What happens if this turns out to be a natural pattern?

[Dr Grump]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

It won't...

Care to bet on that!

Yep...

 

[Koios]

lol. Sorry. We are not the reason for the Earth the way it is. Our percentage of damage is pretty low

The question is (and was) are we affecting the climate in a significant way, vis a vis an historic and unnatural rise in greenhouse gasses due to man-made effects?

Science says, "yes."

Petroleum industry-funded pseudoscience says, "no/maybe/yes, but no biggie." Bingo! There's debate, and thus a reasonable basis for doubt. The morons will buy-in reflexively, since well, that Al Gore guy was and is a Dem. Conservative Southern Dem, but no matter. We''ll call him a leftist loon, and the functional retards will be all over it.

What the hell, I think I'll go with science. You?

Significantly? I dont think so. I believe that came from scientists. Seems to me it is getting debunked more and more all the time

Yes. As in having an impact, which will cost way more than efforts to mitigate, and give Mama Earth a chance to heal herself.

Believe what you wish. I'll believe if your scientist is credible and peer reviewed. Win me over.

 

[Dr Grump]

lol. Sorry. We are not the reason for the Earth the way it is. Our percentage of damage is pretty low

The question is (and was) are we affecting the climate in a significant way, vis a vis an historic and unnatural rise in greenhouse gasses due to man-made effects?

Science says, "yes."

Petroleum industry-funded pseudoscience says, "no/maybe/yes, but no biggie." Bingo! There's debate, and thus a reasonable basis for doubt. The morons will buy-in reflexively, since well, that Al Gore guy was and is a Dem. Conservative Southern Dem, but no matter. We''ll call him a leftist loon, and the functional retards will be all over it.

What the hell, I think I'll go with science. You?

Significantly? I dont think so. I believe that came from scientists. Seems to me it is getting debunked more and more all the time

The naysayers are shouting more....
The science has stayed the same...
Those doing the debunking are either in the hands of the polluters, or just have an opinion. They have no hard data to back up their POV...

 

[Dr Grump]

lol. Sorry. We are not the reason for the Earth the way it is. Our percentage of damage is pretty low

The question is (and was) are we affecting the climate in a significant way, vis a vis an historic and unnatural rise in greenhouse gasses due to man-made effects?

Science says, "yes."

Petroleum industry-funded pseudoscience says, "no/maybe/yes, but no biggie." Bingo! There's debate, and thus a reasonable basis for doubt. The morons will buy-in reflexively, since well, that Al Gore guy was and is a Dem. Conservative Southern Dem, but no matter. We''ll call him a leftist loon, and the functional retards will be all over it.

What the hell, I think I'll go with science. You?

No, "science" does not say "yes". There has not been a single empirical test that has ever proven a single one of the computer models correct. Your belief system is based entirely on computer models and the press releases of the climatologists who release them to the compliant media.

Every time one of the assertions has been tested in the real world it has failed. Every, single, time.

That's quite a track record.

Oh Pahleeze...Give us an example. And please peer reviewed, not some loon website, or somebody with an agenda. Cold, hard facts please...

 

[Sallow]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

 

[Dr Grump]

A simple experiment..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TNHarley]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

You don't think its possible it is doing that because it is getting ready for another "cycle"?

 

[Dr Grump]

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

You don't think its possible it is doing that because it is getting ready for another "cycle"?

Scientists know about the cycles. They even believe in them. However, this 'cycle' is occurring much faster and way ahead of time compared to others....

 

[westwall]

The question is (and was) are we affecting the climate in a significant way, vis a vis an historic and unnatural rise in greenhouse gasses due to man-made effects?

Science says, "yes."

Petroleum industry-funded pseudoscience says, "no/maybe/yes, but no biggie." Bingo! There's debate, and thus a reasonable basis for doubt. The morons will buy-in reflexively, since well, that Al Gore guy was and is a Dem. Conservative Southern Dem, but no matter. We''ll call him a leftist loon, and the functional retards will be all over it.

What the hell, I think I'll go with science. You?

No, "science" does not say "yes". There has not been a single empirical test that has ever proven a single one of the computer models correct. Your belief system is based entirely on computer models and the press releases of the climatologists who release them to the compliant media.

Every time one of the assertions has been tested in the real world it has failed. Every, single, time.

That's quite a track record.

Oh Pahleeze...Give us an example. And please peer reviewed, not some loon website, or somebody with an agenda. Cold, hard facts please...

No problem.....Here's one that deals with Kevin Trenberths "missing Heat" conundrum where he tried to alter the laws of physics to have an unknown 'heat reservoir' (my quotes)
hidden within the depths of the cold, cold ocean to explain his missing heat that should be warming the ocean.



"The efficiency with which the oceans take up heat has a significant influence on the rate of global warming. Warming of the ocean above 700 m over the past few decades has been well documented. However, most of the ocean lies below 700 m. Here we analyse observations of heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. We find that the extratropical North Atlantic as a whole warmed by 1.45±0.5×1022 J between 1955 and 2005, but Lower North Atlantic Deep Water cooled, most likely as an adjustment from an early twentieth-century warm period. In contrast, the heat content of Upper North Atlantic Deep Water exhibited strong decadal variability. We demonstrate and quantify the importance of density-compensated temperature anomalies for long-term heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. These anomalies form in the subpolar gyre and propagate equatorwards. High salinity in the subpolar gyre is a key requirement for this mechanism. In the past 50 years, suitable conditions have occurred only twice: first during the 1960s and again during the past decade. We conclude that heat uptake through density-compensated temperature anomalies will contribute to deep ocean heat uptake in the near term. In the longer term, the importance of this mechanism will be determined by competition between the multiple processes that influence subpolar gyre salinity in a changing climate."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1639.html#/supplementary-information

 

[Sallow]

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

You don't think its possible it is doing that because it is getting ready for another "cycle"?

No.

We've probably set the course already for some pretty dramatic climate which cannot be altered.

Best thing to do now is figure out how to manage it.

It's going to cost big..and ultimately will be futile..since eventually it's going to wind up destroying the biosphere..or what the biosphere resembles today.

 

[westwall]

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

You don't think its possible it is doing that because it is getting ready for another "cycle"?

Scientists know about the cycles. They even believe in them. However, this 'cycle' is occurring much faster and way ahead of time compared to others....

No, actually it's not...and according to the UK's Met Office, a notorious warmer group I might add, there has been no warming for the last 16 years. Below is the first release you can find the second that was more detailed.



The upper 700 metres of the global ocean has seen a rise in temperature since reliable records began in the late 1960s. However, there has been a pause in this warming during the period from 2003 to 2010. The papers published this week offer explanations for this.

Pause in upper ocean warming explained - Met Office

 

[TNHarley]

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

 

[westwall]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

Not true Sallow. Sandy wasn't even a Cat 1 hurricane when she came ashore. In fact it is the longest time in our history that a major hurricane has hit the US. If you want to look at bad weather check 1926, Florida was hit by 3 different hurricanes in a period of weeks...alll when the CO2 levels were far, far below what they are today. Or how about 1935 when a hurricane killed hundreds in teh Miami area...once again when CO2 levels were low.

Sandy was a large storm and powerful, but she became the killer she was because she combined with a cold front coming from the north. The last time that happened was in the '90's.

Far different than once every year.

 

[idb]

No, "science" does not say "yes". There has not been a single empirical test that has ever proven a single one of the computer models correct. Your belief system is based entirely on computer models and the press releases of the climatologists who release them to the compliant media.

Every time one of the assertions has been tested in the real world it has failed. Every, single, time.

That's quite a track record.

Oh Pahleeze...Give us an example. And please peer reviewed, not some loon website, or somebody with an agenda. Cold, hard facts please...

No problem.....Here's one that deals with Kevin Trenberths "missing Heat" conundrum where he tried to alter the laws of physics to have an unknown 'heat reservoir' (my quotes)
hidden within the depths of the cold, cold ocean to explain his missing heat that should be warming the ocean.



"The efficiency with which the oceans take up heat has a significant influence on the rate of global warming. Warming of the ocean above 700 m over the past few decades has been well documented. However, most of the ocean lies below 700 m. Here we analyse observations of heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. We find that the extratropical North Atlantic as a whole warmed by 1.45±0.5×1022 J between 1955 and 2005, but Lower North Atlantic Deep Water cooled, most likely as an adjustment from an early twentieth-century warm period. In contrast, the heat content of Upper North Atlantic Deep Water exhibited strong decadal variability. We demonstrate and quantify the importance of density-compensated temperature anomalies for long-term heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. These anomalies form in the subpolar gyre and propagate equatorwards. High salinity in the subpolar gyre is a key requirement for this mechanism. In the past 50 years, suitable conditions have occurred only twice: first during the 1960s and again during the past decade. We conclude that heat uptake through density-compensated temperature anomalies will contribute to deep ocean heat uptake in the near term. In the longer term, the importance of this mechanism will be determined by competition between the multiple processes that influence subpolar gyre salinity in a changing climate."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1639.html#/supplementary-information

Do you have anything older than a month that might have had a chance to be critiqued by other experts?

 

[Koios]

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

Also, women got the vote. And damnit, Pluto is no longer a planet, albeit still a lovable cartoon character.

Now then, what's what either you or I said tell us about global warming / climate change?

 

[westwall]

Oh Pahleeze...Give us an example. And please peer reviewed, not some loon website, or somebody with an agenda. Cold, hard facts please...

No problem.....Here's one that deals with Kevin Trenberths "missing Heat" conundrum where he tried to alter the laws of physics to have an unknown 'heat reservoir' (my quotes)
hidden within the depths of the cold, cold ocean to explain his missing heat that should be warming the ocean.



"The efficiency with which the oceans take up heat has a significant influence on the rate of global warming. Warming of the ocean above 700 m over the past few decades has been well documented. However, most of the ocean lies below 700 m. Here we analyse observations of heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. We find that the extratropical North Atlantic as a whole warmed by 1.45±0.5×1022 J between 1955 and 2005, but Lower North Atlantic Deep Water cooled, most likely as an adjustment from an early twentieth-century warm period. In contrast, the heat content of Upper North Atlantic Deep Water exhibited strong decadal variability. We demonstrate and quantify the importance of density-compensated temperature anomalies for long-term heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. These anomalies form in the subpolar gyre and propagate equatorwards. High salinity in the subpolar gyre is a key requirement for this mechanism. In the past 50 years, suitable conditions have occurred only twice: first during the 1960s and again during the past decade. We conclude that heat uptake through density-compensated temperature anomalies will contribute to deep ocean heat uptake in the near term. In the longer term, the importance of this mechanism will be determined by competition between the multiple processes that influence subpolar gyre salinity in a changing climate."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1639.html#/supplementary-information

Do you have anything older than a month that might have had a chance to be critiqued by other experts?

Why? The Greig et all paper was demolished in a few hours. That's how it tends to work.
If it passes peer review that usually means it is pretty solid. Of course that didn't work to well for Greig and company because they used pal review which was found to be lacking.

So far this paper has held up very well. Of course they didn't resort to pal review either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

What will you say if the ice cap is gone, the sea has risen a dozen meters and a billion people have been displaced? I suspect I know what you would say, "fuck those people, close our borders and put another polar bear steak on the grill".

The North Pole has been ice free before, most recently during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago. It may have been during the MWP, we simply don't know for certain. Here is the sea ice extent today and here is a photo of the three subs in open water at the North Pole back in 1987. You would have a pretty difficult time doing that today.

In other words....it's normal and is nothing to get all worked up about....no matter what your science and history denying religious leaders tell you.

I'm sure your certainty comforts you, it does not comfort me. Cause and the effect 8,000 years ago may have some relevence to the cause and effect at work today, however, there are too many variables for any one cause to fully explain the changing climate of our time.

We know we have an impact on the environment, there are too many examples for that to be in dispute. A classic example of several factors at work explains the killer fog of London in 1952. See:

Dec. 9, 1952: 'Killer Fog' smothers up to 12,000 Londoners - StormWatch 7 | WJLA.com

FYI: Countries where Leaded Petrol is Possibly Still Sold for Road Use, As at 10th May 2010

 

[westwall]

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

Also, women got the vote. And damnit, Pluto is no longer a planet, albeit still a lovable cartoon character.

Now then, what's what either you or I said tell us about global warming / climate change?

Unlike your non sequiters, his comments directly relate to climate change, as he showed quite correctly that climate change is cyclical and natural.

 

[westwall]

What will you say if the ice cap is gone, the sea has risen a dozen meters and a billion people have been displaced? I suspect I know what you would say, "fuck those people, close our borders and put another polar bear steak on the grill".

The North Pole has been ice free before, most recently during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago. It may have been during the MWP, we simply don't know for certain. Here is the sea ice extent today and here is a photo of the three subs in open water at the North Pole back in 1987. You would have a pretty difficult time doing that today.

In other words....it's normal and is nothing to get all worked up about....no matter what your science and history denying religious leaders tell you.

I'm sure your certainty comforts you, it does not comfort me. Cause and the effect 8,000 years ago may have some relevence to the cause and effect at work today, however, there are too many variables for any one cause to fully explain the changing climate of our time.

We know we have an impact on the environment, there are too many examples for that to be in dispute. A classic example of several factors at work explains the killer fog of London in 1952. See:

Dec. 9, 1952: 'Killer Fog' smothers up to 12,000 Londoners - StormWatch 7 | WJLA.com

Cause and effect of 8,000 years ago is the same as that today. the Laws of Physics (which ultimately drive everything) don't change within the confines of this universe.

Man certainly has the ability to affect LOCAL conditions. Your link is an example of a LOCAL effect. The problem is it doesn't scale up to the levels you think it does. the Earth is an engine far greater than we are. Think of man as rust. Rust will be all over an engine and yet it continues to work just fine. I have an old engine that is 95 years old and has been outside for the majority of that time and it is still plugging along just fine.

It looks like hell but it keeps on keepin on.

 

[Koios]

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

Also, women got the vote. And damnit, Pluto is no longer a planet, albeit still a lovable cartoon character.

Now then, what's what either you or I said tell us about global warming / climate change?

Unlike your non sequiters, his comments directly relate to climate change, as he showed quite correctly that climate change is cyclical and natural.

Cool. Direct in what way?