Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating

All of the ridiculous talking points of the skeptics have already been addressed by the scientific community several times over. Idiot skeptics continue to mindlessly spout them out.

Agw never stopped. The heating went into the oceans. One shouldn't expect every hurricane season to consecutively break records. It's absurd to focus on this one aspect of weather and claim it proves climate change is bunk.

Yea, cyles, we all know about them. How does an ice free summer this decade fit into a non agw cycle of yours? Oops, you failed to mention that one.

Freaking ridiculous.

Kali74
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

You still have not answered the questions I asked you. You gave a quick, condescending answer to Nixy as if she were a child... you stated that global warming is as simple as Earths orbit around the sun. I asked you to explain why our current orbit explains our current climate change. Can you answer the questions or not?

The graphs I posted answer that question quite well, The fat that you personally refuse to acknowledge them is not my problem. The answer is there, all you need to do is see it and realize it is the answer.

Fluid systems, such as weather patterns of our Earth, are not appropriately described based off of yearly observations. The chaotic nature of weather patterns often present counter-intuitive operations based upon environmental conditions. That is to say that if the Earth were getting really hot, we may have a really cold period, or vice verca. Certainly not that it would have to happen that way, only that it could happen, is why predictions regarding fluid systems are best made over as long of a period as possible.

That being said; there is a lot of other information that tends to lean my opinion in towards the bs side of things. Some of the most compelling being that governmental approach for combating "global warming" is through taxation.

reply to post by Kali74


Here you go.

Several sources about how the whole solar system was undergoing warming. You should be able to get behind the source.

webedoomed
All of the ridiculous talking points of the skeptics have already been addressed by the scientific community several times over. Idiot skeptics continue to mindlessly spout them out.

Agw never stopped. The heating went into the oceans. One shouldn't expect every hurricane season to consecutively break records. It's absurd to focus on this one aspect of weather and claim it proves climate change is bunk.

Yea, cyles, we all know about them. How does an ice free summer this decade fit into a non agw cycle of yours? Oops, you failed to mention that one.

Freaking ridiculous.

Ice free?

The ice levels have been low, but never gone.

And how do record amounts of ice in Antarctica fit into your AGW beliefs?

reply to post by Krakatoa


No, they don't. What is our current orbital pattern? What is our current tilt. Do these things explain our current warming? What kind of climate should we be having based on our current orbit and tilt?

reply to post by roundpyramid



I fell for it at first, then I heard about the politics involved and started researching, that's when I changed my mind.

iunlimited491
Does this mean Climate Change doesn't exist? Absolutely not.

In fact, it would take a dull mind to use a decrease in Hurricane frequency as evidence in opposition to the reality of Climate Change. These record highs and record lows are an indication of the changes that are currently taking place all over the world. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

What I just don't understand is how you can look back at reports like this and compare them to the past 5 years of our history. Sure 5 years is a short time, but remember, all this GW stuff was going to kill us all with rising sea levels in just a few years too. See, you can't have it both ways, you have to accept that the psudo-science that was used to manufacture the AGW scare was flawed. Yes, the climate changes, it always has, and it always will. With or without man. Are we screwing up the planet? we sure are. At break neck speeds. But until the AGW religion realizes they are worshiping a false idol, nothing of real consequence will be done. Just a little bitching and whining from time to time.

Tropical cyclones rank with earthquakes as the major geophysical causes of loss of life and property1. It is therefore of practical as well as scientific interest to estimate the changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity that might result from short-term man-induced alterations of the climate2. In this spirit we use a simple Carnot cycle model to estimate the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones under the somewhat warmer conditions expected to result from increased atmospheric CO2 content. Estimates based on August mean conditions over the tropical oceans predicted by a general circulation model with twice the present CO2 content yield a 40–50% increase in the destructive potential of hurricanes.

li nky

Kali74
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

No, they don't. What is our current orbital pattern? What is our current tilt. Do these things explain our current warming? What kind of climate should we be having based on our current orbit and tilt?

I am going to go way out on a limb here and say............the kind we are having right now.

The entire world has dynamic weather patterns. But it's kind of important to understand that with a tiny bit of common sense, you can understand that they are PATTERNS.

reply to post by webedoomed

What would NSIDC and our media make of a photo like this if released by the NAVY today? Would we see headlines like “NORTH POLE NOW OPEN WATER”? Or maybe “Global warming melts North Pole”? Perhaps we would. sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines.

Link to knolwedge.

reply to post by ketsuko


No I can't get behind the source. That ATS user put some good info out there about Mars, Jupiter and Pluto, there are more than 4 planets (I still call Pluto a planet even if it's not) in our solar system. Why aren't Mercury and Venus warming up? I would think those two would be the 1st since the sun's radiance reaches them first. And back to Pluto and really all of the outlying planets, we haven't been able to study them long enough or close enough to know what is actually going on with them. No scientist is claiming any strong climate theories on any planet further than Mars.

Mars orbital variations are 5x greater than Earths. Mars has no oceans to offset when Mars may be receiving more radiance from the sun due to its orbit and tilt. Mars has some serious dust storms causing darkening ice which as we know from our soot problem here on Earth, darker ice absorbs more heat and melts faster.

reply to post by network dude


Did you mean to reply to someone else? Was that one paragraph link to an article somehow suppose to be knowledgeable? Are you aware what is written in that article?

I suggest you read it in full. There is extreme differences between the north pole that crew witnessed in 1958, and the north pole which exists in 2013. Please tell me I don't have to hold your hand and walk you through each bit of difference. It pains me to think someone is not able to connect these dots on their own.

reply to post by blkcwbyhat


What you say is very true and definitely burning more fossil fuels does increase the problem. They burned trees a hundred years ago and deforested much of this country. Trees tie up carbon as does peat and swamps. When you get rid of those this effects the weather. Carbon is by far not the only unnatural thing going into our atmosphere. There are a lot of things emited by factories and jets that can effect the environment. Thirty years ago there weren't many jets in the air compared to today.

They need to look at the big picture and not just the parts that the government can tax. We need to stop wasting and creating things we do not really need that are built so poorly that they have to be replaced in a few years or the economy will suffer. The whole system we have developed is wrong, we need to examine the direction that society is going in and correct it faster...this includes the big corporations planned obsolescence tactics.

Kali74
What kind of climate should we be having based on our current orbit and tilt?

We simply do not know.

We make our best guesses based on partial data, but any climatologist that tells you that we know with certainty, isn't worth the piece of paper their degree is printed on.

The laughable part, is that we are still a very long ways away from getting a complete data set, yet both sides want to make definitive conclusions.

Pfft, call me when we have actually monitored our entire system for a second, let alone for the hundreds of years it will take to record and analyze any short term cycles.

Let's list what we do know:
Everything in our solar system can effect our climate.
We have approx 30 years of climate data for the temperate zone of a single planet.
We have less then 10 years of climate data for the majority of one planet.

Long story short, we are trying to infer the ending of a book based on the first letter.

ketsuko

Ice free?

The ice levels have been low, but never gone.

And how do record amounts of ice in Antarctica fit into your AGW beliefs?

I think you need to reread what I said. Did I say the arctic are currently ice-free? No, I didn't. I said the arctic would be ice free during the summer this decade. That is a common prediction of climatologists and earth scientists. Thanks for letting me know it's "never been gone", but it has, just not for a very long time. Proves my point.

I don't need belief. I have science. The science shows that sea ice volume in the antarctic has decreased, while ice on land has shifted away towards the sea, glazing it with a thin layer around it's edges that accounts for the delusion that there are "record amounts of ice in the Antarctic". It's false.

This has all been talked about so many freaking times. How can you denialists be so delusional after this all is beyond my comprehension.

reply to post by peck420

We simply do not know.

Yes we do know.






We should be (Should have been and were until we started burning fossil fuels) in a cooling trend, not freezing but cooler... colder winters and mild summers.

Kali74
Yes we do know.

Oh good, then you can easily explain why the models are constantly updated, and why the vast majority of predictions have been incorrect.

You do know, don't you?

reply to post by webedoomed


way to miss the point. fantastic. Actually, if you look at the big picture, or at least the article, it mentions that in the past, long before AGW was a concern, the ice was thin. Then after that, it got thicker, then in "today times" it's a bit thin again. Please tell me I don't have to hold your hand to make you understand that cycles exist and they always have.

Is the earth's weather static, or dynamic? How long has it been that way? Thanks for playing.

reply to post by peck420


What predictions have been incorrect?

reply to post by webedoomed


Further, the climate variability in the Antarctic has not exceeded the observed range of the past 300 years.

We present a new stable isotope record from Ellsworth Land which provides a valuable 308 year record (1702–2009) of climate variability from coastal West Antarctica. Climate variability at this site is strongly forced by sea surface temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the tropical Pacific and related to local sea ice conditions. The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica; however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, suggesting that at present, the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years