Climate change 'tipping points' imminent

[Uncensored2008]

Why then can't you show any? Why then has the planet stayed temp neutral for the last 16 years? Why then is the global temp beginning to drop...all in the face of wildly increasing CO2 levels?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

It's just like the Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that Christ would return in 1914, when the predictions fail, they just make new ones, then more new ones.

I don't think ANYONE legitimately believes in AGW. Some are looters and profit by it. Some are coerced into repeating dogma to avoid academic and professional repercussions, and some blindly accept the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Standard Disclaimer: No offense to the Jehovah's Witnesses - though complete nutjobs, they are more rational than the AGW cultists and far more willing to consider evidence and logic....

 

[Kosh]

Hey, where'd y'all go? Where's all that snappy comeback I've come to expect?

Actually, that was not my quote. You cried "bullshit" and I proved that the study is there. If YOU go back and read my link, they did blame extinctions on humans, though they worded it in a way where they couldn't be called liars.

Barnosky and environmental scientist Barry Brook of the University of Adelaide in Australia have found such a human-climate synergy operating in megafaunal extinctions when severe climate change coincided with human arrivals.

Come on now guy! No one is going to run from you, of all people.

You really don't know your ass from your elbow, do you?

Do you even begin to comprehend that "a human-climate synergy" refers to a conclusion in that paper that the megafaunal extinction happened as a result of both climate factors at that time (which were not caused by humans) AND also by human activities like the intensive hunting and killing of those animals over a long period of time. It does not mean that human caused climate changes (AGW) were responsible, as you so idiotically want to assume.

Obviously you did not read the article.

 

[Kosh]

Your posted article causes global warming.

Mankind's activities are quite certainly causing global warming, little retard. The primary ones are the burning of fossil fuels, which pumped 36 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere just in the last year, hundreds of billions of tons cumulatively since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and deforestation, which removes part of Nature's mechanism for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Posting articles on the internet is not on the list, nitwit.

And BTW, Uneducated, ignorant morons like you really shouldn't try to 'be funny' about things you're mentally incapable of understanding. It just makes you look like an even bigger fool than you already do.

Why then can't you show any? Why then has the planet stayed temp neutral for the last 16 years? Why then is the global temp beginning to drop...all in the face of wildly increasing CO2 levels?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Based on the available data we have been actually cooling for a few thousand years and there have been spikes of warmth that has last100+ years just to cool off again.

But then again you also have to believe that the medieval warm period never happened or any warming happened in the Earths history before now in order to believe in AGW. This showing who the true deniers are.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

There is no might to it, these studies have been done for over 50+ years on every continent. Thus proving that AGW is bunk especially the hockey stick theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

GLOBAL proxy studies are just mathematically crap (no shoot) The HARD evidence of individuall studies is worldwide aand even fooled the IPCC for awhile til the propaganda machine and the hockeystick generators kicked into high gear.

 

[Abraham3]

Ernie S, my ABJECT APOLOGIES. You are right. You only brought forth the LINK regarding the paper. It was KOSH who first mentioned it.

But tell me, where was I supposed to get the idea that you thought Kosh's intepretation of the paper was as stupid as did I? For all I could tell, you supported him and his claim. You need to be more careful. When you think Kosh is a raving idiot, you need to let us know.

 

[Abraham3]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

GLOBAL proxy studies are just mathematically crap (no shoot) The HARD evidence of individuall studies is worldwide aand even fooled the IPCC for awhile til the propaganda machine and the hockeystick generators kicked into high gear.

What hard evidence would that be?

 

[Ernie S.]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

But you want to cripple the economy on a crap shoot?

Sorry Show me convincing proof, not re-re-re-revised computer models based on incomplete data.

 

[westwall]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

And you are ignoring HUNDREDS that say it was. You lose.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie S, my ABJECT APOLOGIES. You are right. You only brought forth the LINK regarding the paper. It was KOSH who first mentioned it.

But tell me, where was I supposed to get the idea that you thought Kosh's intepretation of the paper was as stupid as did I? For all I could tell, you supported him and his claim. You need to be more careful. When you think Kosh is a raving idiot, you need to let us know.

As soon as I think anyone but you is a raving idiot, I will let you know. How's that?

What you fail to see is a study that links humans and climate to the extinction of mammoths.

Now, I am intelligent enough to see that they aren't directly blaming mammoth extinction on humans driving Hum Vees, and for the sake of this argument only, I assume you read it that way too, the general public will only hear a 15 second sound bite on MSNBC and assume that mammoths and saber tooth tigers would be roaming Los Angeles this evening if it weren't for humans. AND most of those would see this as a good thing.

 

[Kosh]

Ernie S, my ABJECT APOLOGIES. You are right. You only brought forth the LINK regarding the paper. It was KOSH who first mentioned it.

But tell me, where was I supposed to get the idea that you thought Kosh's intepretation of the paper was as stupid as did I? For all I could tell, you supported him and his claim. You need to be more careful. When you think Kosh is a raving idiot, you need to let us know.

Obviously you missed the point of the article and the post, but it is a true paper linking humans to climate change over 10,000 years ago.

And as one has pointed out it is the far left sound bites that made it to the media.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh you'd have to ignore dozens of studies of the past 10 years to believe the medieval was warmer globally. Maybe in Europe as the NAO might of been different during that time.

Of course there are other studies that say otherwise that are older from the IPPC in 1990. Everything seems to be a crapshoot within this field.

GLOBAL proxy studies are just mathematically crap (no shoot) The HARD evidence of individuall studies is worldwide aand even fooled the IPCC for awhile til the propaganda machine and the hockeystick generators kicked into high gear.

What hard evidence would that be?

So you say that math is no longer valid to science?

 

[daveman]

GLOBAL proxy studies are just mathematically crap (no shoot) The HARD evidence of individuall studies is worldwide aand even fooled the IPCC for awhile til the propaganda machine and the hockeystick generators kicked into high gear.

What hard evidence would that be?

So you say that math is no longer valid to science?

Math is hard. The numbers don't cooperate, so you have to go and make up new ones that support your conclusion.

That's climate "science".

 

[RollingThunder]

Your posted article causes global warming.

Mankind's activities are quite certainly causing global warming, little retard. The primary ones are the burning of fossil fuels, which pumped 36 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere just in the last year, hundreds of billions of tons cumulatively since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and deforestation, which removes part of Nature's mechanism for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Posting articles on the internet is not on the list, nitwit.

And BTW, Uneducated, ignorant morons like you really shouldn't try to 'be funny' about things you're mentally incapable of understanding. It just makes you look like an even bigger fool than you already do.

Why then can't you show any? Why then has the planet stayed temp neutral for the last 16 years? Why then is the global temp beginning to drop...all in the face of wildly increasing CO2 levels?

Idiotic imaginary questions, as asked, have no rational answer, walleyedretard, except to show that they are meaningless bullshit based on denier cult myths.

Taking the Arctic temperatures from the satellite measurements into account, scientists have shown that, even just looking at surface air temperatures, the Earth has still been experiencing accelerating warming over the last 16 years. In addition, scientific studies have shown that the oceans have been absorbing the majority (90%+) of the extra heat the Earth has been retaining due to the increased CO2 levels and doing so at an increasing rate. In 1996, the minimum ice extent in the Arctic was about 3.15 million square miles and since then it has dropped radically to an minimum extent of 1.32 million square miles in 2012.

Your insane denier myth about imaginary "cooling" is too ridiculous to bother with, you deluded moron.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can we all agree that it isn't cooling?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can we all agree that it isn't cooling?

Obviously. 6 degrees in Chicago now is proof it's warming. Right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can we all agree that it isn't cooling?

Obviously. 6 degrees in Chicago now is proof it's warming. Right?

One location at one isn't climate.

Climate is conditions over many decades avg together.

1950--.5
1970 .55
1980 .65
1990 .6
2000 .7
2010 .75

Anomally. This is avging all years together to get a anomaly and this anomaly is how we tell rather it is warming or cooling.

 

[RollingThunder]

Can we all agree that it isn't cooling?

Obviously. 6 degrees in Chicago now is proof it's warming. Right?

Actually, Toadtheparrot, it's not "proof" of anything having to do with the climate because it is a temporary weather event. Like most of dimwitted denier cultists, you are completely clueless about the difference between weather and climate.

 

[Kosh]

Can we all agree that it isn't cooling?

Obviously. 6 degrees in Chicago now is proof it's warming. Right?

One location at one isn't climate.

Climate is conditions over many decades avg together.

1950--.5
1970 .55
1980 .65
1990 .6
2000 .7
2010 .75

Anomally. This is avging all years together to get a anomaly and this anomaly is how we tell rather it is warming or cooling.

And the climate has been cooling since the Roman times, why only cherry pick the last 100 years?