And no, I'm not a true Scotsman. I am Clan Mackintosh through adoption.;-)
Honestly, what would be truly scary and of the utmost concern. Is if climate change stopped. If for 10 years we had a perfect pattern, with no variance globally, the exact same number of storms, same temperature patterns, etc, etc. That would be SCARY!!!
Cause well, the climate is supposed to change and fluctuate....
Not false, even admitted too...and no, these were not the worst case scenarios being touted. Those were far far worse.
"irrelevant"
Not irrelevant, if it was globally warmer in human history past, that is EXTREMELY relevant. And pretty much all the data when looked at honestly says the MWP was in fact globally warmer than the 90WP.
"WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2."
Based on a limited understanding, a theoretical application in computer models (several hundred). Not any of which can come close to accounting for the last near two decades.
Which says, your models, theories and predications are WRONG
"If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law."
Well, we noted it on a number of celestial bodies in the solar system. Sadly, we do not have an active presence on EVERY one. But I recall a 2 year period where it was noted on at least four if I recall.
"IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly."
We think that we know, but we know so little. Hell, we could find that there are entirely visible solar flares, or maybe even emissions of particles we weren't really familiar with, and that these could have an affect.
heck, right now there are some questioning the gravitational forces of earth on other objects not behaving right and whether dark matter is involved.
There is so much we don't know and understand. We learn from observation. So when we observed evidence of Mars, Pluto, and I think it was a moon on Jupiter seeming to show signs of increased warming. Well...that should make us pause and consider. Not immediately and religious leap to attack it as if someone had proposed an alternative interpretation to your religious dogma.
"um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study"
Actually, it's usually the media reporting something a scientist stated.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
I never watch Fox nor read their news. But thank you for retorting to ad hominems and personal criticisms.
Guess I touched your religios heresies a bit to deeply.;-)
Facts: 1) Visible light comes from the sun. [Lots of energy comes from the sun. Do you know every form and it's affects?]
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy [So do many other gasses. Water vapor too.]
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles. [Right, like not even close to major volcanic events....]
Actually, I talk about the actual science a lot. And the fact that exclaiming "climate change" is not science. Climate always changes. It's change has exceeded norms witnessed in human past. And the pointing to all the variance of events, and claiming that a 17 year cooling cycle is also proof of climate change. Well how the hell is that a testable hypothesis.
And if we're talking real science, you guys put forth a hypothesis. And all the tests came back FAIL. That means a real scientist would admit they were wrong. They haven't fully understood the issue. And well, stop with the alarmism.
Thing I hate Global Warming Alarmist for the most??????
The fact thanks to you, that's all anyone talks about regarding environmentalism. You DESTROYED the environmentalist movement. Now, very little is focused or spent on habitat destruction, toxins, over-fertilization from waste water, the fact you can't drop a net while crossing the ocean without it filling with trash, etc, etc.
Nope,...it's just CO2. And most of your science was bunk. So ya, damn straight I'm pissed at you religious fanatics.
I simply touted what the global warming alarmists have been exclaiming.
Whether reporter or scientist, if they are exclaiming such - they are wrong. If not, then no big deal.
But remember, we've been told there is a consensus and agreement of all the scientists in the world on this. So,well, that means they're saying it. Maybe they're not, and another is speaking for them. If so, they need to open their mouths and express that is not correct
When you start touting absolutes, and expressing the world is doomed, and we need a global tax, and carbon credits, and we have to, have to, have to, do this....
And your models are wrong. And your models are based on your studies. You and your studies are both wrong.
The scientific documentation and research confirms the that from around 1000-1200 pretty much EVERYWHERE experienced warming. Americas, Europe, China, Japan, Antarctica, etc.
And historical records match that. Which are far far more valuable than adjusted hypothesized measurements of oyster growth. Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
And even the IPCC admitting to how much guesswork (and bias) went into their trying to correlate data from different measurements be it ice core samples, tree rings, etc.
"Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."[12]
"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler"
See, I dismiss this as a flawed method. You see, there were in the IPCCs own data numerous adjustments that they made, at human discretion, as to how to correlate such date to each other. Most of it was done in a biased fashion.
The most reliable IMHO is human record.
Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
"Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan, finding a warm period from AD 900 to 1200 that corresponded to the Medieval Warm Period"
Okay, so you've got North America, South America, Europe, China, Japan, New Zealand....that seems pretty darn global to me.
And most of the evidence points to the MWP as being warmer than the 90WP
You DON'T NEED to use LRR tires on a Prius. You'll take 1-2 mpg hit on performance. But we used Michelin Hydroedge. Great tires, shame they discontinued them.
Our Prius (2002 1st gen), we mostly went with Michelin Hydroedge (now discontinued). Great tires. A little loss of MPG as they are not the recommended Low Rolling Resistance (LRR).
We recently got new tires on our minivan, which was atrocious in the snow (or rain). It is like night and day to be honest. Now, I went down a road easier while watching a couple of cars, including a JEEP Cherokee, spin out of control.
Global Warming alarmists who don't know what they're talking about to deride folks who do, for pointing to a weather event....just like Global Warming alarmists do EVERY SINGLE hurricane, drought, flood, tornado and earthquake.
Prius are heavier for their size and weight distribution thanks to the batteries and the transaxle (generator/motor). This added weight makes the Prius far better in the snow than the average front wheel drive vehicle.
Just an FYI...
My Prius was the best non-4x4/AWD vehicle i've driven in the snow. But no, nothing is quite as nice as 4x4
Actually it DOES NOT. When the evidence was corrected, it showed the medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer.
But remember, it's all how you pick and choose your data, except for one fact. History. When we know places like Greenland/Iceland were historically freer of ice, etc. Then we KNOW that in the past it was in fact warmer.
And they are rising, at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models. Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past. And are far far from anywhere close to the ancient past of the planet.
Furthermore, your basis or increase in temperature mostly focuses on a few decades. Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time. Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, but denying those same incidents as proof against global warming. While yes, we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's. We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well. Northern, southern, east, and west hemispheres have experienced extreme incidences of cold.
Without that tax write off, they likely would not have closed the stores. They probably would of tried to sell them for say a $100 million. In which case they might have been kept open by new owners.
The government allows them to write it off as a $400 million dollar loss. This "fake loss" then balances out the $500 million profit they got from selling off their Canada division.
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised. You start sounding like the religious nutjob on the corner who keeps changing his sign reading the "End of the World is October 2011"
And yes, Newtonian physics fails at certain speeds. But at least Newton was able to replicate with a modicum of repeatability and prediction.
Something none of the GWA models have done. And we're not talking 1-2 years, but 1-2 decades of being off. That based on a mere 2-3 decades of seeming warming.
I'm not even saying the earth can't be warming. I'm just saying that those shouting it from rooftops have less accuracy than a JW.
Rather, it just gave the government broad emergency powers that were hitherto thought only acceptable to use against enemies of the state during war time. The Patriot Act further expanded.
Slashdot Mirror
3 Curunir_wolf
And no, I'm not a true Scotsman. I am Clan Mackintosh through adoption. ;-)
Honestly, what would be truly scary and of the utmost concern. Is if climate change stopped. If for 10 years we had a perfect pattern, with no variance globally, the exact same number of storms, same temperature patterns, etc, etc. That would be SCARY!!!
Cause well, the climate is supposed to change and fluctuate....
"patently false"
Not false, even admitted too...and no, these were not the worst case scenarios being touted. Those were far far worse.
"irrelevant"
Not irrelevant, if it was globally warmer in human history past, that is EXTREMELY relevant. And pretty much all the data when looked at honestly says the MWP was in fact globally warmer than the 90WP.
"WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2."
Based on a limited understanding, a theoretical application in computer models (several hundred). Not any of which can come close to accounting for the last near two decades.
Which says, your models, theories and predications are WRONG
"If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law."
Well, we noted it on a number of celestial bodies in the solar system. Sadly, we do not have an active presence on EVERY one. But I recall a 2 year period where it was noted on at least four if I recall.
"IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly."
We think that we know, but we know so little. Hell, we could find that there are entirely visible solar flares, or maybe even emissions of particles we weren't really familiar with, and that these could have an affect.
heck, right now there are some questioning the gravitational forces of earth on other objects not behaving right and whether dark matter is involved.
There is so much we don't know and understand. We learn from observation. So when we observed evidence of Mars, Pluto, and I think it was a moon on Jupiter seeming to show signs of increased warming. Well...that should make us pause and consider. Not immediately and religious leap to attack it as if someone had proposed an alternative interpretation to your religious dogma.
"um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study"
Actually, it's usually the media reporting something a scientist stated.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
I never watch Fox nor read their news. But thank you for retorting to ad hominems and personal criticisms.
Guess I touched your religios heresies a bit to deeply. ;-)
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun. [Lots of energy comes from the sun. Do you know every form and it's affects?]
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy [So do many other gasses. Water vapor too.]
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles. [Right, like not even close to major volcanic events....]
Actually, I talk about the actual science a lot. And the fact that exclaiming "climate change" is not science. Climate always changes. It's change has exceeded norms witnessed in human past. And the pointing to all the variance of events, and claiming that a 17 year cooling cycle is also proof of climate change. Well how the hell is that a testable hypothesis.
And if we're talking real science, you guys put forth a hypothesis. And all the tests came back FAIL. That means a real scientist would admit they were wrong. They haven't fully understood the issue. And well, stop with the alarmism.
Thing I hate Global Warming Alarmist for the most??????
The fact thanks to you, that's all anyone talks about regarding environmentalism. You DESTROYED the environmentalist movement. Now, very little is focused or spent on habitat destruction, toxins, over-fertilization from waste water, the fact you can't drop a net while crossing the ocean without it filling with trash, etc, etc.
Nope,...it's just CO2. And most of your science was bunk. So ya, damn straight I'm pissed at you religious fanatics.
I simply touted what the global warming alarmists have been exclaiming.
Whether reporter or scientist, if they are exclaiming such - they are wrong. If not, then no big deal.
But remember, we've been told there is a consensus and agreement of all the scientists in the world on this. So,well, that means they're saying it. Maybe they're not, and another is speaking for them. If so, they need to open their mouths and express that is not correct
When you start touting absolutes, and expressing the world is doomed, and we need a global tax, and carbon credits, and we have to, have to, have to, do this....
And your models are wrong. And your models are based on your studies. You and your studies are both wrong.
The scientific documentation and research confirms the that from around 1000-1200 pretty much EVERYWHERE experienced warming. Americas, Europe, China, Japan, Antarctica, etc.
And historical records match that. Which are far far more valuable than adjusted hypothesized measurements of oyster growth. Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
And even the IPCC admitting to how much guesswork (and bias) went into their trying to correlate data from different measurements be it ice core samples, tree rings, etc.
I was talking about within human history. The medieval warm period was a few hundred years ago, not millions of years ago.
"Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."[12]
"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler"
See, I dismiss this as a flawed method. You see, there were in the IPCCs own data numerous adjustments that they made, at human discretion, as to how to correlate such date to each other. Most of it was done in a biased fashion.
The most reliable IMHO is human record.
Relying on mollusk growth patterns over thousands of years has a significant failing. It doesn't account for other secondary factors that could have affected growth. Simply put, it could of been warmer, but a glacier dam releasing a crapload of fresh water may have imped growth.
"Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan, finding a warm period from AD 900 to 1200 that corresponded to the Medieval Warm Period"
Okay, so you've got North America, South America, Europe, China, Japan, New Zealand....that seems pretty darn global to me.
And most of the evidence points to the MWP as being warmer than the 90WP
You DON'T NEED to use LRR tires on a Prius. You'll take 1-2 mpg hit on performance. But we used Michelin Hydroedge. Great tires, shame they discontinued them.
Our Prius (2002 1st gen), we mostly went with Michelin Hydroedge (now discontinued). Great tires. A little loss of MPG as they are not the recommended Low Rolling Resistance (LRR).
We recently got new tires on our minivan, which was atrocious in the snow (or rain). It is like night and day to be honest. Now, I went down a road easier while watching a couple of cars, including a JEEP Cherokee, spin out of control.
So tires DO play a huge role.
Um, Antartcica was NOT north of Australia in recent human history. FYI
He creates his own. ;-)
Agreed, that said, it's now a 17 year period. Which is nearly equal in length to the warm period that stirred up the controversy.
Global Warming alarmists who don't know what they're talking about to deride folks who do, for pointing to a weather event....just like Global Warming alarmists do EVERY SINGLE hurricane, drought, flood, tornado and earthquake.
Prius are heavier for their size and weight distribution thanks to the batteries and the transaxle (generator/motor). This added weight makes the Prius far better in the snow than the average front wheel drive vehicle.
Just an FYI...
My Prius was the best non-4x4/AWD vehicle i've driven in the snow. But no, nothing is quite as nice as 4x4
Actually it DOES NOT. When the evidence was corrected, it showed the medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer.
But remember, it's all how you pick and choose your data, except for one fact. History. When we know places like Greenland/Iceland were historically freer of ice, etc. Then we KNOW that in the past it was in fact warmer.
And they are rising, at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models. Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past. And are far far from anywhere close to the ancient past of the planet.
Furthermore, your basis or increase in temperature mostly focuses on a few decades. Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time. Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, but denying those same incidents as proof against global warming. While yes, we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's. We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well. Northern, southern, east, and west hemispheres have experienced extreme incidences of cold.
This is weather not climate....so when the reverse happens, and the global warming alarmists sound their cry. Just tell them to stuff it.
I'm creating a fast food joint that just sells centrifuged french fries. This is AWESOME!!!!
Without that tax write off, they likely would not have closed the stores. They probably would of tried to sell them for say a $100 million. In which case they might have been kept open by new owners.
The government allows them to write it off as a $400 million dollar loss. This "fake loss" then balances out the $500 million profit they got from selling off their Canada division.
Pay more than double both the upper and lower classes
A projection is.
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised. You start sounding like the religious nutjob on the corner who keeps changing his sign reading the "End of the World is October 2011"
And yes, Newtonian physics fails at certain speeds. But at least Newton was able to replicate with a modicum of repeatability and prediction.
Something none of the GWA models have done. And we're not talking 1-2 years, but 1-2 decades of being off. That based on a mere 2-3 decades of seeming warming.
I'm not even saying the earth can't be warming. I'm just saying that those shouting it from rooftops have less accuracy than a JW.
Surely, the bully who beat you up in elementary school wasn't the ONLY kid bullying other kids. Therefore it's okay that he did it.
Is that REALLY THE !@#$% LOGIC YOU'RE USING?
Yup....
Rather, it just gave the government broad emergency powers that were hitherto thought only acceptable to use against enemies of the state during war time. The Patriot Act further expanded.
If the nation has "Most Favored Nation Status" (aka China), they can't be an enemy state, now can they?