'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

by designs 165 Replies latest social current

• 

  mP

  @kurt

  With this in mind, if the climate scientists have a model that is scientifically accurate, they would make predictions that are accurate. This would be the test that they are dealing with facts and not a hypothesis. So if someone tells you that the majority of climate scientists accept something as scientific fact, then see how their predictions line up with what happened during the interval they made predictions for.

  mP:

  Exactly they are very light on facts and big on bells and whistles and taxes. Every single gov has kept the taxes for themselves and basically done littel if anything to actually fight CO2.

  When they ban SUVs then ill believe they are serious, but as it stands CO2 is the new messiah that scares the masses to paying tax to the rulers.
• 

  mP

  resist:

  Can you show a graph of Co2 since the 1500s so we can determine if the trend was present before the Industrial revolution?
• 

  besty

  @mP

  Unfortunately this argument of authority is flawed, because looking at the data shows soemthing else.

  For fallacious argument to authority to exist you must either justify why climate scientists are inexpert in climate science, or prove that consensus amongst climate scientists does not exist, or both.

  I stand by my non-fallacious argument to authority, satisfied that climate scientists are indeed expert and that consensus does in fact exist.

  CO2 has become very political.

  CO2 is a gas :-) To those with ideological opposition to climate change remedy it may have become political. To Mother Nature, it remains a gas.

  Such quotes are always very small grabs without showing the full picture.

  Not sure what this means.
• 

  besty

  @kurtbethel

  With this in mind, if the climate scientists have a model that is scientifically accurate, they would make predictions that are accurate. This would be the test that they are dealing with facts and not a hypothesis. So if someone tells you that the majority of climate scientists accept something as scientific fact, then see how their predictions line up with what happened during the interval they made predictions for. They should be able to quickly and easily supply you with this data, as they would have had to examine it to conclude that the scientists were right. Don't accept any stonewalling "wait on Jehovah" or "trust the faithful slave" type of bogus answers. They have no place in the scientific world.

  I guess this is a carefully worded version of 'climate models are unreliable'?
• 

  tootired2care

  @Betsy

  To address your point number 1. First off I don't deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it doesn't cause temperture increase. The problem is there is a lot of conflicting information out there. Trusting the "experts" and their dogma implicitly is what got me stuck in a religious cult, so you can hopefully understand my reluctance to be so trusting again without hearing and considering arguments for both sides, especially given that politicians are asking us to in essence regress as a society based on these arguments.

  Given that, the graph below of ice core samples from Greenland plainly shows that before the industrial age (very little man sourced co2), there were periods of warming that were even warmer than now. So far I have yet to hear any decent explanation from the "experts" as to why this is, or why 125,000 years ago much of the ice melted. If this is such a simple case as you claim, than why havn't they provided satisfactory answers to these questions?

  In your argument you stated that 98% believe that man is responsible for recent global warming, but previous comments have shown that has not really been proven has it?

  So until the experts can definitively address some of these questions myself and millions of others have, I choose to keep an open mind on the subject.

  

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
• 

  soontobe

  Fascinating data TT2C, especially past temperature spikes during recorded history. The Co2 data, is interesting too. The ice cores show a steady rise from about 6700 BC, and little correlation between Co2 levels and temps over the period of the record.
• 

  designs

  Magma and the lava flows, Sun flares, and asteriods we can't do anything about, polluted air and water are within our ability to do something about.
• 

  besty

  @tt2c

  To address your point number 1. First off I don't deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it doesn't cause temperture increase

  just as a reminder, my question 1 was:

  1 - Why human originated CO2 emmissions are not causing warming, if it is accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

  so your post is read in that context.

  Given that, the graph below of ice core samples from Greenland plainly shows that before the industrial age (very little man sourced co2), there were periods of warming that were even warmer than now. So far I have yet to hear any decent explanation from the "experts" as to why this is, or why 125,000 years ago much of the ice melted.

  As a paraphrase - "its been warm before in Greenland, and I don't know why"

  I'd like to know why the graphed x-axis shows an 11,000 year period and your post also includes a reference to 125,000 years? <confused.com>

  I'd like to know why you think Greenland is a suitable proxy for global temperatures?

  I'd like to know which peer-reviewed journal the graph was originally published in?

  I'd like to know specifically which warm period you would like an explanation for, and I will do my best as an non-expert.

  In your argument you stated that 98% believe that man is responsible for recent global warming, but previous comments have shown that has not really been proven has it?

  No - previous comments don't show that. That consensus exists is shown not only by Doran Zimmeran 2009, Oreskes 2004 but also agreement by every national and international scientific body on the planet. And the US military. And the Saudi government. And Exxon Mobil. Thats one heck of a conspiracy theory to keep together.

  Positing a succesful alternative theory would result in fame and wealth beyond imagination for the gifted scientist - so far it hasn't happened. <other than in the denier blogosphere which unfortunately is a fameandwealth-free echochamber >

  Out of interest where would you place yourself:

  1 - its not happening

  2 - it is happening, but it's not us causing it

  3 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its a good thing

  4 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its not as bad as they predict

  5 - it is happening, it us causing it, its as bad as they predict, but we can't do anything about it

  And would you care to take a crack at the other 2 questions:

  2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

  3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)
• 

  tootired2care

  I'd like to know why you think Greenland is a suitable proxy for global temperatures?

  Because it or any other place that is mostly ice -- like Antarctica -- is one of the most well preserved archives of data that we have to draw on for environmental conditions as they existed mellenia ago.

  I'd like to know which peer-reviewed journal the graph was originally published in?

  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

  I'd like to know specifically which warm period you would like an explanation for?

  That's just it, I want to see the big picture not just the picture since the industrial age which doesn't tell the whole story.

  I'd like to know why the graphed x-axis shows an 11,000 year period and your post also includes a reference to 125,000 years? <confused.com>

  I can understand why your confused and off topic. Because number 1 you didn't watch the video that is the reason for this thread, and number 2 you obviously havn't read the previous comments on this thread, or you wouldn't be confused. You should do that.

  That consensus exists is shown not only by Doran Zimmeran 2009, Oreskes 2004 but also agreement by every national and international scientific body on the planet.

  You still have not proven that almost total consensus exists. Saying it more and louder does not make it so.

  Perhaps you can take a swing and answer the question of why temperature has been greater on the earth prior to the industrial age, otherwise I think i'm done wasting my time talking to you, because it seems you are incapable of an objective discussion.
• 

  soontobe

  I'd like to know which peer-reviewed journal the graph was originally published in?

  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

  You don't have to. The data is sourced in the graphic for Besty to verify and available online (unless Besty questions the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's data).

  Greenland Ice Project 2 Ice Core Temperature Reconstruction and Accumulation Data:

  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

  EPICA Dome data:

  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

  You still have not proven that almost total consensus exists. Saying it more and louder does not make it so.

  Freeman Dyson is one prominent scientist who doesn't buy into the so called consensus. Henrik Svensmark is, I believe, another. His cosmic ray/global temperature hypothesis has been supported by experimental evidence collected at CERN.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc