The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
Fourier first noted that carbonic acid gas (CO2) absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's. Tyndall quantified the effect in the 1850's. Arrhenius stated "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." in the 1890's. Ever since then we're just filling in the details.
So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.
You're just behind the times. The sort of review the the groundwater/sea level studies are undergoing was occurring 20 or 30 years or more ago in regards to CO2's role in the climate.
Phil Jones deleted that data before 1995, back when computer storage was expensive. I'm sure if he'd known what a big deal it was going to turn into he would have found a way to keep it. "Climategate" is much ado about nothing. An exercise in quote mining without context.
Amazing. I love hearing about peer reviewd from people claiming AGW. If you actually looked into AGW research you see it is not even close to peer reviewed. The IPCC reports are all based on research done by Phil Jone at the CRU in the UK. He admitted to manipulating data to match his theories on AGW over a 20 year period. He also ignored FOI requests for years because he didn't want other scientists to review his work. He went so far as to DELETE the original unmanipulated data his research was based on instead of risking someone else double checking his work. Phil Jones is the ONLY PERSON on the planet to see the original unmanipulated data that goes into all the IPCC reports. He is a known liar and has admitted to deleteing data instead of risking peer review.
How in hell did that get upmodded? To say that Phil Jones is responsible for all of the data in the IPCC reports if ROTFLMAO laughable. The data he deleted is still available from the original sources, the various weather services around the world. There's not a single thing in that pile of crap you can support.
Your Popular Technology cite titled "1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" kind of puts the lie to the claim that climate scientists are suppressing the publishing of papers that don't support the consensus.
You don't necessarily need to be a credentialed expert but you'd better know enough about a field to not make an idiot of yourself. For instance I recently saw a blog post where a statistician and climate contrarian repeatedly made the claim that is was the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere that held the heat in and the greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 are what moves heat off the planet showing he doesn't know the first thing about radiative physics.
Finally, I would like to point out that modern science is the result of, and is perpetuated by people not simply accepting what they're told. So, it's definitely not reasonable to criticize someone for not accepting a scientific "consensus." Quite the opposite, there is little value is repeating what everyone else is saying, and that's all you're doing when you appeal to authority.
If you're going to go against a scientific consensus they you better be able to back up your position. There is even less value in being a contrarian simply to be a contrarian.
A monoculture of palms would look considerably different to a satellite than a tropical rain forest. I doubt they'd have any difficulty distinguishing between the two.
Unless you have access to a time machine the best we can do is estimate future sea level rise based on current knowledge. To just assume it's going to continue what it's doing ignores all of the knowledge we have amassed. We still have a lot to learn but we do know more that simple assumption would show. As has been said before, earlier predictions have tended to underestimate SLR rather than overestimate it.
If you think scientists have predicted sudden rises in sea level or temperature (on human time scales) then you are getting it wrong. Instead they predict those things rising at a slowly (again on human time scales) accelerating pace and the rising won't slow down or stop until we stop doing the things that are causing it.
In the IPCC AR4 that came out in 2007 the estimate was 200-500 mm by 2100. But now that is widely regarded as too low an estimate by scientists studying the problem. The current estimation is now about 1-2 meters by 2100 and there is great uncertainty about the high end of that estimate because of the potential for non-linear events in the breakup of ice sheets that are currently grounded below sea level. If the forecasts have been wrong in the short term it is because they have underestimated SLR, not overestimated it. The IPCC AR5 report will be out in 2 or 3 years. It will be interesting to see what they say then.
Yes, sea level rising, by itself, is not a flood. It doesn't rise fast enough for that to happen. What will happen to these places is that the sea level will rise a bit but not enough to flood the buildings, but then along comes a big storm surge that floods places that have never flooded before.
And you justification for saying that climatologists are pulling the positive feedback coefficient for water vapor out of their asses is what? Is that just an assumption on your part or do you have some scientific backing for that statement? You should go back and educate yourself about climate models as I said to others in a previous post. The code of several major climate models is available for inspection so anyone who cares to could examine it for errors.
Regarding your sig; Mother Nature doesn't care about favors. She's more like the mobsters who come in and bust up your business if you don't pay the protection money.
You can run a climate model for any period of time you choose. If it's in the past you can run it with actual data for things like insolation and CO2 levels instead of a scenario. But you need 20 or more years of real world data compiled statistically to compare to the climate model output because that's the form of climate model output. Climatologists typically work with a 30 year running average to determine the climatological temperature. Climate model runs cover different periods of time depending on the purpose of a particular run but they typically cover something like a 100 year period in a run.
Slashdot Mirror
The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.
And across the Arctic in the Barents and Kara Seas the ice levels have been extraordinarily low this year. Overall the level of ice in the Arctic has been slightly below average for this time of year. I have my doubts that "the longest it has ever been present." is accurate too.
Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
Fourier first noted that carbonic acid gas (CO2) absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's. Tyndall quantified the effect in the 1850's. Arrhenius stated "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." in the 1890's. Ever since then we're just filling in the details.
Way to cherry pick man!
So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.
You're just behind the times. The sort of review the the groundwater/sea level studies are undergoing was occurring 20 or 30 years or more ago in regards to CO2's role in the climate.
Here ya go. Model to data comparison, 2011
As I said before, the data he deleted is still available from the original sources, the various weather services around the world.
Phil Jones deleted that data before 1995, back when computer storage was expensive. I'm sure if he'd known what a big deal it was going to turn into he would have found a way to keep it. "Climategate" is much ado about nothing. An exercise in quote mining without context.
Amazing. I love hearing about peer reviewd from people claiming AGW. If you actually looked into AGW research you see it is not even close to peer reviewed. The IPCC reports are all based on research done by Phil Jone at the CRU in the UK. He admitted to manipulating data to match his theories on AGW over a 20 year period. He also ignored FOI requests for years because he didn't want other scientists to review his work. He went so far as to DELETE the original unmanipulated data his research was based on instead of risking someone else double checking his work. Phil Jones is the ONLY PERSON on the planet to see the original unmanipulated data that goes into all the IPCC reports. He is a known liar and has admitted to deleteing data instead of risking peer review.
How in hell did that get upmodded? To say that Phil Jones is responsible for all of the data in the IPCC reports if ROTFLMAO laughable. The data he deleted is still available from the original sources, the various weather services around the world. There's not a single thing in that pile of crap you can support.
Your Popular Technology cite titled "1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm" kind of puts the lie to the claim that climate scientists are suppressing the publishing of papers that don't support the consensus.
An organism doesn't have to be best adapted to an environment, just well enough adapted to survive and reproduce.
You don't necessarily need to be a credentialed expert but you'd better know enough about a field to not make an idiot of yourself. For instance I recently saw a blog post where a statistician and climate contrarian repeatedly made the claim that is was the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere that held the heat in and the greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 are what moves heat off the planet showing he doesn't know the first thing about radiative physics.
9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest toothpaste.
Finally, I would like to point out that modern science is the result of, and is perpetuated by people not simply accepting what they're told. So, it's definitely not reasonable to criticize someone for not accepting a scientific "consensus." Quite the opposite, there is little value is repeating what everyone else is saying, and that's all you're doing when you appeal to authority.
If you're going to go against a scientific consensus they you better be able to back up your position. There is even less value in being a contrarian simply to be a contrarian.
A monoculture of palms would look considerably different to a satellite than a tropical rain forest. I doubt they'd have any difficulty distinguishing between the two.
Was that a typo? Did you mean 5 ppm? The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 390 ppm and it will be over 400 ppm within 2 or 3 years.
Unless you have access to a time machine the best we can do is estimate future sea level rise based on current knowledge. To just assume it's going to continue what it's doing ignores all of the knowledge we have amassed. We still have a lot to learn but we do know more that simple assumption would show. As has been said before, earlier predictions have tended to underestimate SLR rather than overestimate it.
If you think scientists have predicted sudden rises in sea level or temperature (on human time scales) then you are getting it wrong. Instead they predict those things rising at a slowly (again on human time scales) accelerating pace and the rising won't slow down or stop until we stop doing the things that are causing it.
In the IPCC AR4 that came out in 2007 the estimate was 200-500 mm by 2100. But now that is widely regarded as too low an estimate by scientists studying the problem. The current estimation is now about 1-2 meters by 2100 and there is great uncertainty about the high end of that estimate because of the potential for non-linear events in the breakup of ice sheets that are currently grounded below sea level. If the forecasts have been wrong in the short term it is because they have underestimated SLR, not overestimated it. The IPCC AR5 report will be out in 2 or 3 years. It will be interesting to see what they say then.
Yes, sea level rising, by itself, is not a flood. It doesn't rise fast enough for that to happen. What will happen to these places is that the sea level will rise a bit but not enough to flood the buildings, but then along comes a big storm surge that floods places that have never flooded before.
So they want to emulate King Canute?
If they were off it's because they underestimated SLR, not overestimated it.
And you justification for saying that climatologists are pulling the positive feedback coefficient for water vapor out of their asses is what? Is that just an assumption on your part or do you have some scientific backing for that statement? You should go back and educate yourself about climate models as I said to others in a previous post. The code of several major climate models is available for inspection so anyone who cares to could examine it for errors.
Regarding your sig; Mother Nature doesn't care about favors. She's more like the mobsters who come in and bust up your business if you don't pay the protection money.
You can run a climate model for any period of time you choose. If it's in the past you can run it with actual data for things like insolation and CO2 levels instead of a scenario. But you need 20 or more years of real world data compiled statistically to compare to the climate model output because that's the form of climate model output. Climatologists typically work with a 30 year running average to determine the climatological temperature. Climate model runs cover different periods of time depending on the purpose of a particular run but they typically cover something like a 100 year period in a run.
We already have term limits. They're called an elections.
That should have been:
Even if you did that you'd still need 20 or so years of data before you had enough to compare to the climate model output.
Even if you did that you'd still need 20 or so of data before you had enough to compare to the climate model output.