This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Snow thing of the past"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

"Snow thing of the past"
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MarkH View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Points: 1570 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarkH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2013 at 7:49pm
NO NEED.

'It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years.'

Your argument is now hinging on conspiracy theories and tabloid science.

Do you actually read anything anyone writes in response to your drivel?



Martin explained this earlier, but as you have admitted already, you don't read any of it so their is probably no point in posting these links -

Last 16 years video A nice little video to cut through some lies.

Last '16 years' story shown to have used cherry picked data Here you go Vulcan, the explanation you where asking for, not that you will read/believe it.

Rose debunked David Rose, the author of the 'article' is shown up for what he really is. He told 'porky pies' SHOCK.

Fox News slammed for regurgitating the Daily Mail article Says it all really. "Never let facts get in the way of a good story".

Phil Plait's response Well worth a read.


"The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are. This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects."   

"So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science." Phil Plait Ph D. Astronomer and ex NASA. Nice one Phil

Regards,
Mark.

Back to Top
patrico View Drop Down
P/UT
P/UT
Avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Location: London
Points: 101 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote patrico Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2013 at 9:04pm
while some people like the snow, spare a thought for me in a wheelchair I need snow chains. Last week and every year it snows, I am trapped indoors until the snow melts off my ramp (3-5 days)
Many Thanks



Patrick
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 10:28am
Originally posted by mark.hudson6 mark.hudson6 wrote:

NO NEED.

'It does not explain the lack of warming the last 16 years.'

Your argument is now hinging on conspiracy theories and tabloid science.

Do you actually read anything anyone writes in response to your drivel?



Martin explained this earlier, but as you have admitted already, you don't read any of it so their is probably no point in posting these links -

Last 16 years video A nice little video to cut through some lies.

Last '16 years' story shown to have used cherry picked data Here you go Vulcan, the explanation you where asking for, not that you will read/believe it.

Rose debunked David Rose, the author of the 'article' is shown up for what he really is. He told 'porky pies' SHOCK.

Fox News slammed for regurgitating the Daily Mail article Says it all really. "Never let facts get in the way of a good story".

Phil Plait's response Well worth a read.


"The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are. This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects."   

"So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science." Phil Plait Ph D. Astronomer and ex NASA. Nice one Phil

Regards,
Mark.

 
 
 
Mark, what can I say. Superb response, eloquent and succinct. Thumbs%20Up
 
Why is it that you and I can debunk this ridiculous 16 year warming claim, definitively, in a few minutes... but Vulcan can't. WackoWacko
 
Stand by for Vulcan to ignore this as well. He probably won't even watch the videos.
 
Once again, there will be no counter argument from Vulcan. He will simply ignore it, pretend it hasn't happened.
 
 
The second sentence of my first post is becoming very apt, don't you think?
 
It's a pain to keep repeating this stuff, but what we have done is perhaps prevent those who are undecided on the issue, from being influenced by Vulcan's propaganda. It makes me smile that he's obsessed with conspiracy, but simultaneously falls for the corporate sponsored, politically motivated, denialist garbage.
 
Vulcan has fallen for it hook line and sinker.
 
Worth posting this again...
 
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 10:35am
Originally posted by patrico patrico wrote:

while some people like the snow, spare a thought for me in a wheelchair I need snow chains. Last week and every year it snows, I am trapped indoors until the snow melts off my ramp (3-5 days)
 
Must be really difficult Paddy. It's bad enough for me with my back injury. Worries me that I may fall and aggravate my back.
 
Good news is that the snow is now gone in the midlands, reasonably warm and sunny too.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 11:18am
I just had to post this...
 
Originally posted by Vulcan Vulcan wrote:


Who is right? The guy who was found to be tampering with data and thinks computer models are infallible, or the woman who is "anti MMGW" who clearly (and correctly) states that computer models are flawed?
 
 
 
Quote

Scientist Quoted In Daily Mail Article Said Article Misrepresented Her Views. Judith Curry, a climate scientist who frequently criticizes the IPCC, was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying that models used to predict future climate change are "deeply flawed." She responded on her website that she did not tell the Daily Mail reporter Rose that the new data showed the models are "deeply flawed" and that she "agree[s] that 16 years is too short" a period to measure whether climate change is occurring:

But of course, Vulcan rarely reads what the scientists say, he prefers the Daily Fail.
Big%20smile
Back to Top
hifly View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Location: Hastings UK
Points: 1012 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hifly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2013 at 3:30pm
The bottom line to all of the above is the question of the motivation for supporters of each side of the broader climate change argument.
The scientists who have brought climate change to our attention will get kudos, funding (perhaps) and the satisfaction that they could be saving the planet.
 
The deniers, whoever they are, what is their motivation? Could it be that the producers of fossil fuels are behind this with banks and goverments quietly backing them up? 
 
Now call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but with melting ice caps and glaciers I know which side of the fence I'm on.
 
The irony is, if we drive our cars and heat our homes using fossil fuels then we are all complicit.
Must Fly!
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2013 at 10:05am
Originally posted by hifly hifly wrote:

Could it be that the producers of fossil fuels are behind this with banks and governments quietly backing them up?
 
You bet, check out the infamous Heartland Institute, or the role Exon Mobil has played in regard to promoting the anti scientific deniers. And Koch industries. Aptly named. Wink
 
And not forgetting the right wing organisations, the politicians in the US for example, with big bucks to protect.
 
Quote ExxonMobil has also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming. During the Bush Administration, they recommended the appointment of key personnel and also funded climate change deniers in Congress.
 
 
Quote

ExxonMobil spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to 43 advocacy groups that confuse the public on global warming science. They gave the Heartland Institute $600,000 between 1998 and 2005. The Heartland Institute worked closely with tobacco company Phillip Morris in the 1990s to refute the connection between secondhand smoke and health risks. Currently the Heartland Institute is currently focusing on questioning the science behind climate change. According to the New York Times, they are the “primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientist. ExxonMobil is also connected to nine of the top ten authors of climate change denial papers. Wei Hook Soon, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has co-authored several papers repudiating climate change. His work has been highly criticized by climate scientists for content and for his funding by the American Petroleum Institute, including ExxonMobil. Soon has also received funding from the Koch Foundation, a charity of the Koch Industries, an oil and gas conglomerate.

ExxonMobil also funds the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Sherwood B. Idso, the organization’s president, has co-authored 67 papers, and Patrick Michaels has co-authored 28 papers denying the data on climate change.

In 2008 ExxonMobil pledged to quit funding climate change deniers, however they are still influential in climate change denial through their funding of several organizations. They also pay for opinion advertorials on the New York Times opinion pages.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 5:13pm
Quote There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.

You've gone and missed what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. I'll quote it YET AGAIN.

Quote Let me re-state for the millionth time.

I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring. WE ARE STILL LEAVING THE LAST ICE AGE.

That is not in dispute.

What I dispute is this:

THE CAUSE!

i.e. everything MMGW/Climate Change says that CO2 is the CAUSE, and worse, all warming since the 40s is due to man!

The scientists from the British Antarctic Survey doing the ground work say CO2 rise LAGS temperature. Ice cores show the same thing. Long-term historic analysis shows the same thing.

Why do they keep perpetuating lies?


Did you read that?

Yes, I read your links, too. If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average?

I hope the question is simple enough for you to:

a) answer

b) realize I'm not trying to avoid the point.

There is no cherry picking of data. I see that no-one is arguing the basic data, but merely the representation of it. The data is in front of you, so answer the question please and stop side-tracking with false arguments about how I don't read replies.

I'll put the question in large print, as you obviously have bad eye-sight:

If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative if it is supposed to be warming on average?

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 5:40pm
Tell you what I'll be back in 4 years (if this forum still exists then). Let's see what happens...

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MarkH View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Points: 1570 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarkH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 6:08pm
Erm... Vulcan, let me try and sum up your question and get this straight.


"Let me re-state for the millionth time. I do *NOT* dispute WARMING is occurring."

And yet in the same post -

"If you average the 16 years data, why is it slightly negative"


So you are asking why global warming and global cooling is occurring at the same time?


CONGRATULATIONS!!!





"Yes, I read your links"

I would suggest you started reading your own.

I can no longer refer to you as Vulcan, their is no logic in your responses. I can only conclude that you have recently mind-melded with a gerbil.


Regards,
Mark.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 9:59am
oh how I laughed Vulcan has put his foot in it again.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:04am
Quote There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored c***.
Quote You've gone and missed what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. I'll quote it YET AGAIN.
 
Vulcan... there is no controversy, and not just in terms of "the planet is warming", but no controversy in terms of "we are the cause of a significant percentage of the warming".
 
So no need for you to post your response.
 
 
 
Quote WE ARE STILL LEAVING THE LAST ICE AGE.
 
I've responded to that claim a thousand times on the forum. Is your selective memory a conspiracy theorists favourite tool?
 
The oposite, entering a new ice age, right now:
 
Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. But the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors.
 
 
 
Conversely, if we are still warming:
 
Strictly speaking we are still in an ice age, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. But any warming that may or may not be taking place would be imperceptibly small, it would be on a geological time scale. Nothing like the rapid rise in temperature we have seen since the industrial revolution, that's in step with OUR EMISSIONS.
 
And don't you dare criticise the hockey stick.
 
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:10am
Quote The scientists from the British Antarctic Survey doing the ground work say CO2 rise LAGS temperature. Ice cores show the same thing. Long-term historic analysis shows the same thing.

Why do they keep perpetuating lies?
 
No lies, just you not bothering to ask those that know, the scientists. Instead you refer to climate change denier web sites, and as you admit, rarely read what the scientists say, because you get all you need from the telly. Wacko
 
Quote Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
 
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
 

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

  • The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.
  • This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.
  • This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.
  • The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.
 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2013 at 10:47am
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Tell you what I'll be back in 4 years (if this forum still exists then). Let's see what happens...

Best regards,
Vulcan.
 
Nothing, it's too short term for MMGW to be significantly worse.
 
Good grief.  We really do waste our time.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down