Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





AGW has been proven to be false...


Maybe in your dreamland. Within the remit of science the opposite holds true with strength. Over 98% of published papers on the subject are in support of AGW...

If you have knowledge that can contend with this science. Write a paper. In other words put up or shut up.


Oh you mean those scientists funded by vested interests..


The world has been cooling for the past 10 yrs...where's your Anthropological Global Warming now ?? hmmmm ??


C...




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


As opposed to the non-scientists being funded by polluters and exploiters?


Further, you're behind the times. Denial is no longer about denying that the planet is warming it is about denying that humans are the cause.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Oh you mean those scientists funded by vested interests.. The world has been cooling for the past 10 yrs...where's your Anthropological Global Warming now ?? hmmmm ??


Your claim the earth is cooling is based on fallacy. The last ten years data shows some of the warmest years on record. 2005 was the hottest year on record the following years have been cooler in comparision. However this is not cooling.

Any climatic scientist worth there weight in salt will understand that background noise varies over time and location. You will see differing in results between place and even cooling on a regional level. Variations will occur that is not in dispute and warming will not occur in a linear fashion.

I requested you supply some facts. You have supplied nothing but your opinion. I am not interested in your opinion the world in full of them. ATS moto is deny ignorance. Not ooze the stuff.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Sure forests have an influence on weather and storms. If we took away all the forests, you would see that some places would turn to deserts and others would turn to bogs because the forests balance the weather around the world. I don't understand what the creators of that research are doing. Sure they are partly right. The earth responds to stimuli on a global basis though and that computer modeling isn't taking into consideration the response of the earth. This earth response trails events by up to forty years in some cases and we have barely started to scratch the surface of understanding this. I think those guys are getting paid by some big interest money to use some evidence to steer their research but neglecting evidence to the contrary. That tactic has been used for thousands of years to unrightfully prove things. It is not a new thing.

I mean, some of what they are looking at is real. They aren't applying their evidence right though. But than what do I know, I like trees, I think that anywhere without them looks weird and depressing.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


As opposed to the non-scientists being funded by polluters and exploiters?


Further, you're behind the times. Denial is no longer about denying that the planet is warming it is about denying that humans are the cause.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Oh another one with an axe to grind...those polluters and exploiters keep you in the comfort that you take for granted.
Like the computer your using right now.
Look around you..everything is made from plastic....or metal that requires fossil fuels to extract and transport.
Do you have alternative resources hidden up your sleeve... or would you have us all returning to mud huts.

You're another guilt ridden self-hating misanthropist.

C...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Oh you mean those scientists funded by vested interests.. The world has been cooling for the past 10 yrs...where's your Anthropological Global Warming now ?? hmmmm ??


Your claim the earth is cooling is based on fallacy. The last ten years data shows some of the warmest years on record. 2005 was the hottest year on record the following years have been cooler in comparision. However this is not cooling.

Any climatic scientist worth there weight in salt will understand that background noise varies over time and location. You will see differing in results between place and even cooling on a regional level. Variations will occur that is not in dispute and warming will not occur in a linear fashion.

I requested you supply some facts. You have supplied nothing but your opinion. I am not interested in your opinion the world in full of them. ATS moto is deny ignorance. Not ooze the stuff.


Show me this data then.....
No point in requesting facts when you cannot present them yourself....all you have supplied is opinion which makes you a hypocrite...... and I am aware of variances,peaks and troughs...but the trend is definitely cooling..this winter was one of the coldest in recorded history...what do you have..one hot summer in 2005..wooo.

C...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Pretty words and ad hominem to cast an illusion of authority?
Sorry, you'll have to do better. Care to actually address the content of the post you replied to?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Look around you..everything is made from plastic....or metal that requires fossil fuels to extract and transport. Do you have alternative resources hidden up your sleeve... or would you have us all returning to mud huts.


Yes there are alternatives. A computer for example can be looked at in terms of Life cycle Analysis LCA. In which every material that is used is tracked back to source. This can then be calibrated to give an environmental cost for building the computer. Such costs could easily be built into the price of the machine and polluter pays policies can be implemented on international levels.

Just as the poster above pointed out pretty words do not address the content of a post. Why dont you try addresses some of the points instead of coming out with random garbage
edit on 2-2-2013 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Pretty words and ad hominem to cast an illusion of authority?
Sorry, you'll have to do better. Care to actually address the content of the post you replied to?


Care to provide some content and I might.


And an assertion of guilt ridden misanthropy is not ad hominem.

It is a diagnosis of your psychological symptoms.


C...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


You're not qualified to diagnose anything on the internet and might even be violating TC's by doing such, if I chose to make an issue of it, but I'm a big girl and this is fun (plus I have the flu and am incredibly bored). Acknowledging guilt is not misanthropic. Your avoidance, twice now, of addressing the content of my post is clearly ad hominem. I stated that the people being paid to debunk AGW are not qualified to do so. Do you have anything that refutes my claim?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Show me this data then..... No point in requesting facts when you cannot present them yourself....all you have supplied is opinion which makes you a hypocrite...... and I am aware of variances,peaks and troughs...but the trend is definitely cooling..this winter was one of the coldest in recorded history...what do you have..one hot summer in 2005..wooo.


I have no problem showing you per reviewed data collabarating my opinion. I think you will have troulble doing the same..




… our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.




Challange it I dare you. The biggest datastet avalable and and independanly verified. If you want to try and challange it go to. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study.

thinkprogress.org... -carbon-pollution/




“Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”



And no, the ocean didn’t stop warming in the middle the last decade, as a chart from yet another scientific study makes clear


Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010 derived from Argo measurements. The 6-yr trend accounts for 0.55±0.10Wm−2. Error bars and trend uncertainties exclude errors induced by remaining systematic errors in the global observing system. See Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011)



and here are several more graphs from key scientific papers that back the fact the planet is heating. Please feel free to respond but try cutting to the chase and leave The magic unicorns from the planet pluto behind.

thinkprogress.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Oh you mean those scientists funded by vested interests..


hm like the webiste posted by the OP....Get a grip boy..



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





Show me this data then..... No point in requesting facts when you cannot present them yourself....all you have supplied is opinion which makes you a hypocrite...... and I am aware of variances,peaks and troughs...but the trend is definitely cooling..this winter was one of the coldest in recorded history...what do you have..one hot summer in 2005..wooo.


I have no problem showing you per reviewed data collabarating my opinion. I think you will have troulble doing the same..




… our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.




Challange it I dare you. The biggest datastet avalable and and independanly verified. If you want to try and challange it go to. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study.

thinkprogress.org... -carbon-pollution/




“Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”



And no, the ocean didn’t stop warming in the middle the last decade, as a chart from yet another scientific study makes clear


Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010 derived from Argo measurements. The 6-yr trend accounts for 0.55±0.10Wm−2. Error bars and trend uncertainties exclude errors induced by remaining systematic errors in the global observing system. See Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011)



and here are several more graphs from key scientific papers that back the fact the planet is heating. Please feel free to respond but try cutting to the chase and leave The magic unicorns from the planet pluto behind.

thinkprogress.org...








Lol...your charts exactly match those of Solar output.

Which has been in decline for the last 10 yrs ..... try harder.

So glad you're not choosing to show the hockey stick graph and blaming it on Industrialization...oh wait ..you are.

A couple of big Volcanoes can change all that...does your interpretation of those graphs include them...you ignore the Sun..so I have no doubt you choose to ignore all other factors.

C...
edit on 2-2-2013 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





Lol...your charts exactly match those of Solar output. Which has been in decline for the last 10 yrs ..... try harder.


First you stated the earth has been cooling for the last ten years. Now you are saying that my graphs that show the earth is heating are correct and its caused by the sun..

I think you just owned yourself. Comeback to me son when you have grown a couple of legs to stand on and got yourself some education...
edit on 2-2-2013 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by purplemer
 





Lol...your charts exactly match those of Solar output. Which has been in decline for the last 10 yrs ..... try harder.


First you stated the earth has been cooling for the last ten years. Now you are saying that my graphs that show the earth is heating are correct and its caused by the sun..

I think you just owned yourself. Comeback to me son when you have grown a couple of legs to stand on and got yourself some education. In the meantime I suggest you go and watch the cartoon channel...
edit on 2-2-2013 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


No I said your graph closely matches those of the sun....I did not say they were correct...you are putting words into my mouth.

And for your personal info ..I am 47 and am not your son....go patronize a 12yr old...about your size.


C...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 

The earth responds to stimuli on a global basis though and that computer modeling isn't taking into consideration the response of the earth. This earth response trails events by up to forty years in some cases and we have barely started to scratch the surface of understanding this.


This is abso;lutely true today and has been for about 4 and 1/2 billion years.
Man cannot control the Earth, today.

Of course, AGW faithful and "catastrophe" mongers cannot accept such a thing. Man scars his environment and only man can "fix" the environment, according to their dogma.

"Nature" is little more than a source of publication for activists whose existence and livelihood depend upon Man for a "cure" to climate change.

When their models approach a semblance of accuracy and forecasts are approximations of reality, we will see "climate science." As of today, all they offer is speculation and alarm.

The AGW religion will rely upon little more than faith and false consensus until their science is verifiable and reproducible. It is not even close today.

Those who belive "the science is settled" are tools or fools.

jw



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


You're not qualified to diagnose anything on the internet and might even be violating TC's by doing such, if I chose to make an issue of it, but I'm a big girl and this is fun (plus I have the flu and am incredibly bored). Acknowledging guilt is not misanthropic. Your avoidance, twice now, of addressing the content of my post is clearly ad hominem. I stated that the people being paid to debunk AGW are not qualified to do so. Do you have anything that refutes my claim?


You do not know my qualifications and I am not violating TC's so go make an issue if you wish.
You're not acknowledging guilt, you're wallowing in it.
I have no idea of anyone being paid to debunk AGW..do you have some evidence ? and stating that they are not qualified is merely an opinion of yours.

C...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

I stated that the people being paid to debunk AGW are not qualified to do so. Do you have anything that refutes my claim?

You start from a false presumption.
There are certainly "people who debunk AGW" who do so for the benefit of science and rational debate.

Such a generalization typifies the demonization of anything that contradicts AGW dogma.

Name the "people being paid to debunk AGW," itemize their "pay," and there will be something to refute.
You will not and cannot, because it is a damnable lie.
Unril then, your proposition is baseless and borderline libel.
It is clearly defamatory.

Care to defend your assertions with fact?

jw



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





No I said your graph closely matches those of the sun....I did not say they were correct...you are putting words into my mouth.


So if you are not trying to say they are correct I guess you are not trying to say much whatsoever. I guess that figures. Good day to you...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 





and stating that they are not qualified is merely an opinion of yours.


Along with the vast majority of the scientific community. I guess in your world they are not qualified either.





top topics
 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join