James Balog's Misleading Climate Change Lectures

[Smilodonfatalis]

James Balog?s Misleading Climate Change Lectures | GeorgiaBeforePeople

James Balog's time lapse photography of melting glaciers is misleading and alarmist.

 

[Kosh]

From the link supplied:

Scientists have no way of determining whether changes in recent climate are due to natural variability or man made influences. Any scientist who claims there is a way to discern this difference is a liar. To determine man made influences on worldwide climate would require a control earth where man never evolved. Scientists could then compare the climate of the control earth with that of the earth we live upon. But there is no control earth. Instead, scientists are dependent upon mathematical models that calculate natural forcing vs. anthropogenic influences– in other words…wild guessing.

 

[Abraham3]

Boy, you really got deep into that... first paragraph, there Kosh.

I don't understand Ms SmilodonFatalis. Are you supporting Balog or whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople or did you just throw this up for discussion's sake?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Boy, you really got deep into that... first paragraph, there Kosh.

I don't understand Ms SmilodonFatalis. Are you supporting Balog or whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople or did you just throw this up for discussion's sake?

First off, it's Mr. Smilodonfatalis.

Second, GeorgiaBeforePeople is my blog.

Third, Maybe you should read the link. Do you think accusing Balog of being alarmist and misleading is the equivalent of "supporting"?

 

[Abraham3]

Boy, you really got deep into that... first paragraph, there Kosh.

I don't understand Ms SmilodonFatalis. Are you supporting Balog or whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople or did you just throw this up for discussion's sake?

First off, it's Mr. Smilodonfatalis.

Second, GeorgiaBeforePeople is my blog.

Third, Maybe you should read the link. Do you think accusing Balog of being alarmist and misleading is the equivalent of "supporting"?

I did read the linked article. I see my original statement could easily be misinterpreted. I was attempting to offer three choices: 1) Supporting Balog 2) Supporting whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople (you, as we now know) or 3) Just throwing it up for discussion.

So, you think Balog is alarmist and misleading. Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979, when the rate of warming went up roughly tenfold to what had been the trend between coming out of the LIA (1600 and 1880) or that going in (1350-1600)??

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Boy, you really got deep into that... first paragraph, there Kosh.

I don't understand Ms SmilodonFatalis. Are you supporting Balog or whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople or did you just throw this up for discussion's sake?

First off, it's Mr. Smilodonfatalis.

Second, GeorgiaBeforePeople is my blog.

Third, Maybe you should read the link. Do you think accusing Balog of being alarmist and misleading is the equivalent of "supporting"?

I did read the linked article. I see my original statement could easily be misinterpreted. I was attempting to offer three choices: 1) Supporting Balog 2) Supporting whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople (you, as we now know) or 3) Just throwing it up for discussion.

So, you think Balog is alarmist and misleading. Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979, when the rate of warming went up roughly tenfold to what had been the trend between coming out of the LIA (1600 and 1880) or that going in (1350-1600)??

Natural forcing.

 

[SwimExpert]

Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979

What makes you think the entire episode was something from which a "rebound" was necessary? See, you take a very small thing on a very small scale, and put it under a microscope, blowing it up well beyond any reasonable point of reference. Your question is the equivalent of dropping a pencil in the middle of the night, noting that such event caused the Earth to move away from the sun, and then asking what caused the Earth's orbit to "rebound" instead of the planet launching out of orbit from the sun.

 

[Abraham3]

First off, it's Mr. Smilodonfatalis.

Second, GeorgiaBeforePeople is my blog.

Third, Maybe you should read the link. Do you think accusing Balog of being alarmist and misleading is the equivalent of "supporting"?

I did read the linked article. I see my original statement could easily be misinterpreted. I was attempting to offer three choices: 1) Supporting Balog 2) Supporting whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople (you, as we now know) or 3) Just throwing it up for discussion.

So, you think Balog is alarmist and misleading. Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979, when the rate of warming went up roughly tenfold to what had been the trend between coming out of the LIA (1600 and 1880) or that going in (1350-1600)??

Natural forcing.

What natural forcing?

 

[Abraham3]

Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979

What makes you think the entire episode was something from which a "rebound" was necessary? See, you take a very small thing on a very small scale, and put it under a microscope, blowing it up well beyond any reasonable point of reference. Your question is the equivalent of dropping a pencil in the middle of the night, noting that such event caused the Earth to move away from the sun, and then asking what caused the Earth's orbit to "rebound" instead of the planet launching out of orbit from the sun.

What makes you think that I think a rebound was necessary? I have already stated on this board, in multiple posts, that the Earth's climate is not elastic, that it has no inherent natural state, that it simply changes as the forces present drive it one way or another. However, it is a very common argument to hear from AGW deniers that the Earth is rebounding from the LIA. Why don't you talk to them about the error of their ways?

I was attempting to point out that the climate's behavior over the last 150 years - in particular it's rate of heating - hasn't acted like a natural rebound even were one called for.

 

[SwimExpert]

Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979

What makes you think that I think a rebound was necessary?

 

[Abraham3]

I can pull up the multiple posts in which I made the comments described. Do YOU have any evidence otherwise?

And why would a "warmer" hold to this nonsensical "rebound" position?

 

[Old Rocks]

First and foremost, the MWP was not warmer than the present. Global temperatues, as measured by proxies in ocean sediments worldwide, were up by about 0.2 C. Today the temps are up by about 0.8 C.

From the National Academy of Science;
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

 

[Old Rocks]

And another study from the same source;

Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises

 

[Kosh]

Boy, you really got deep into that... first paragraph, there Kosh.

I don't understand Ms SmilodonFatalis. Are you supporting Balog or whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople or did you just throw this up for discussion's sake?

Can you dispute the first paragraph with any facts or will we see the standard AGW propaganda?

 

[Kosh]

I did read the linked article. I see my original statement could easily be misinterpreted. I was attempting to offer three choices: 1) Supporting Balog 2) Supporting whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople (you, as we now know) or 3) Just throwing it up for discussion.

So, you think Balog is alarmist and misleading. Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979, when the rate of warming went up roughly tenfold to what had been the trend between coming out of the LIA (1600 and 1880) or that going in (1350-1600)??

Natural forcing.

What natural forcing?

As predicted the AGW propaganda trumps science.

 

[Kosh]

Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979

What makes you think the entire episode was something from which a "rebound" was necessary? See, you take a very small thing on a very small scale, and put it under a microscope, blowing it up well beyond any reasonable point of reference. Your question is the equivalent of dropping a pencil in the middle of the night, noting that such event caused the Earth to move away from the sun, and then asking what caused the Earth's orbit to "rebound" instead of the planet launching out of orbit from the sun.

What makes you think that I think a rebound was necessary? I have already stated on this board, in multiple posts, that the Earth's climate is not elastic, that it has no inherent natural state, that it simply changes as the forces present drive it one way or another. However, it is a very common argument to hear from AGW deniers that the Earth is rebounding from the LIA. Why don't you talk to them about the error of their ways?

I was attempting to point out that the climate's behavior over the last 150 years - in particular it's rate of heating - hasn't acted like a natural rebound even were one called for.

And the AGW propaganda continues....

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I did read the linked article. I see my original statement could easily be misinterpreted. I was attempting to offer three choices: 1) Supporting Balog 2) Supporting whoever writes GeorgiaBeforePeople (you, as we now know) or 3) Just throwing it up for discussion.

So, you think Balog is alarmist and misleading. Can I ask you what mechanism you believe pushed the climate to "rebound" from the LIA, particularly the 20th Century portion and even more particularly, that portion after 1979, when the rate of warming went up roughly tenfold to what had been the trend between coming out of the LIA (1600 and 1880) or that going in (1350-1600)??

Natural forcing.

What natural forcing?

Natural forcing is the orbital variations that cause the amount of solar radiation reaching earth to vary.

The consensus of climate scientists say that neither anthropogenic influences nor natural forcing alone can account for recent increases in earth's temperatures. They believe it is a combination of these 2 factors that is causing global warming.

As I stated in my article, I'm skeptical that scientists can discern the difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

First and foremost, the MWP was not warmer than the present. Global temperatues, as measured by proxies in ocean sediments worldwide, were up by about 0.2 C. Today the temps are up by about 0.8 C.

From the National Academy of Science;
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Bullshit.. Every year we get new Proxy studies demonstrating that the MWP was Warmer and Global.. We just did the 2013 Mid-Ocean Pacific sediment study that estimated waters there were 0.6degC warmer than today and REMAINED higher than today for quite a while..

The only thing left to claim is "RATES" of warming and the proxies wont ever answer that one..

When you gonna update your sources GoldiRocks??

 

[flacaltenn]

James Balog?s Misleading Climate Change Lectures | GeorgiaBeforePeople

James Balog's time lapse photography of melting glaciers is misleading and alarmist.

Funny thing about glaciers. Ice melts at 32degF. So they dont really respond to climate temperatures like a thermometer.

You noted that that the glaciers grew for 550 years until (presumably) the surface temperatures started to exceed 32degF for appreciable periods of time. It's the narrow window of days per year when this condition exists that causes glacial melting.

You SHOULD see something approximating a similiar melt rate for either 10 days/yr at 34degF or 100 days/yr at 32.2degF. Glaciers, like trees, make really lousy thermometers. Which is a major reason why I don't do ice..

 

[SwimExpert]

Ice melts at 32degF.

And only after absorbing an additional 80 joules per gram once it's reached that temperature.