Arguments about climate change

13 degrees celsius here tomorrow. I know Global Warming doesn't just mean it's warming but that's fairly pleasant weather this time of year.

youngdan wrote:

Neither of ye have a back bone. Ye don't have the courage of yeer convictions after the hurricane season was one of the quietest on record.

Am I not very lucky to be in the box where it freezing. I don't have to worry about a thing. It is a big box because it is frigid all over the US and Canada.

We have people screaming about warming but are too scared to pre
dict the winter will be cooler than average.

Not just in North America but anywhere on the planet. Why should any reader take your're view seriously when you both doubt them yourselves

Don't play the fool, youngdan, and don't take me for one either. You're not stupid enough, or ill-educated enough, to pretend you don't understand averages and trends. Nor are you fool enough to think I'll defend a straw man argument you've made. At least, I hope not.

A-T

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/607

Did you even read this article with it's numerous links that I posted. More scientists say it is bunk than other wise. There is Artic air heading this way at -40 degrees. Yet you seem to think it is the tropics up there. How exactly does ice melt at -40.

Needless to say you too are afraid to say this winter will be warmer than average

Ibis. I challegne you to show me where the above average tempertures are to balance the tempertures which are way below average in North America,

Put up or shut and tell me where the high temps are so we can watch them

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. I challegne you to show me where the above average tempertures are to balance the tempertures which are way below average in North America,

Put up or shut and tell me where the high temps are so we can watch them

You still haven't understood "trend". The rise in temperatures is an average in both space and time, and currently it's estimated to be 0.6 degrees or thereabouts, which is a lot less than variation. Clearly I need to do a picture of that as well.

You're still asking me to defend something which I not only haven't ever said, but which I have told you repeatedly is completely wrong. Tough-talking on top of that just makes you look like a horse's ass.

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. I challegne you to show me where the above average tempertures are to balance the tempertures which are way below average in North America,

Put up or shut and tell me where the high temps are so we can watch them

You still haven't understood "trend". The rise in temperatures is an average in both space and time, and currently it's estimated to be 0.6 degrees or thereabouts, which is a lot less than variation. Clearly I need to do a picture of that as well.

You're still asking me to defend something which I not only haven't ever said, but which I have told you repeatedly is completely wrong. Tough-talking on top of that just makes you look like a horse's ass.

Indeed. youngdan is completely missing and wilfully misinterpreting the point. Even if the global temperature is falling, it's not as if it's the first time. The global temperature fell in the 40s and at the turn of the century but that didn't change the underlying trend. Global warming is happening and it is being caused by increased greenhouse emissions from human activity.

You are unable to point to any higher temps. but still you insist that the average is higher.


Now you want to talk about trend.

This article from Investors Business Daily openly laughs at those spouting about warming while snow fall on Las Vegas. It points out that the trend for the last 10 years is down. It has dropped by 0.5 centigrade. This is not localised but the global average. It points out that the concern os Global Cooling. The global average warmest temps were 70 years ago.

Are you saying these figures are wrong. Time to come back to this planet Ibis and freeze like I am today.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=314582265558716

This article is just a few hours old so enjoy.

youngdan wrote:

You are unable to point to any higher temps. but still you insist that the average is higher.


Now you want to talk about trend.

This article from Investors Business Daily openly laughs at those spouting about warming while snow fall on Las Vegas. It points out that the trend for the last 10 years is down. It has dropped by 0.5 centigrade. This is not localised but the global average. It points out that the concern os Global Cooling. The global average warmest temps were 70 years ago.

Are you saying these figures are wrong. Time to come back to this planet Ibis and freeze like I am today.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=314582265558716

This article is just a few hours old so enjoy.

Read it. Knock-about nonsense and more straw dogs.

A-T. The global temp is falling. It has been for 10 years. But you say falling temps is global warming. What sort of raimeis is that.

What trend are you on about. It was 15 degrees warmer 700 hundred years ago when Greenland had no ice and it was 30 degrees colder 10000 years ago when Ireland was covered with a glacier.

Nobody is buying this warming twaddle any more

Cactus.

Are you saying the figures from NASA are incorrect. Your nonsense is making it more difficult for Ibis to argue his point.

youngdan wrote:

A-T. The global temp is falling. It has been for 10 years. But you say falling temps is global warming. What sort of raimeis is that.

It's a medium-term dip in a long-term upward trend. It's like when the Dow falls from 8000 to 7000 in a trend which takes it from 5000 to 10000. The trend is still upward but the immediate environment is downward.

Quote :

What trend are you on about. It was 15 degrees warmer 700 hundred years ago when Greenland had no ice and it was 30 degrees colder 10000 years ago when Ireland was covered with a glacier.

The temperature has risen in the past century as global warming has bitten. The long-term trend is upward as this graph shows:

Quote :

Nobody is buying this warming twaddle any more

Again with the unsubstantiated supposition.

Do you agree it was 15 degrees warmer in the year 1300. 700 years is a pretty long trend.

Where do you want to start the trend.

youngdan wrote:

A-T. The global temp is falling. It has been for 10 years. But you say falling temps is global warming. What sort of raimeis is that.

What trend are you on about. It was 15 degrees warmer 700 hundred years ago when Greenland had no ice and it was 30 degrees colder 10000 years ago when Ireland was covered with a glacier.

Nobody is buying this warming twaddle any more

Well you know that this is nonsense

On Greenland:
There is no doubt that the landmasses bordering the northern North Atlantic (NE America, Iceland, Greenland and NW Europe) did experience more genial climes during the Middle Ages, followed by several centuries of a generally colder regime than now. These climate changes were often pronounced, but they did not always occur at the same time in different regions. As a result, when conditions are averaged over the whole hemisphere, the changes no longer appear exceptional. In other words, current evidence does not support hemisphere-wide synchronous periods of anomalous warmth or cold over this timeframe. Such periods appear to have been mainly a regional phenomenon, and are thought to have been associated with changes in the state of the atmosphere-ocean system centred on the northern North Atlantic. Natural fluctuations such as this occur on almost all time-scales. They can have a profound effect on climate on local or regional scales, but are greatly diminished in their influence on hemispheric or global mean temperatures.

The shape marked out by the smoothed curve in Figure 24b has seen this reconstruction dubbed the ‘hockey stick’, especially in the US (think of the graph turned through 90°). Its significance is that the warmth of the last few decades appears to be unprecedented in this 1000-year period; i.e. it rises above the range of natural variability, and exceeds the uncertainty in the proxy data record (at the 95% confidence level).

This is the longest thing I have ever linked to this site - it is an 18 hour Open University module of climate change. It is commendably balanced and by no means gives a free ride to the IPCC.

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805&topic=all

Here are more graphs which illustrate the present and future challenge of climate change:







Climate change is happening and it is something which we have to combat.

youngdan wrote:

Do you agree it was 15 degrees warmer in the year 1300. 700 years is a pretty long trend.

Where do you want to start the trend.

Christ on a crutch - it was about half a degree warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than in the 1800s. You're out by a factor of thirty. The top of the Medieval Warm Period was about where we were a decade ago.

Just to clarify my earlier point about warming being both a trend, and varying from place to place:

So Cactus says Greenland was a lot warmer but by magic nowhere else was warmer, is that what you are saying.

A-T decides to ignore the fact that 1300 had to have been considerably warmer. A-T was it warmer in 1300 or not. Then you put up a graph of what the sea level will be in 2100. Get real NASA just reported today that the sea level is falling and the ice mass is 30% greater

Then Ibis says that Greenland was .5 degree warmer in 1300. So half a degree was enough to change Greenland into an icemass. Or do you like Cactus think that Greenland was just a localised hotspot.

Do you say the NASA figures are lies

youngdan wrote:

So Cactus says Greenland was a lot warmer but by magic nowhere else was warmer, is that what you are saying.

A-T decides to ignore the fact that 1300 had to have been considerably warmer. A-T was it warmer in 1300 or not. Then you put up a graph of what the sea level will be in 2100. Get real NASA just reported today that the sea level is falling and the ice mass is 30% greater

Then Ibis says that Greenland was .5 degree warmer in 1300. So half a degree was enough to change Greenland into an icemass. Or do you like Cactus think that Greenland was just a localised hotspot.

It was warmer in most of the North Atlantic area, certainly. Elsewhere, it's not certain - bits of the Antarctic were colder around 1000-1100, not warmer.

But, yes, the half a degree made a biggish difference, although Greenland was ice-capped then and now.

youngdan wrote:

Do you say the NASA figures are lies

What figures? What I've seen from NASA recently shows accelerated sea-level rise and massive ice loss - see search.

The figures in the investors business daily newspaper in the article I linked to. from the day before yesterday

youngdan wrote:

The figures in the investors business daily newspaper in the article I linked to. from the day before yesterday

I read it youngdan. It thought it was a comedy piece, particularly the bit where it makes out scientists say that sea level rise would happen because floating ice melts . But its easy for us to be smart over here. We haven't been subjected to the barrage of propoganda and disinformation that has been put out in the States. I already pointed out evidence to you that the Bush government concealed and distorted the results of climate studies.

When you have a government run by oilmen, what else could you expect?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rumors-of-the-death-of-arctic-sea-ice-greatly-exaggerated/2/

This says the ice shelf in Antartica is growing and there are undersea volcaoes at work. My article says the level is falling and these articles say the level is rising .2 inchs per year. At one time Ireland was
covered with water. Did the sea level drop or did Ireland rise. It was one of the two.

This is really a joke and you are worried about nothing. When the tsunami hit Thailand what do you think caused it. The oceon floor rose several meters and you are talking about a fifth of an inch

http://www.mahalo.com/Tsunami

Maybe Cactus or A-T can figure out whether Ireland rose or the sea level fell

Can you read Cactus. Point out in the article where it says that scientists say that melting ice raises the water level.

You do not even understand archemedes and now you are contradicting yourself and looking like a fool.

Put up or shut and point it out

youngdan wrote:

Can you read Cactus. Point out in the article where it says that scientists say that melting ice raises the water level.

You do not even understand archemedes and now you are contradicting yourself and looking like a fool.

Put up or shut and point it out

Quote :

Speaking of rising sea levels, is Al Gore smarter than a fourth-grader? James O'Brien, emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, thinks not. "When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," he points out.

"When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth-grade science experiment: Take a glass, put some ice in it, put water in it, mark level where water is. . . . After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes principle."

Sea level rise is associated with global warming because warming water expands.

From your article. A typical straw dog, with a red nose on - the article is clearly a comedy piece.

So would you like to post a link to the NASA data that you referred to?

This guy is pointing out that Gore is a fool for not understanding Archimedes principle. You don't understand it either and you are making a fool of yourself.

The data is in the article but you don't understand the article either.


I'll make it easy for you. When an iceberg melts it does not raise the water level. OK

youngdan wrote:

This guy is pointing out that Gore is a fool for not understanding Archimedes principle. You don't understand it either and you are making a fool of yourself.

The data is in the article but you don't understand the article either.


I'll make it easy for you. When an iceberg melts it does not raise the water level. OK

And when an ice shelf melts, it does. And when water is warmed it expands.

Youngdan, you're at the sad stage of linking to blogs that don't link to their sources. This is equivalent to me linking to a blog that says there's no recession, based on CSO figures it claims to have seen but doesn't link to. Deeply pathetic.