Did you miss the part where Gore says there was a 75% chance the Arctic would be ice-free in 5-7 years?
Remember, Gore was quoting climatologists.
climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Did you miss the part where Gore says there was a 75% chance the Arctic would be ice-free in 5-7 years?
Remember, Gore was quoting climatologists.
gcthomas
New member
So you compare current ice levels to the cherry picked lowest level in history, when the current level is still less than ANY year prior to 2006?
![url]](http://[url]http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png[/url])
Does this look low a recovery of the ice cover to you?
Cartoons and faked magazine covers didn't do it for you, so now you're presenting politicians as experts?
Why don't you guys just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about?
PhilipJames
New member
Do you think 80-100 years is a long time ago?
Agreed! And that is exactly my point. Just because a large number of scientists and politicians claim some theory is true, does NOT mean that it isn't based on faulty assumptions.
And further if they then try and silence any form of scientific debate (the science is settled) all the more reason to be skeptical...
I note that you STILL have not even admitted that there is a chance the man made global warming theory may be faulty and that there may be other natural causes that drive climate change...
How many years of the IPCC missing their projected outcomes will it take till you start to question the theory and/or models that underlie them?
PJ
p.s I predict that if solar activity does continue to decline and a significant cooling begins, the 'man made climate change' crowd will claim victory and say it was our work curbing carbon emissions that turned the tide
Barbarian chuckles:
Must have been a long time ago:
(cites Darwin's attack on eugenics in 1871 and Punnet's and Morgan's refutation of eugenics in the 1930s)
You're a bit off on those. On the other hand, the extreme right was still peddling the discredited idea of eugenics in 1994. (The Bell Curve) The entire idea is based on faulty assumptions and an ignorance of genetics. Which didn't stop right wing theorists from continuing to push the idea.
Never any guarantees, but as you see, geneticists from the beginning (Morgan pretty much established the science of genetics) knew that eugenics was a right wing folly.
As you just learned, scientists think debate is good. And exposing the dishonesty and faulty reasoning of deniers isn't "trying to silence any form of scientific debate." Have you not noticed that this has been a great airing out of some of their foolishness?
all the more reason to be skeptical...
Then you haven't been paying attention. For example, I noted that the recent decline in solar output significantly reduced the rate of warming. It's just that dumping huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere swamped the natural cycle of solar output.
As you learned, the models are being continuously questioned. You might have noticed that an improved model, incorporating changes in ocean movements, gave an even more accurate prediction. That's the way science works.
It would have to be a record decline. We just went through the deepest decline in over a century, and it only moderated the rise in temps.
In the unlikely case that we actually start reducing worldwide carbon emissions, I would think we'd see some results in just a few years. If not, that scenario is merely your fantasy.
Betting on events that have no historical basis for happening, probably isn't a rational decision.
Must have been a long time ago:
(cites Darwin's attack on eugenics in 1871 and Punnet's and Morgan's refutation of eugenics in the 1930s)
You're a bit off on those. On the other hand, the extreme right was still peddling the discredited idea of eugenics in 1994. (The Bell Curve) The entire idea is based on faulty assumptions and an ignorance of genetics. Which didn't stop right wing theorists from continuing to push the idea.
Never any guarantees, but as you see, geneticists from the beginning (Morgan pretty much established the science of genetics) knew that eugenics was a right wing folly.
As you just learned, scientists think debate is good. And exposing the dishonesty and faulty reasoning of deniers isn't "trying to silence any form of scientific debate." Have you not noticed that this has been a great airing out of some of their foolishness?
all the more reason to be skeptical...
Then you haven't been paying attention. For example, I noted that the recent decline in solar output significantly reduced the rate of warming. It's just that dumping huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere swamped the natural cycle of solar output.
As you learned, the models are being continuously questioned. You might have noticed that an improved model, incorporating changes in ocean movements, gave an even more accurate prediction. That's the way science works.
It would have to be a record decline. We just went through the deepest decline in over a century, and it only moderated the rise in temps.
In the unlikely case that we actually start reducing worldwide carbon emissions, I would think we'd see some results in just a few years. If not, that scenario is merely your fantasy.
Betting on events that have no historical basis for happening, probably isn't a rational decision.
You First...
Very funny considering you hoax believers use 1979 as a baseline. 1979 was the apex of the "mini ice age" of the 70's.
You're a bit off. That was from the 16th to the 19th centuries. I was in college in the 70s, and there was no such "ice age."
The average temperature anomaly in the 70s was 0.7, a bit above average. The average temperature anomaly in the 1960s was -4.4, a bit below average. Check here, and see for yourself:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
So you've been snookered again. When are you going to learn to think for yourself?
OCTOBER23
New member
If the planetary and solar cycles along with Matthew 24 are Right,
then Great Earthquakes and Volcanoes should Multiply in 2015 & 2016 AD.
Joe 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,
blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v528Yg8SLg4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcMc92CYIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlDa3WxVJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPchWu5GB4M
then Great Earthquakes and Volcanoes should Multiply in 2015 & 2016 AD.
Joe 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth,
blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v528Yg8SLg4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcMc92CYIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlDa3WxVJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPchWu5GB4M
In the 1970's climatologists said an ice age was coming.
Here is the proof:
| Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age | |
Tet tries his favorite story, again:
Well, let me remind you again.
Notice that warming always was the consensus. And notice that as evidence accumulated, more and more climatologists concluded warming was underway. Granted, this survey only checked the climatology literature. It doesn't include your newspaper stories or your photoshopped magazine covers. And it didn't include You Tube videos. But it does show what climatologists thought. Climatologists rarely publish papers on You Tube or in the WSJ.
Your video has lots of statements, but there's good reason the guy who put it together never gave you any sources. Interestingly, he seems to think a busy tornado season is proof of global cooling. Or maybe it was just too exciting a story for him to pass up, and he needed some padding for his video. Hard to say. It really doesn't matter; he was trolling for suckers, and to that extent, he succeeded. It's sad to learn that people you trusted, lied to you. But there it is. Learn to think for yourself.
Well, let me remind you again.
Notice that warming always was the consensus. And notice that as evidence accumulated, more and more climatologists concluded warming was underway. Granted, this survey only checked the climatology literature. It doesn't include your newspaper stories or your photoshopped magazine covers. And it didn't include You Tube videos. But it does show what climatologists thought. Climatologists rarely publish papers on You Tube or in the WSJ.
Your video has lots of statements, but there's good reason the guy who put it together never gave you any sources. Interestingly, he seems to think a busy tornado season is proof of global cooling. Or maybe it was just too exciting a story for him to pass up, and he needed some padding for his video. Hard to say. It really doesn't matter; he was trolling for suckers, and to that extent, he succeeded. It's sad to learn that people you trusted, lied to you. But there it is. Learn to think for yourself.
Your chart was published by the American Meteorological Society.
First off, how come when we show meteorologist's who deny man made global warming, you guys say their opinion is irrelevant because they aren't climatologists?
Secondly, the chart is majorly flawed.
What the American Meteorological Society did was review their electronic archives, as well as the electronic archives of "Nature", and electronic archives of " Journal Storage" from 1965-1979.
Right off the bat we can see the first flaw. That is, they only surveyed articles that were on electronic archives.
The next MAJOR flaw is the keywords they used in their search. The keywords used were:
1) global temperature
2) global warming
3) global cooling
Notice they DID NOT use the keyword "ICE AGE" in their search.
IOW, your chart is a joke.
It was made by people you claim don't know anything about climate change, and it was done with a bias because the keyword "Ice Age" was not used in their search.
Not to mention that it was done with only electronically stored articles.
Funny how you can't show us magazine articles, newspaper articles, or videos from the 70's claiming global warming.
Yet, we can show you countless magazine articles, newspaper articles, and videos showing climatologists claiming an ice age was coming.
Here is a video from the 1970's where we are told by the narrator that climatologists say an ice age is coming.
Please provide a video from the 1970's telling us climatologists say global warming is happening?
| The Coming Ice Age - Climate Hysteria Circa 1978 | |
Please provide a video from the 1970's telling us climatologists say global warming is happening?
Yep. You want me to show you some more of these studies?
Because meteorologists aren't climatologists. They study short-term fluctuations in weather, not climate. Are you claiming that they aren't competent to read journals and find out how many climatologist thought warming was coming, relative to how many thought cooling was coming? Seriously?
I can't think of a climatology journal that isn't on electronic storage. Tell me about those. I don't believe there are any. Or are you claiming that climatologists who thought cooling was coming only published in the (apparently nonexistent) journals that didn't get archived electronically?
And they claimed to be checking how many climatologists were expecting global warming and how many were expecting global cooling. Those rascals!
Oh noes.
Maybe it would be better for you, if you just went back to "all the scientists are lying." That sounds a little less crazy than your new attempt.
Since you made the claim that the consensus of climatologists in the 70s was that the future was a cooler Earth, perhaps you could show us a study of the literature that does support your rather odd claim.
Nope. You made that up. I'm just pointing out that climatologists are better qualified than meteorologists to understand climate. Go figure.
I don't think that excuse is going to work for you, especially since you can't produce any evidence to support your claim. As you learned, there was no consensus for cooling in the literature of the 1970s.
Feel free to show us which climatology journals aren't electronically archived.
As you learned, what counts is what climatologists leaned, not what the public was thinking.
Some of them photoshopped fakes. But isn't it a clue that the public didn't know what the scientific consensus was?
As you learned, even in the 1970s, climatologists were already convinced that warming was coming.
Your faked articles and newspaper stories notwithstanding.
You might want to check here:
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE
GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
1975
National Research Council
http://archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit_djvu.txt
To learn about what the scientific consensus was in the 1970s. This report says:
The relative roles of changing carbon dioxide and particle loading as
factors in climatic 'change have been assessed by Mitchell (1973a,
1973b), who noted that these variable atmospheric constituents are not
necessarily external parameters of the climatic system but may also be
internal variables; for example, the changing capacity of the surface
layers of the oceans to absorb C0 2 , the variable atmospheric loading of
wind-blown dust, and the interaction of C0 2 with the biosphere.
The atmospheric C0 2 concentrations recorded at Mauna Loa, Hawaii
(and other locations) show a steady increase in the annual average,
amounting to about a 4 percent rise in total C0 2 between 1958 and 1972
(Keeling et ai, 1974). The present-day C0 2 excess (relative to the year
1850) is estimated at 13 percent. A comparison with estimates of the
fossil C0 2 input to the atmosphere from human activities indicates that
between 50 and 75 percent of the latter has stayed in the atmosphere,
with the remainder entering the ocean and the biosphere. The C0 2
excess is conservatively projected to increase to 15 percent by 1980, to
22 percent by 1990, and to 32 percent by 2000 a.d. The corresponding
changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to C0 2 [as calculated
by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity
and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3 °C per 10 percent change of C0 2
and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed
warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however,
conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5 °C between
now and the end of the century.
It's time for you to come to terms with the truth. You were lied to, and you believed it. The question is whether or not you have the intellecual honesty to deal with that fact, or will continue to deny it.
Last edited:
Regarding the FAKE polar bear photo used in Science Magazine, the editors issued the following staetment in the next issue:
"The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it."
So much for peer reviewed editing.
Maybe next time Science Magazine will use the fake penguin version.
"The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it."
So much for peer reviewed editing.
Maybe next time Science Magazine will use the fake penguin version.
...or I suppose you could show us another denier video.
Nope.
You keep claiming it, but you haven't produced any of these alleged claims.
So far, all you have done is produced a bogus chart that claims what you claim.
You have been provided with numerous authentic articles, and videos from the 70's that all show climatologists claiming an ice age was upon us.
What you haven't done is provide us with any articles or videos from climatologists in the 70's claiming the earth was warming.
Given that polar bears are now becoming a nuisance in many places, coming into towns to scavenge garbage due to the lack of ice, the photo merely points out the facts.
However, it was right of the journal to point out the error. On the other hand, I have yet to see a denier site (they don't have any journals) admit the magazine cover was a fake. Another difference between science and climate denial.
However, it was right of the journal to point out the error. On the other hand, I have yet to see a denier site (they don't have any journals) admit the magazine cover was a fake. Another difference between science and climate denial.