Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on September 14, 2013, 08:30:21 AM



Title: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 14, 2013, 08:30:21 AM
arctic ice supposed to melt away?

Some like the BBC in 2007 reported that the climate change consensus was that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 14, 2013, 09:06:37 AM
arctic ice supposed to melt away?

Some like the BBC in 2007 reported that the climate change consensus was that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013.

so you don't think the earth is warming up?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: 240 is Back on September 14, 2013, 10:01:26 AM
it's crazy how many people bought into global warming being manmade. unreal.  pelosi and newt on a couch, sheesh. 


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: polychronopolous on September 14, 2013, 10:05:27 AM
I just assumed I would be standing in 2 feet of melted ice right now cause the MSM told me so.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 14, 2013, 11:01:55 AM
so you don't think the earth is warming up?
Did the Arctic ice melt like it was predicted by the scientists, whom by the way no one has the right to question?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: chadstallion on September 14, 2013, 01:22:08 PM
Did the Arctic ice melt like it was predicted by the scientists, whom by the way no one has the right to question?
did it melt?
it's melting even as we debate it.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 14, 2013, 07:43:14 PM
Did the Arctic ice melt like it was predicted by the scientists, whom by the way no one has the right to question?

who says that no one has the right to question? peer review is just that, a group of people scrutinizing a paper to ensure it's sound.

Who made this prediction and can you provide some evidence to this claim?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Roger Bacon on September 14, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

    Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 07:01 EST, 8 September 2013


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eYAxnFQs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg)


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: whork on September 15, 2013, 06:42:39 AM
Global warming is quite real.

But i need my car so fuck it.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: blacken700 on September 15, 2013, 09:32:50 AM



No, the World Isn't Cooling


By Phil Plait

When I heard that the Mail on Sunday ran a climate change article over the weekend, I knew it would be bad. But when I clicked the link and saw it was written by David Rose, I braced myself for the worst.


Man, sometimes I hate being right.


Rose is a guy who denies climate change in the way creationists deny evolution, and flat-Earthers deny the Earth is, well, not flat. That is to say, with claims so ridiculously wrong it’s charitable to call them "ridiculously wrong."


The article in the Mail bears this out. In it, Rose makes a lot of jaw-dropping statements. To pick three, he says the world is cooling, Arctic sea ice increased 60 percent over last year at this time, and the International Panel on Climate Change is under so much attack they had to hold a "crisis" meeting.


These claims are at best misleading. The first and third are just wrong, and the second hugely cherry-picked. I’ll debunk these briefly here, but I’ll note you can get the grim details at the Guardian in a great article by Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham and at Discover magazine. Hot Whopper has a dissection as well.


Rose’s first claim is that the world is cooling. This is simply wrong. There’s long been a claim that global warming has stopped, but this too is wrong. Surface temperatures haven’t increased as much as they did a decade or so ago, but we now understand that the extra heat from global warming is getting stored in the oceans. Surface temperatures are a piece of the puzzle, but like their name implies, they don’t probe the depths of the problem. Remember too that nine of the 10 hottest years since 1880 have been in the past decade.



The second claim that the Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good.


sea ice extent graph
Sea ice extent for summer and fall of 2012 (dashed green line) and 2013 (solid blue line). The dark line is the average for 1981 - 2010.

Graph by the National Snow and Ice Data Center

   

Also, note the headline of the article that says, “Record Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 60% in a Year.” That is grossly misleading, making it seem as if the sea ice is coming back. It isn’t. The sea ice grows and recedes with the seasons every year and has been on the decline since spring … and the overall trend over time is definitely downward.


Incidentally, sea ice extent is interesting, but it's not the best way to look at this. More important is the sea ice volume, which tells you the thickness. Ice can cover a lot of area, but if it’s thin, that’s not good; it melts more readily in the summer. Right now, the trend for sea ice volume is down. Way down.


The third claim is that the IPCC had to hold a “crisis” meeting because—get this—Rose’s articles in the Mail have caused such a furor. Such a claim would be fascinating if it were true. But Ed Hawkins, a U.K. climate scientist, says he explained to Rose there was no such “crisis” meeting via email and on the telephone while being interviewed by Rose for the article! This didn’t stop Rose from making the claim anyway.


Rose makes lots of other claims, most of which rely on cherry-picking data or predictions by scientists to make it look like they don’t know what they’re talking about. Further investigation (see the links already mentioned above debunking Rose’s nonsense) show he’s wrong about those, too.


All of this is exactly what I was expecting when I read his article. Making a mistake or two is one thing—I’ve made some myself—but his history on this topic (like here and here and here to name a few) makes me think his claims really are in the same league as those of flat-Earthers.


And while newspapers like the Telegraph are busily parroting Rose’s ridiculous claims, it’s nice to see others like the Washington Post getting it right. Climate change is serious business, and the last thing we need is more hot air about it


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 15, 2013, 06:20:43 PM
oh no facts, run away nut jobs. Scurry.

Post some more doctored shit.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: AbrahamG on September 15, 2013, 06:36:13 PM
oh no facts, run away nut jobs. Scurry.

Post some more doctored shit.

Fox News is "the Onion" of the right.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: chadstallion on September 16, 2013, 12:56:48 PM
Fox News is "the Onion" of the right.
thank you for my laugh of the day! ;D


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 16, 2013, 01:30:16 PM
Seeing how the Earth is (hahaha) only 6000 years old, you can't expect that ice to melt over night.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: 240 is Back on September 16, 2013, 08:42:52 PM
it isn't a lib thing - there are complete fools on both side of the issue.   

anyone who says "libs and their global warming!"  need to include Palin, Romney, Newt, and everyone else that bought into al gore's bullshite.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Teutonic Knight on September 16, 2013, 10:50:25 PM
I would like to relocate a couple of struggling Polar bears from Artic to Antarctica
too many penguins there, would be like Christmas tree for them  ;D


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 17, 2013, 04:12:28 AM
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

So many predictions by the "climate change" community. So many have not even come to fruition.

Something is wrong when a group of people claim to have scientific proof that there is a change in the planet, make predictions on said evidence, but those predictions are shown to be completely off as time goes by.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 17, 2013, 04:26:25 AM
who says that no one has the right to question? peer review is just that, a group of people scrutinizing a paper to ensure it's sound.

Who made this prediction and can you provide some evidence to this claim?
Just look at the responses on this thread. If I or anyone questions the "science" we get comments like the one already posted. Anyone should be able to question this "theory". ANYONE! Whether the person is a scientist or a mechanic.

Who made this prediction?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'  
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco  

 
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records


More details
 
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

 


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 17, 2013, 09:49:01 AM
it isn't a lib thing - there are complete fools on both side of the issue.   

anyone who says "libs and their global warming!"  need to include Palin, Romney, Newt, and everyone else that bought into al gore's bullshite.

Al Gore, saw an issue that could scare millions and make him money.

Global warming is real and avoiding doing something about it will cause massive tragedies.

It that methane from the permafrost is released, millions would die.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 17, 2013, 09:53:30 AM
Just look at the responses on this thread. If I or anyone questions the "science" we get comments like the one already posted. Anyone should be able to question this "theory". ANYONE! Whether the person is a scientist or a mechanic.

Who made this prediction?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'  
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco  

 
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records


More details
 
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

 


Man read a fucking book or something jesus. Who predicted what? when? why? US scientists? you realize that every single world climate center disagrees with you, so this US scientist who is the be all end all of climatology has trumped them?

You realize what a prediction is right?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming


predictions are often wrong in science that's science, looking for the truth, even if they look stupid in the process.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Roger Bacon on September 17, 2013, 02:05:37 PM
predictions are often wrong in science that's science, looking for the truth, even if they look stupid in the process.

Yep, we're all in agreement now.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: tonymctones on September 17, 2013, 03:15:26 PM
Man read a fucking book or something jesus. Who predicted what? when? why? US scientists? you realize that every single world climate center disagrees with you, so this US scientist who is the be all end all of climatology has trumped them?

You realize what a prediction is right?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming


predictions are often wrong in science that's science, looking for the truth, even if they look stupid in the process.
when youre predictions are wrong in science, you revise your hypothesis.

notice how some are calling it climate change now instead of global warming?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Al Doggity on September 17, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
when youre predictions are wrong in science, you revise your hypothesis.

notice how some are calling it climate change now instead of global warming?

 ::) Climate change and global warming are two different things.

And if one scientist makes a prediction that is actually counter to what the larger scientific community believes, what hypotheses should they be revising?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 17, 2013, 07:06:48 PM
::) Climate change and global warming are two different things.

And if one scientist makes a prediction that is actually counter to what the larger scientific community believes, what hypotheses should they be revising?

Yes they don't get this point. It's these idiots who are wrong, who made the prediction, when? based on what?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Shockwave on September 17, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
I don't think anyone deny's that the climate is changing.
I know plenty of people that question just how much of we have on the environment.

My personal opinion... is that I don't fucking care, that we don't have enough of an impact to do anywhere near the damage that they try to scare us with.

Climate change is real.

Humans impact on it is debatable.

Bottom line - it has been far hotter and far cooler throughout earths history... and it's still here. IMHO, humans really overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of the earth.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: 240 is Back on September 17, 2013, 09:38:37 PM
Climate change is real.
Humans impact on it is debatable.

Agreed.  And I think any politician that blurts out they think it's man-made, without knowing the science behind it, is a stone cold fcking idiots.  And it's been people from BOTH parties that have bought into it.  Obama, Biden, Mccain, Palin, Romney... the only person in prez politics since 2008 that hasn't bought this shit hook, line and sinker was Paul Ryan... but his reasoning was "Snow!" - making him appear really stupider than the others haha.

The issue frustrates me... cause everyone that comes close to the white house is either ignorant on purpose to please the tea party, or ignorant on purpose to suck up to the Al gore crowd.  I dont' get it.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Roger Bacon on September 18, 2013, 12:20:05 AM
ignorant on purpose to please the tea party

 ;D


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: LurkerNoMore on September 18, 2013, 04:03:24 AM
I don't think anyone deny's that the climate is changing.
I know plenty of people that question just how much of we have on the environment.

My personal opinion... is that I don't fucking care, that we don't have enough of an impact to do anywhere near the damage that they try to scare us with.

Climate change is real.

Humans impact on it is debatable.

Bottom line - it has been far hotter and far cooler throughout earths history... and it's still here. IMHO, humans really overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of the earth.

This.

Climate Change / Global Warming / Whatever It Is Called Next is very real indeed.  And humankind certainly does have an impact on the cause of it, but nowhere near like what they want us to believe. 

And yeah, I agree.... I don't care either.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 18, 2013, 04:26:51 AM
Man read a fucking book or something jesus. Who predicted what? when? why? US scientists? you realize that every single world climate center disagrees with you, so this US scientist who is the be all end all of climatology has trumped them?

predictions are often wrong in science that's science, looking for the truth, even if they look stupid in the process.

Did you go to the website and read the article? You didn't. Because if you had you would have seen this:
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

You asked who? Wieslaw Maslowski and there are others in that article supporting Maslowski.

What? That the arctic ice would melt by 2013.

When? When was this prediction made? In 2007

You can go ahead and argue Maslowski's credentials. Go ahead. The fact is he and other scientists made that prediction.


It is convenient to state that it's ok for scientists to look stupid while they search for the supposed "truth". I think they should shut their mouths until they actually know the TRUTH instead of acting as if they are sure that it is all man made.



Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 19, 2013, 09:38:21 AM
Yep, we're all in agreement now.

ok? Can't tell if sarcastic, science is often wrong but continues to revise itself with the facts.

the facts are the world in increasing in temp, in fact records are being broken all over the place.

Why is the question, the world's climatologists agree that humans are fueling this rapid warming.

In some areas it should get colder as predicted.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 19, 2013, 09:39:40 AM
I don't think anyone deny's that the climate is changing.
I know plenty of people that question just how much of we have on the environment.

My personal opinion... is that I don't fucking care, that we don't have enough of an impact to do anywhere near the damage that they try to scare us with.

Climate change is real.

Humans impact on it is debatable.

Bottom line - it has been far hotter and far cooler throughout earths history... and it's still here. IMHO, humans really overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of the earth.

No they don't and the impact is not really debatable.

Opinions count for shit in science, the evidence rebuts you.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 19, 2013, 09:40:52 AM
when youre predictions are wrong in science, you revise your hypothesis.

notice how some are calling it climate change now instead of global warming?

jesus, the amount of fail in this post is too much.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 19, 2013, 09:52:20 AM
I gave up a long time ago trying to have an intelligent conversation with leftists about climate change (call it by the right term people).  The reason is that for libs it is their RELIGION!!  Try having a rational discussion with anyone about anything religious and see how far you get.  I just wish more people would actually look at the science and see that CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  We are tiny little annoying ants in comparison to the Earth.  The temp has gone up and down for long before we crawled out of the primordial sludge and it will do so long after we are all becoming fossil fuel.  All I needed to see was the ClimateGate scandal with East Anglia University and all the memos and emails that were leaked to know exactly what was going on here.  Don't listen to the talking heads on either side of the aisle - find out for yourself exactly what's going on.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: doison on September 19, 2013, 10:18:23 AM
Given a unit volume of atmosphere containing a CO2 density 1% above "normal," what is the increase in energy density for that volume of atmosphere over an arbitrary time period, what percentage of that increased energy density will be radiated back towards the earth, and what kind of increased temperature will it lead to?

Also, is a 1% increase in greenhouse gas per unit volume of atmosphere considered "a lot?"

If so, what does that say about the increase in temperature found in the initial calculations?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 20, 2013, 09:04:19 AM
I gave up a long time ago trying to have an intelligent conversation with leftists about climate change (call it by the right term people).  The reason is that for libs it is their RELIGION!!  Try having a rational discussion with anyone about anything religious and see how far you get.  I just wish more people would actually look at the science and see that CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  We are tiny little annoying ants in comparison to the Earth.  The temp has gone up and down for long before we crawled out of the primordial sludge and it will do so long after we are all becoming fossil fuel.  All I needed to see was the ClimateGate scandal with East Anglia University and all the memos and emails that were leaked to know exactly what was going on here.  Don't listen to the talking heads on either side of the aisle - find out for yourself exactly what's going on.

Please post this science. Please show how NASA are wrong and you an internet fucking partisan tard (your generalization of the left) figured it out. Records are being broken left and right, it is the most rapid warming period ever seen, so no, this isn't like before. If you think the industrial revolution and increase in agriculture (methane farts) haven't sped the process up you are left with explaining how the earth is in fact warming?

We know the variables that cause warming, none account for the magnitude, except one variable.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 20, 2013, 10:54:24 AM
Please post this science. Please show how NASA are wrong and you an internet fucking partisan tard (your generalization of the left) figured it out. Records are being broken left and right, it is the most rapid warming period ever seen, so no, this isn't like before. If you think the industrial revolution and increase in agriculture (methane farts) haven't sped the process up you are left with explaining how the earth is in fact warming?

We know the variables that cause warming, none account for the magnitude, except one variable.
Here you go you fucking partisan tard.  I unlike you have looked things up and not just regurgitate whatever lies your messiah Algore said.  Now go kneel down and pray that the temp lowers and we all don't burst into flames or die from ice melting.  fuckwad. 

Peer-Reviewed Papers

    Lindzen, Richard S. (1981). "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown". Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C10): 9707–9714. Bibcode:1981JGR....86.9707L. doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09707.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Nigam, Sumant (1987). "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics". Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 44 (17): 2418–2436. Bibcode:1987JAtS...44.2418L. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71 (3): 288–299. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate  change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94 (16): 8335–8342. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417–432. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47 (4): 377–390. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..1


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 20, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
And yeah i know they are all from one guy, but his research is so powerful and right on.  Anything else is watered down compared to Lindzen.  I know you won't read even one of these because like I said it is your RELIGION and science has no part in faith. 
You attacked me for generalizing the left.  Show me one leftist who does not faithfully believe in global warming.  Just one.  Now tell me about how I am wrong for saying what i did.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 05:29:36 AM
Did you go to the website and read the article? You didn't. Because if you had you would have seen this:
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

You asked who? Wieslaw Maslowski and there are others in that article supporting Maslowski.

What? That the arctic ice would melt by 2013.

When? When was this prediction made? In 2007

You can go ahead and argue Maslowski's credentials. Go ahead. The fact is he and other scientists made that prediction.


It is convenient to state that it's ok for scientists to look stupid while they search for the supposed "truth". I think they should shut their mouths until they actually know the TRUTH instead of acting as if they are sure that it is all man made.



oh my god a scientist made a prediction that was incorrect, the humanity. Guess what, it happens daily, things aren't simply black and white as you perceive. Things are complex, subject to chaos, why you think that years upon years of correct predictions, made by independent people all over the globe (every single country disagrees with you) is trounced because a complex issue was off shows you probably never went to college.

Global warming is novel and complex, it will catch us off guard because it's unprecedented. The issue is if the severity many predict will come to fruition or act randomly, the decades of data indicated the predictions are pretty fucking good.

Our current theory explains almost every anomaly accurately.




Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 05:31:37 AM
And yeah i know they are all from one guy, but his research is so powerful and right on.  Anything else is watered down compared to Lindzen.  I know you won't read even one of these because like I said it is your RELIGION and science has no part in faith. 
You attacked me for generalizing the left.  Show me one leftist who does not faithfully believe in global warming.  Just one.  Now tell me about how I am wrong for saying what i did.

because you are posting on a gimmick I will offer you a solution to the anal savagery you are about to experience with your links from 1994. Would you like to stop now or would you like me to perform forceful coitus?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 05:42:40 AM
Here you go you fucking partisan tard.  I unlike you have looked things up and not just regurgitate whatever lies your messiah Algore said.  Now go kneel down and pray that the temp lowers and we all don't burst into flames or die from ice melting.  fuckwad. 

Peer-Reviewed Papers

    Lindzen, Richard S. (1981). "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown". Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C10): 9707–9714. Bibcode:1981JGR....86.9707L. doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09707.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Nigam, Sumant (1987). "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics". Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 44 (17): 2418–2436. Bibcode:1987JAtS...44.2418L. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71 (3): 288–299. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate  change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94 (16): 8335–8342. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417–432. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47 (4): 377–390. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..1

All from one guy, LMAO!!!!!!!

1981, A paper from 1981

look at the power of the journals.

do you want me to unveil the biggest issue with these shit papers? Or this guy who uses discredited papers from the early 80's to argue global warming trends and data 33 years later.

it's like me posting a paper on the cause of AIDS from the 70's, while we know nothing of HIV and this is the guy warning us that gay's spread it.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: dario73 on September 25, 2013, 05:45:16 AM
oh my god a scientist made a prediction that was incorrect,


I stopped reading after this statement.

Don't act like it has been only 1 prediction or very few.

Fist of all, you doubted that any scientist made that prediction. I showed you that they did. MANY of them. So right there you lost this debate because you don't even know what is being argued by the side supporting this myth. So by all means, you already lost this debate.


Second, there have been more  predictions (PLURAL) that have been wrong. They have been wrong MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. From sea level to temperature readings for the past 15 years.

Go ahead, answer with more nonsense. I end my debate here with you since I have won again.

Climate change caused by man is a myth.

Climate change. Yes, there is climate change. They are called seasons.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 05:53:54 AM
I stopped reading after this statement.

Don't act like it has been only 1 prediction or very few.

Fist of all, you doubted that any scientist made that prediction. I showed you that they did. MANY of them. So right there you lost this debate because you don't even know what is being argued by the side supporting this myth. So by all means, you already lost this debate.


Second, there have been more  predictions (PLURAL) that have been wrong. They have been wrong MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. From sea level to temperature readings for the past 15 years.

Go ahead, answer with more nonsense. I end my debate here with you since I have won again.

Climate change caused by man is a myth.

Climate change. Yes, there is climate change. They are called seasons.

I don't doubt that a scientist made an incorrect prediction, I simply was pointing out that your article is not primary research and possibly editorialized and thus is a poor place holder in a scientific discussion.

Yes many predictions have been wrong, in all of science daily, and your point is? You strike me as someone who has never been in a science class.

We are wrong in medicine daily for example, again the world is complex and there is no data indicating that global warming is not occurring. Human impact is established and various theories will be tested.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 05:54:50 AM
I stopped reading after this statement.



Looks to be a habit of yours.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 25, 2013, 05:58:36 AM
All from one guy, LMAO!!!!!!!

1981, A paper from 1981

look at the power of the journals.

do you want me to unveil the biggest issue with these shit papers? Or this guy who uses discredited papers from the early 80's to argue global warming trends and data 33 years later.

it's like me posting a paper on the cause of AIDS from the 70's, while we know nothing of HIV and this is the guy warning us that gay's spread it.


Yeah because climate research didn't exist until the 2000's when your buttpirate criminal messiah Algore started his crusade to make billions err uhh i mean save the planet.  give me a break and way to read the posts before posting your idiotic attacks just like any good liberal would do.  You post absolutely nothing but leftist rhetoric that you puke back up after it is shoved up your ass and down your throat by msnbc.  now go ahead post your anal savagery or whatever you called fagwad.  And also fuck you.  bye.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Gonuclear on September 25, 2013, 06:00:06 AM
Al Gore, saw an issue that could scare millions and make him money.

Global warming is real and avoiding doing something about it will cause massive tragedies.

It that methane from the permafrost is released, millions would die.

Al Gore?  He probably has the carbon footprint of a small country.  He owns multiple homes, including a 10,000+ square foot mansion.  He travels to his lectures about global warming on private jets.  He owns five cars.  Electric cars?  Not a one.

A fraud in spades.

Meanwhile, developing countries are pressured into using high cost, low yield alternative energies that need heavy government subsidies to make them viable.  And the victims of this hoax in the developed world run out and buy fluorescent bulbs and keep that thermostat turned down.

Big Al does none of that.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 06:19:31 AM
Yeah because climate research didn't exist until the 2000's when your buttpirate criminal messiah Algore started his crusade to make billions err uhh i mean save the planet.  give me a break and way to read the posts before posting your idiotic attacks just like any good liberal would do.  You post absolutely nothing but leftist rhetoric that you puke back up after it is shoved up your ass and down your throat by msnbc.  now go ahead post your anal savagery or whatever you called fagwad.  And also fuck you.  bye.

No you fucking idiot, our understanding is light years ahead of this random wave paper from the fucking 80's. His papers are all bulletins or newsletters, giving opinion etc. he is a known user of debunked papers.

LOL leave like bitch, use a gimmick to post and get destroyed.

heres an update on aids from the early eighties.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1982 Sep 24;31(37):507-8, 513-4.

Update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)--United States.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC).


PMID: 6815471


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 06:24:33 AM
Al Gore?  He probably has the carbon footprint of a small country.  He owns multiple homes, including a 10,000+ square foot mansion.  He travels to his lectures about global warming on private jets.  He owns five cars.  Electric cars?  Not a one.

A fraud in spades.

Meanwhile, developing countries are pressured into using high cost, low yield alternative energies that need heavy government subsidies to make them viable.  And the victims of this hoax in the developed world run out and buy fluorescent bulbs and keep that thermostat turned down.

Big Al does none of that.

dude I don't give a fuck about your conspiracy theory, or the actions of some idiot. I am a scientist/academic, I could care less if global warming were true, who gives a fuck? the data however, indicate that it's very real and we are seeing some historic numbers year after year. The hottest years on record were in the 2000's, satellite imaging, something that has really improved in the last two decades, sorry dago, the early 60's weren't the peak of techonology, corroborate this. Are you suggesting NASA and every other climate org in the world are committing a conspiracy to keep people buying green products (nevermind, some of the countries that support global warming don't have an abundance of green options) and light bulbs?

It's a worldwide hoax?

The fact that people still dispute this and things like evolution, cosmology etc boggles my mind, ignorance is bliss I suppose.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 25, 2013, 06:28:12 AM
dude I don't give a fuck about your conspiracy theory, or the actions of some idiot. I am a scientist/academic, I could care less if global warming were true, who gives a fuck? the data however, indicate that it's very real and we are seeing some historic numbers year after year. The hottest years on record were in the 2000's, satellite imaging, something that has really improved in the last two decades, sorry dago, the early 60's weren't the peak of techonology, corroborate this. Are you suggesting NASA and every other climate org in the world are committing a conspiracy to keep people buying green products (nevermind, some of the countries that support global warming don't have an abundance of green options) and light bulbs?

It's a worldwide hoax?

The fact that people still dispute this and things like evolution, cosmology etc boggles my mind, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Good job little boy proving my initial point.  Leftists spew hatred and rhetoric and have absolutely nothing to back it up other than more hatred and noise.  Nothing will ever change your mind because ALgore is your pope and global warming is your religion.  It's like trying to convince a devote Jew that God didn't create the world.  I grow bored with your nonsense and attacks.  I'm going back to steroids and not wasting time arguing with immature marxist children on here.  Have fun attacking me calling me a gimmick or whatever you think because I won't be reading it.  Also fuck you...again.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 06:47:18 AM
Good job little boy proving my initial point.  Leftists spew hatred and rhetoric and have absolutely nothing to back it up other than more hatred and noise.  Nothing will ever change your mind because ALgore is your pope and global warming is your religion.  It's like trying to convince a devote Jew that God didn't create the world.  I grow bored with your nonsense and attacks.  I'm going back to steroids and not wasting time arguing with immature marxist children on here.  Have fun attacking me calling me a gimmick or whatever you think because I won't be reading it.  Also fuck you...again.

Ok here you go:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

now I hope you are familiar with NASA. would you like the primary research?

while my quip about the 80s was serious, the reason being, it wasn't till the later 90's 2000's that our best tool  satellites became fully viable and reached their potential (probably not).


So let's go over what we know. We know that the C02 levels in the atmosphere are at the highest in history, we can use ice cores to confirm this (see research links), we also note that the temperature of the earth along with other signs of heating (sea level rises) are occurring. We can also account for solar output very accurately since 80's and have other methods that while less accurate and passably .05, we know that's not the sign of warming. So we have record temperatures all over the globe, re-ceding ice sheets, ocean acidification, sea level rises, record temperature years, year after year and your conclusion is that it isn't C02?

we know what C02 does, NASA bases technology off of this assumption for example, so the clear answer is the C02. Then they run models, varying the greenhouse gases, solar output, climate change (climate patterns, I use GW and CC as if they are equal, they are not) things like el nino, nina, and the models that most accurately predicted the trends seen in the last decades are the ones with eleveated C02.

so that's established, now, why would it be human induced? well why the fuck would it go up so much? ever heard of the industrial revolution? well that combined with surface and atmospheric measures indicate the Co2 is through the roof. It's through the roof even for the earth, we know because we can again, use ice cores to track that.


National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.


4
 
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.


5
 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp


6
 
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.


7
 
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.h tm


8
 
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).


9
 
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009



Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Dago_Joe on September 25, 2013, 06:52:38 AM
Alright i went too far telling you to fuck off.  You have your opinion i have mine.  We will never agree and i will leave it at that.  I shouldn't have gotten nasty. 


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
Alright i went too far telling you to fuck off.  You have your opinion i have mine.  We will never agree and i will leave it at that.  I shouldn't have gotten nasty. 

No,I don't have an opinion, I see what the facts appear to say and I agree with most climatologists. Listen if you are doubting  the earth is warming, then you would have to be delusional. It's a fact of numbers, just like your age is a fact of numbers. From all the available evidence this last decade is the hottest ever,  the next hottest? the one right before it, somethings up. The major issue I have is that there are real world consequences for some people if the earth really heats up. People like those of the Maldives a country consisting of atolls, crazy good fucking vacation spot, will disappear, whole species will start to drop (we are seeing this already). I am not sure if we are the cause, it appears so for now and most experts (99%) would agree that we are the major driving force. For all we know there could be a complete nuisance variable doing all this like pavement or honey bees dying but it seems unlikely. The issue with global warming is it is hard to confirm causation.

So if you didn't know much you would in fact be skeptical, but the major deciding factor is that the data from all over the world, all the oceanography Ass., surface/atmospheric readings, weather data, temperature raw date  and of course the worlds satellite info all seem to confirm models based on massive influxes of greenhouse gases.

Another major issue is the permafrost. Some predict that it would only take say 1.5-2 degree increase in global temp and it would begin to melt, I would estimate more for actual effect. It's actually realistic we reach this mark sooner rather then later. If that happens methane and other potent GHGases get released. If that happens heating will then accelerate even faster.

Look I am a skeptic, this is critical thinking below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The first quote shows how we may have thought cyclones were caused by global warming, but improved imagery countered this. So we moved on, science.

And this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

Even in the comments people are debating. There are positives and negatives, as our world is constructed going either way is going to fuck us. We are going up too much as in this place is on panic.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 04:01:50 PM
What I mean by opinion is the degree of your argument, that is, if you contest the earth is heating up there are no opinions, if you contest it's man made then we would be able to discuss it with the vast weight of evidence on my side.

Seriously read the stuff I wrote and links, tell me what you conclude?


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Gonuclear on September 25, 2013, 04:19:30 PM
What I mean by opinion is the degree of your argument, that is, if you contest the earth is heating up there are no opinions, if you contest it's man made then we would be able to discuss it with the vast weight of evidence on my side.

Seriously read the stuff I wrote and links, tell me what you conclude?


When I was in high school in the 60's, "most" climatologists predicted global cooling - that we were headed toward another ice age, in fact.

If the climate models that are referenced to support projections on continued warming based on human activity are accurate, why can't those models and their creators predict what the weather will be tomorrow?

Moreover, once the man made global warming crew got political support, dissident scientists found that they could not get their views published.  There is now in fact a huge "global warming" industry with a vested (financial) interest in dismissing other explanations for the current warming trend, or the current appearance of an unprecedented warming trend.

The paradigm of science as a totally objective enterprise that builds incremental understanding of the natural world free of political and consensus prejudice was shattered by Thomas Kuhn in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  

Remember the War on Cancer, funded by Nixon, and resulting in the fallacious view that most cancers were caused by viruses (see Robert Gallo's research in the 1970's and 1980's)? That view also enjoyed support among a large consensus of cancer researchers for years.  But it is now acknowledged to be false.

I don't know that the same factors are at work in support of the man made global warming majority view.  But I do know that dissidents can't get published, and that climatology as a science is far from mature.





Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 25, 2013, 04:25:57 PM

When I was in high school in the 60's, "most" climatologists predicted global cooling - that we were headed toward another ice age, in fact.

If the climate models that are referenced to support projections on continued warming based on human activity are accurate, why can't those models and their creators predict what the weather will be tomorrow?

Moreover, once the man made global warming crew got political support, dissident scientists found that they could not get their views published.  There is now in fact a huge "global warming" industry with a vested (financial) interest in dismissing other explanations for the current warming trend, or the current appearance of an unprecedented warming trend.

The paradigm of science as a totally objective enterprise that builds incremental understanding of the natural world free of political and consensus prejudice was shattered by Thomas Kuhn in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  

Remember the War on Cancer, funded by Nixon, and resulting in the fallacious view that most cancers were caused by viruses (see Robert Gallo's research in the 1970's and 1980's)? That view also enjoyed support among a large consensus of cancer researchers for years.  But it is now acknowledged to be false.

I don't know that the same factors are at work in support of the man made global warming majority view.  But I do know that dissidents can't get published, and that climatology as a science is far from mature.





Obstensibly, I agree, however, the methods for climate science have grown vastly in recent years, the room for error is growing smaller as it always has. This is the beauty, the trend science being a bastion of truth is improving thus we can predict it will continue on this path.

Said another way, we use to argue which way the earth rotated but our mistakes now are new types of quasars millions of light years away.

However, science is made by man and thus is inherently flawed as you elude.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: JBGRAY on September 27, 2013, 02:14:57 AM
For there to be changes in man's economic and industrial endeavors that affect the earth's climate, there must be actual incentive to utilize an alternative energy source that could slow down or reverse the trend of man-made climate change. Simply increasing taxes across the board and setting up yet another global environmental bureucracy are not incentives. Attempting to scare people with dire forecasts of natural disastors in the near future is not incentive enough. Winning a debate on whether climate change is man-made changes no behaviors or encourage incentives.

Americans will continue to drive pickup trucks and not a Prius in large numbers(nevermind that a Prius during the course of its construction is much more damaging tomthe environment than most other vehicles). The Chinese will continue to erect smoke-belching factories to produce cheaply made goods to be exported the world over. Farmers will continue to feed their stock of cattle in order to satiate the global demand for beef and dairy.

Only by introducing a clean energy alternative to fuel our manufacturing, agricultural, and transportation that costs the same or less than what our current model provides will there be incentive to change. People like to thumb their noses at one another over who is right, but neither side has come even close in introducing a practical, viable alternative.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: Necrosis on September 27, 2013, 08:28:43 AM
For there to be changes in man's economic and industrial endeavors that affect the earth's climate, there must be actual incentive to utilize an alternative energy source that could slow down or reverse the trend of man-made climate change. Simply increasing taxes across the board and setting up yet another global environmental bureucracy are not incentives. Attempting to scare people with dire forecasts of natural disastors in the near future is not incentive enough. Winning a debate on whether climate change is man-made changes no behaviors or encourage incentives.

Americans will continue to drive pickup trucks and not a Prius in large numbers(nevermind that a Prius during the course of its construction is much more damaging tomthe environment than most other vehicles). The Chinese will continue to erect smoke-belching factories to produce cheaply made goods to be exported the world over. Farmers will continue to feed their stock of cattle in order to satiate the global demand for beef and dairy.

Only by introducing a clean energy alternative to fuel our manufacturing, agricultural, and transportation that costs the same or less than what our current model provides will there be incentive to change. People like to thumb their noses at one another over who is right, but neither side has come even close in introducing a practical, viable alternative.
Correct, I think weather machines and those that remove Co2 are the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

News from the UN. 95% Certain man is the driving force.


Title: Re: Believers of climate change, when is the
Post by: chadstallion on September 28, 2013, 03:25:12 PM
Correct, I think weather machines and those that remove Co2 are the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

News from the UN. 95% Certain man is the driving force.
well, 95% may say that, but you can rest assured that tomorrow Prof. Rush Limbaugh, master scientist, will debunk all of this.