Post Reply
Page 11 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 25 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Global Warming, Are you a Believer
3 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 5:40PM #101
Bodean
Posts: 9,834

Mar 27, 2012 -- 10:55AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 27, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


SO .. the NEW EN VOGUE approach ... "extreme weather".



When you don't inform yourself on time, chances are you see this indeed as a "new approach". But then, when you don't inform yourself, chances also are your opinion doesn't matter very much. Isn't all your "nothing new under the sun" preaching 100% superfluous, by definition?





OOOPS ... IPCC seems to disagree with this "extreme weather" bull s**t.


FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters


There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4


Looks like the old uninformed conservative idiot is more on top of the subject that the enlightened intelligent "progressive".


But I'm sure if you get your buddies in the media to push the subject hard enough, a few fools will believe it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 2:37AM #102
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Mar 29, 2012 -- 5:40PM, Bodean wrote:


Looks like the old uninformed conservative idiot is more on top of the subject that the enlightened intelligent "progressive".


But I'm sure if you get your buddies in the media to push the subject hard enough, a few fools will believe it.



It's funny that you quote a FAQ page... So, you think the IPCC special report of 2008 & its FAQ pages, calling for more research, was written before the fresh out-of-the-oven 2012 study I linked to, which responds to this call, was published. So much for the amount of reasoning underlying your stances, ha ha ha! Yes, time and progressing knowledge are difficult things to handle.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 9:33AM #103
Bodean
Posts: 9,834

Mar 30, 2012 -- 2:37AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 5:40PM, Bodean wrote:


Looks like the old uninformed conservative idiot is more on top of the subject that the enlightened intelligent "progressive".


But I'm sure if you get your buddies in the media to push the subject hard enough, a few fools will believe it.



It's funny that you quote a FAQ page... So, you think the IPCC special report of 2008 & its FAQ pages, calling for more research, was written before the fresh out-of-the-oven 2012 study I linked to, which responds to this call, was published. So much for the amount of reasoning underlying your stances, ha ha ha! Yes, time and progressing knowledge are difficult things to handle.





There's a couple of problems with the Nature Paper,  .. 1) it can show no evidence, or even mechanism through which global warming influenced the heat waves, 2) it's central focal point of anlaysis is over the last decade, for which there has been no Global Warming.


Heat Wave in Europe/Russia 2010


www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2010/ru...


Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet [aka .. a parrot of the IPCC document, which in many's opinion is not strong at all], greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.   The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave.  It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer.   It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of  July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.


Dole et al. 2011, corroborated this analysis in the peer reviewed final analysis.



Throughout the literature, you will find that heat waves are caused by "blocking events".  If climate change was a culprit, there would be trends in blocking events, however, to date, none have been found.  A paper published by Kreiencamp et al. (2010) used the National Centers for Atmospheric Research (NCEP) re-analyses to examine the occurrence of blocking events over Europe since the 1950s using a well-known blocking index (Tibaldi and Molteni, 1990). Kreiencamp et al. found little evidence of a statistically significant trend over the period 1951 - 2007 apart from a weak decrease in the European region, which decrease suggests that extreme weather events caused by blocking events have probably also declined.  But .. as we know, 2003 and 2010 happened.


Aside from the possibility that a "warming climate" is indeed causing more intense heatwaves, we are still stuck with regards to what is causing the warming.  Once again, there is this group who by default just accepts what the IPCC has stated.  No doubt, the IPCC's next report will build on the catestrophic nature of the last report ... because that is their charter .. to prove that man is influencing climate, and thus creating a basis upon which to push Political Legislation to abate such.


This whole Nature Story is yet another example of a climate paracyte trying to leach onto some of the 5 Billion spent on trying to prove and sell the the CAGW story to the public.  It flies in the face of other peer reviewed studies that flat out dispute its conclusion.  Nature itself has fallen out of favor with the rest of the scientific community that has not taken the bait of CAGW hook line and sinker, and is almost not even considered a valid publication by some.


It will always cease to amaze me how intelligent people will latch onto anything that agree with their political aspirations.  CAGW has not been proven Charik ... and as such, I will continue to oppose legislation based on it until further evidence is presented that more accuately validates its claim.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 10:36AM #104
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Mar 30, 2012 -- 9:33AM, Bodean wrote:


CAGW has not been proven Charik ...



According to your standards, has gravity been proven?


Where exactly do you see the difference to "CAGW", if you answer 'yes' to the above?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 10:45AM #105
Bodean
Posts: 9,834

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:36AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 9:33AM, Bodean wrote:


CAGW has not been proven Charik ...



According to your standards, has gravity been proven?


Where exactly do you see the difference to "CAGW", if you answer 'yes' to the above?





The difference is in what is observed, and what is "implied".


Gravity and Climate Warming over the last 150 years are on the same level.


Anthopogenic and Catastrophy are implied .... and used to push a poltiical agenda of the left.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 10:49AM #106
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Hello,



I think it's ridiculous to charge planes a enormous fee for their carbon in the EU, especially American planes. So we have a Global Tax? Like I mentioned a while back...Don't even think about taking away my SUV and my two other cars.



love


Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 5:10PM #107
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:49AM, loveontheair wrote:


I think it's ridiculous to charge planes a enormous fee for their carbon in the EU, especially American planes. So we have a Global Tax?



Nope, US airlines are free not to land on EU airports, the tax is EU only.


Do you also expect EU airlines not to obey US law when they land in your country?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 5:51PM #108
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Mar 30, 2012 -- 5:10PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:49AM, loveontheair wrote:


I think it's ridiculous to charge planes a enormous fee for their carbon in the EU, especially American planes. So we have a Global Tax?



Nope, US airlines are free not to land on EU airports, the tax is EU only.


Do you also expect EU airlines not to obey US law when they land in your country?





Hello,



Chari...



Fortunately, we don't have this law. Yes, I do, but this is ridiculous. You may want this *global community. Some as myself, do not.



love

Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 7:49AM #109
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Nobody forces you to leave your country, fly to the EU and pay carbon taxes.


Nobody forces you to look beyond your own nose.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 8:50AM #110
paeng
Posts: 557

Mar 25, 2012 -- 9:53PM, Bodean wrote:


Paeng ... you can stuff if my friend.  You might want to click the link before you spout off about something you know nothing about.




Enough with the ad honimens!



The REFERENCE Page ... goes way better than NAS.  NAS is nothing more than an organization, with people .. who have opinions.  NAS also leaned heavily on the IPCC report, which is suspect at best, and a down right fraud at worst.




Your arguments works against you! Or are you saying that your sources do not involve organizations, people, opinions?


The NAS leans heavily on multiple sources. Ironically, the same applies to the BEST study that deniers supported and went against them!


Your last point also works against you.



The REFERENCE Page ... goes to the DATA.  DATA .. I'm sure is something that you would prefer to ignore, because opinion pieces such as the flawed piece of crap that NAS put out last time are much more politically expedient.




The NAS site has a summary report that contains references to multiple studies, NOT opinion pieces. Your ignorance concerning this issue is disturbing.



As for BEST .... it is a land temperature study only.  It has not yet incorporated the ocean data.  BEST is a work in progress, .. if you knew such, you would recognize its limitations. ... first being, that it is only using 30% of the earths surface at the present, and much of that 30% does not have data.  Some day, we all hope, skeptics included, BEST will be a complete record.  However, regardless of its outcome, BEST does not address "cause" of climate change.  It is only a temperature construction.




The NAS looks at multiple sources. BEST was supported by deniers and it came up with contrary conclusions. Anything, INCLUDING denialist claims, are "works in progress." And there will never be a complete "record" because, as skeptics keep arguing, the science is too complex. Unfortunately, the same argument works AGAINST them.


Given that, we can only make conclusions based on what multiple studies have brought about by scientists worldwide. The NAS has been able to do that using information from multiple sources, including the IPCC. The same can be said about BEST. Given that, what is left for deniers is cherry-picking and melodramatic nonsense.



Putting all your eggs in the BEST study shows your complete lack of understanding of the opposing views of CAGW.  People who cite the BEST, have the mentality that "skeptics" deny that the earth has even warmed at all ... which is just plain wrong .. not to mention ignorant.  The argument has always been about "cause" .. and then there are some studies and musings about the "quality" of the data.  Muller, who heads up BEST, has tried to sidestep all the politics, and has consulted BOTH sides of the debate, so as to produce the best product that he can.  Thus Station Quality [based on Anthony Watts peer reviewed study, for which Muller consulted Watts], Urban Heat Effects, and many other parameters are being incorporated.




You're kidding, right?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)



The only gripe the "skeptics" have the study is all the preliminary releases.  Why not wait until you are through before you show everyone your painting.




And when will that take place?



BTW ... current globaltemp for Feb. was -0.1 according to both UAH [skeptic] and RSS [warmists]. Only Hadcrut [Phil Jones, the star of Climategate], and GISS [James Hansen, the activist busted while demonstrating against coal, and who's models have been completely wrong], show us still above zero.  Heck .. GISS went up, when the other three went down.




More nonsense. What you want are long-term trends. Check the NAS report for details.



It's all about POLITICS paeng ....




The problem is that that argument works BOTH ways.



It is the lack of critical thinking shown by Leftists that is so dangerous to the Climate debate.  Leftists accept whatever their little "authorities" say, without quesiton, because it agrees with their goal of "social equality" by controlling the worlds energy sources.  Specifically, to bring the US down "where it should be".  China gets a greenlight, because they aren't up to their "quota" yet, as they have so many people.  And of course, all developing countries are free to pollute as they want, .. as again, the goal is not about Climate, it is about control and "social equality".




Indeed. And we can see that in the nonsense that you spew in this forum. A meteorologist now seen as an authority on this matter? Are you kidding me?


And what's bringing the U.S. "down" isn't a "climate debate" but overspending and financial speculation. And they're giving a "green light" to China? Your naivete is pathetic! China is spending because it was able to accumulate more than enough forex reserves.


The reality is that there is no debate on this issue because most will not cut down on oil consumption as that ensures maximum profits for governments and businesses.


 


The IPCC clique has a motive to contineu the "dream". .... about 5 Billion's worth of motive.  Al Gore, also has motive ... it's called investment into Green Energy and Carbon Schemes.  The oil companies have nothing to fear from all of this, in fact they don't really care.  All this climate scare stuff pushes the price up .... more profits for them.  Besides .. guess who is leading the way in alternative energy ... yep .... the Oil Companies.


Leftists are kidding themselves if they think this is about the Environment!  Sorry, it's not.




Five billion? That's chump change compared to the one quadrillion in unregulated derivatives riding on "business as usual"!


Al Gore? Gore is not a scientist and doesn't even represent the NAS!


Investment into "green" energy (and various sources of energy) is taking place because oil production is flattening out, not because businesses care about the environment:


www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/...


Finance industries are supporting carbon schemes because they can make lots of money from it. And since carbon trading essentially involves passing consumption from one country to another, then there won't be any cut in emissions. Not that this scheme has been taking place implicitly the last four decades through outsourcing of manufacturing!


Your last point is definitely right! That's because there are no "leftists" involved in this issue, only business people and politicians pursing the real dream involved in this issue, which is "business as usual." That is why what will lead to a decrease in oil consumption won't be acknowledgment of AGW or even concern over pollution but peak oil. With that, we face a combination of environmental damage, a resource crunch, and the effects of a debt-ridden global economy.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 11 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 25 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook