An example of how much we don't know regarding this Planet...

[TakeAStepBack]

I have read extensively on this subject, obviously far more so than you as evidenced by what you post.

Reading the same source of 5 papers over and over doesn't make for "extensive" reading, fella.

You're welcome.

 

[Redfish]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

 

[Old Rocks]

Evolution is also now in doubt, what with the ascendency of Obabble to the presidency.

Oh my, how the 'Conservative' ass still hurts. Lost in 2008. Lost in 2012. Looked like complete idiots in the government shutdown and threatoned default. Even Wall Street told you to move your dumb asses, a get the government running again. Yes, evolution can move toward simpler forms, also. We see that in tapeworms and other parasites, such as 'Conservatives'.

You know Old Rocks... you are so cliched! You are so out of touch with the latest status of Obama!
I'm not surprised because ANY one using "OLD" to describe themselves immediately indicates to me how misinformed that person is.

If Obama was so good for our country as you obviously support, why are his poll numbers dropping to less then 40% approval?

And why are you such a liar. Yes, approval at a very low 43.5% at present. That is not below 40%.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

Lies.

 

[Vox]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Exactly

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

Links? Also, find me one Scientific Society that states that we have no influence on the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

Naw, that is your IQ

 

[TakeAStepBack]

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

Naw, that is your IQ

Actually, that is the correct consensus on AGW. True story.

That's why you have to make a half-witted comment. A full wit is above your caliber.

 

[Redfish]

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

cite?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

not true. your claim that ALL scientists agree that AGW is real is a blatant lie. The scientific community is roughly 50/50 on this and is swinging towards naturally occuring as more and more data is collected.

False. The correct consensus on AGW is .3%

cite?

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Science & Education
August 2013 Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

 

[earlycuyler]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

I have had an ice age in my pants since I left home.

 

[Plasmaball]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

Last person im going to listen to is an internet messageboard handle.

Go choke on Brat Pitt for as long as it takes, Sock.



peace...

Sock lol..you try so hard..

 

[DGS49]

The "greenhouse effect" is physics, not opinion, and atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with measurable and predictable consistency.

However, what is not known is how the increase in atmospheric CO2 will affect THE WEATHER in the future, and how it will impact weather-related conditions (e.g., sea levels, Arctic pack ice, etc). These are truly matters of scientific speculation upon which "experts" can and do disagree.

At the present moment, the scientific community is scrambling to ascertain (guess) why global temperatures have not risen in the past fifteen years, as their models predicted, and what this "pause" in "global warming" means for the future. Is it an anomaly that doesn't reflect the overall trend? Is it the result of a factor that had not been accounted for previously (i.e., oceans absorbing more heat than expected). Nobody knows right now.

But regardless of what on believes about the future effects of "climate change," there are global trends in technological modernization that guarantee that we will see SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES in anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future, to wit, China, India, and Germany (!) building coal-fired power plants in record numbers, with the likelihood that countries in Africa will soon follow suit. In the best possible scenario, maybe some of them will burn natural gas, but those plants WILL be build because the rest of the world wants air conditioning and other stuff that we in the U.S. and Western Europe take for granted.

So it makes no difference how many Americans trade their Ford Excursions for Toyota Prius's, or how many coal-fired power plants are replaced by natural gas (Nuke is off the table for the next 20 years, at least), atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so rapidly that what we do in the U.S. is irrelevant.

Which is NOT to say that we should ignore the basic mandate to use our natural, non-renewable resources wisely, but the Obama/Progressive campaign to impede industrial activity, and to lead us all to eventually being all organic subsistence farmers is stupid on its face.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring substance that people, animals, and things emit. Let's focus on the other nasty stuff that comes out of cars, industrial plants, and farms, and stop wasting our efforts on a stupid and pointless campaign to reduce CO2 emissions.

And by the way, never forget that "global warming," if and when it comes, will have significant human BENEFITS, that the Media are almost neurotically reluctant to mention. Here in Western Pennsylvania, we are having milder Springs and Falls (longer motorcycle riding seasons), longer growing seasons, lower Winter heating bills, less snow to remove, etc., etc., etc., In fact, when it comes to Global Warming, the people in my neck of the woods say, "Bring it ON!"

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.

If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

 

[westwall]

That's all you ever see or hear anymore. Watch NatGeo or the various science channels or virtually ANY science program on PBS and it is nothing but fear mongering. I was watching an episode of "How the Earth was Made" or something to that effect and the hosts were breathlessly talking about how Hawaii could possibly collapse and send a wall of water all the way to Los Angeles and wipe it out by gosh!

The level of bad science that was on display in that one show was astonishing. Sadly that level of drivel is now commonplace.

Amazing how ignorant you are for someone that claims a Phd in Geology.

http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/Teaching/Geos-2111GIS/Tsunami/PirajnoMine04-Fortescue.pdf

The three oldest tsunami events reported were triggered by asteroid impact and generated distinctive tsunami deposited sediments that have become components of the Australian geological record. The reason that these events are included is to illustrate that tsunami have impacted Australia for a very long time. The fourth event dated at 105 ka is thought to have been generated by submarine sediment slides off Lanai, Hawai'i (Young et al., 1992, 1993, 1996). The causes of the other six events are unknown.

Oh no, I'm very familiar with the "new catastrophism" that's being bandied about. They also are warning about the Azores collapsing and sending a "wall of water" to New York.
It is far more likely however, that any tsunami is going to be earthquake generated. Lituya Bay is the only known example of a huge wave generated by a landslide and the evidence there is obvious as hell.

The paper you referenced and the papers that they reference are mainly conjecture.

 

[westwall]

What is the primary measure that indicated "global warming"? Temperature reading stations.

I ask you OLD ROCKS you seem to be sourcing your material..

Check this link out The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to
12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit
How can any long term dependency on HISTORICAL comparisons of temperatures that leaves out 12% of the land mass and also have most of reading stations in
urban heat generating population centers?
Is this an appropriate basis to calculate rising global temperatures when these readings are NOT honest!

Fellow, I get my science from peer reviewed scientific journals, not blogs. And, just in case you have forgotten, much of our present information comes from satellites, which cover the whole of the earth.

Yeah, peer reviewed science that is destroyed in hours when it was finally exposed to public view. You might not want to hang your hat on that sort of thing olfraud...

 

[westwall]

No, you are not right. Do you always get your science from Time and Newsweek?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

Ice Age was the Theme... Because some Countered doesn't change that Fact.

An Ice Age is also coming regardless of what we do, and all Scientists agree with this...

Read up on it.



peace...

The Milankovic Cycles have far less forcing than the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. And the effects of these GHGs last for centuries. It looks at present that we will put off the onset of the next ice age by many thousands of years.

I have read extensively on this subject, obviously far more so than you as evidenced by what you post.

Sure they do.... Funny how you can't actually SHOW anything real...just silly little computer models that are so bad that MIT classified them as "next to useless".

 

[westwall]

Climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years.

man made climate change is a hoax and a lie.

end of story.

Except that all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities of the world state that you are completely wrong.

And they ALL get huge quantities of taxpayer funds and power, don't forget the power aspect, based on the fraud. I hate to tell you olfraud but those arguments no longer mean diddly. Too many of them have been found to be involved in "green energy" companies that can only exist if governments pass legislation that put fossil fuel generators and users out of business.

In the real world that dog don't hunt.

 

[westwall]

Because in 1977 Science wasn't very sciencey... Now they've got it right... It's definitely Global Warming this time... And anyway, whatever it is, it's Big Fat Bald White Oil's fault and America's dominance in the World must be knocked down a peg or two... Amirite?



peace...

Don't forget to mention the Time cover was based on no science and wasn't peer reviewed. Also don't fail to mention Global Warming and the science has been peer reviewed and scientist agree.

If you mentioned those two things you would shoot all types of holes in the OP.

OP doesn't understand sciencey stuff so he laughs to cover his ignorance

That's true. What's sad is the peer review of climate science is so poor (or maybe it's that the scientists peddling this crap are so bad?) that whenever they post a paper for the world to see it is invariably destroyed within a few days, sometimes mere hours.

Not a record to engender confidence.