the trees are..