Global Climate Disruption.

[Ironside]

Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

I've been mentioning that over a year ago. It's not hard to find out. Now it's worth remembering that they are a bit devious with the data, since it's only really working on year 1997. 1998 is too hot, any year before 1997 and 1999, 2000 too cold. The 0 line on that graph is also the 1901-2000 average. So it haven't been a warming up, but it's been consistantly warm.

I'll even admit that if the trend of stable (but still very warm temperature) temperatures continues or there's a significant cooling, you are right on this matter.

That's a problem with multifactor systems. It takes a long time to figure them out. You can easily have a mostly linear manmade global warming with a cyclic natural system. It would have fairly stable peroids combined with temperature bursts.

[InsaneApache]

This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.

[Fragony]

This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.

You mean you had one ;) manmade global warming is so utterly rediculous that it baffles me this religion could ever get a hold on things. It's a friggin planet ffs. You can't just change climate and you especially can't change it in a century. Be ashamed, feel bad. Now.

[CBR]

The El Nino and La Nina does mean temperatures varies a lot from year to year. 2010 was warmer than 1998, yet it did not have an El Nino as strong as in 1998.




The increase in aerosols also seems to have offset the warming a bit. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...particles.html

Oh and when has steam from cooling towers suddenly become smoke. lolz

[Furunculus]

Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml

still feeling remarkably confident about my stated opinion on catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change:

a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.

b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.

c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.

[InsaneApache]

What's that sound?

http://www.principia-scientific.org/...-collapse.html

Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?

[HoreTore]

Fallacy fallacy.

[InsaneApache]

Well if he couldn't even meet the low standards of a civil court, i.e. the balance of probabilities, I very much doubt he would be able to get past a rigorous investigation.

Still if you want you can always stick you fingers in your ears and shout la la la at the top of your voice.

It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.

[HoreTore]

Well if he couldn't even meet the low standards of a civil court, i.e. the balance of probabilities, I very much doubt he would be able to get past a rigorous investigation.

Still if you want you can always stick you fingers in your ears and shout la la la at the top of your voice.

A fallacy fallacy is still a fallacy.

[Fragony]

Sure gorgeous. Can we move on to water shortages please, global warming is getting old.

[Husar]

What's that sound?

http://www.principia-scientific.org/...-collapse.html

Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?

I don't care who is right, I just like the idea of scientists suing eachother over who is right.
And yes, it seems like the pro-climate guy was the first to do it.

Principia scientific is also a horrible website that's incredibly biased, in case you did not know this.
The only website I trust is wikipedia.

[HoreTore]

nvm.

[Fragony]

nvm.

A very popular stance within the church of global warming. I kinda like the absolute silence of apocalyptoloco's really. You just can't decide the earth is warming up, it really has to be true, otherwise it isn't. Classical mistake.

[HoreTore]

A very popular stance within the church of global warming. I kinda like the absolute silence of apocalyptoloco's really. You just can't decide the earth is warming up, it really has to be true, otherwise it isn't. Classical mistake.

I just love how you are able to spin a story like that without having the faintest clue of what post I deleted.

[Fragony]

I just love how you are able to spin a story like that without having the faintest clue of what post I deleted.

It's just too examplary to resist, common reaction nowadays now that the flaggalants are wrong as usual, no global warming, no apocalypse of doom; nvm. So, time to move on I'd reckon. Water shortages is a contender, as it will lead to mass starvations, war, and of course totaldoom. If we do not act right now.

Fits like a glove. Soon on schools: 'How are YOU going to teach your parents about water shortages'? The apocalyptic religious always have a problem with not getting under anyones skirt.

[HoreTore]

It's just too examplary to resist, common reaction nowadays now that the flaggalants are wrong as usual, no global warming, no apocalypse of doom; nvm. So, time to move on I'd reckon. Water shortages is a contender, as it will lead to mass starvations, war, and of course totaldoom. If we do not act right now.

Fits like a glove. Soon on schools: 'How are YOU going to teach your parents about water shortages'? The apocalyptic religious always have a problem with not getting under anyones skirt.

For your information, I posted a link I later found out contained a dead link. As I don't want to use secondary sources with no available primary source, I removed the entire thing and replaced it with a "nvm".

Enjoy your paranoid ramblings.

[Fragony]

Enjoy your paranoid ramblings.

I am not the one who believes in the apocalypse of doom, that would be the greenies. Relax man, you will eventually die because of natural causes, have some patience.

[HoreTore]

I am not the one who believes in the apocalypse of doom, that would be the greenies. Relax man, you will eventually die because of natural causes, have some patience.

Keep going. Your ability to spin nonsense out of thin air is hilarious.

[Fragony]

Keep going. Your ability to spin nonsense out of thin air is hilarious.

You know what's hilarious, a teacher in math who backs a theory made by people who claim that sea levels can rise more than two meters if the entire artic melts.

What did Al Gore say, 70 meter. Lololol, not enough ice

[HoreTore]

You know what's hilarious, a teacher in math who backs a theory made by people who claim that sea levels can rise more than two meters if the entire artic melts.

Allright then Fragsy, bring on your calculus:

Give me a mathematical proof how this is impossible. Constructed by you, of course.

[Fragony]

Allright then Fragsy, bring on your calculus:

Give me a mathematical proof how this is impossible. Constructed by you, of course.

Take weight, everything frozen allready has less volume than actual liquid water. Weight pushes water down and drives it up, less ice underwater will thus de facto have less volume, so underwater melting will actually lower the sea level. Take the ice above the sea-level, how do you see that raising the sea, which is about 2/3 of the planet, with 2 meter? Not enough water.

And especially not with 70 meter. Al Gore knows that, he bought a very nice house at the coasts. Clever guy, got to give it to him.

[HoreTore]

Take weight, everything frozen allready has less volume than actual liquid water. Weight pushes water down and drives it up, less ice underwater will thus de facto have less volume, so underwater melting will actually lower the sea level. Take the ice above the sea-level, how do you see that raising the sea, which is about 2/3 of the planet, with 2 meter? Not enough water.

And especially not with 70 meter. Al Gore knows that, he bought a very nice house at the coasts. Clever guy, got to give it to him.

LOL

Arctic ≠ Antarctic



And ice most certainly has a larger volume than water. Its mass, however, is smaller.

[Sarmatian]

The Earth IS warming up, Frags, do try to keep up. It's how much the human factor is responsible that's debated

[Fragony]

LOL

Arctic ≠ Antarctic



And ice most certainly has a larger volume than water. Its mass, however, is smaller.

No it isn't, mass is the same. Volume isn't, so it displaces more water. Less volume, less water rising because of less displacement.

[Fragony]

The Earth IS warming up, Frags, do try to keep up. It's how much the human factor is responsible that's debated

Sure it is. But we got nothing to do with it.

Clockwork http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/wp-c...mperatures.jpg

There must have been a lot of industrial periods I never heard about

[HoreTore]

No it isn't, mass is the same. Volume isn't, so it displaces less water. Less volume, less water rising because of the weight put upon it.

Whoopsie, made a mistake there: ice and water have the same mass, but water has a greater density than ice.

Anyway: the North Pole ice melting won't affect sea level(but not because "ice has less volume than water"). Nobody has ever claimed it would.

[Fragony]

Anyway: the North Pole ice melting won't affect sea level(but not because "ice has less volume than water"). Nobody has ever claimed it would.

I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.

[HoreTore]

I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.

Al Gore does not refer to the arctic sea ice in "An Inconvenient Truth", no.

[gaelic cowboy]

I kinda remember someone who did, someone who started this whole scare. An inconvinient truth-technically. Clever guy that Al Gore, some people will believe anything if they can blame everything.

Your wrong Frag however he does refer to Greenland and the Antarctic which are land ice and WOULD increase water levels.

[Fragony]

Al Gore does not refer to the arctic sea ice in "An Inconvenient Truth", no.

I think he did, but I never attended his church so I don't know for sure. I believe he did though, where else would it be comming from. Kinda full of it Horrie. As far as I know he specifically mentioned the north- and southpole melting. Can't you just accept that you have been fooled.