Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do not ever suggest that we eat what we are fed. it's not to beat you down. it is meant to make you think why the consensus is the way it is and why scientists are so sure. the consensus is there for a reason. why do the experts disagree with you?
I showed how solar effects are ten times less significant as greenhouse gasses added in the last few hundred years. I showed you how there is no physical model of CRT. You're taking a weak correlation and claiming it's evidence of causation where most climate scientists take hard physics, use that physics to create models that accurately reproduce past conditions and using THAT as evidence of causation.
That H2O is a greenhouse is common knowledge. It's very well understood and included in all appropriate atmospheric climate models. Of course, it's been shown that it CANNOT account for past or current climate change without taking other greenhouse gasses into account. You clearly didn't read the article I've posted twice, so here it is again -- do read it this time. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...te-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
Nonsense -- perhaps you are referencing the fact that warming precedes CO2 increase after ice ages. I discussed this previously when I established that because warming can increase CO2 levels (all climate scientists are aware of this!) does NOT imply in any way that CO2 levels do not also increase temperature! If you're talking about some other random point, do elucidate so we can address that too.
I didn't see most of those talking heads identified so I can't really say, but some of them certainly didn't understand the current state of scientific knowledge! For example, one claimed that because higher temperatures after ice ages preceds CO2 increase, CO2 increase cannot lead to higher temperature. This is a LOGICAL error and CERTAINLY doesn't follow scientifically! Sure, I'll agree that some scientists don't agree, but as they don't have a competing model, just a weak correlation, I disagree that there is actual science dissenting with the AGW conclusion.
Absolutely -- I don't know why you'd call this a 'belief' but this is hardly controversial!
Nonsense. There is NO model for how cosmic rays can affect the temperature of the Earth. All you have is a weak correlation between solar activity and temperature -- and the radiative forcing due to the 11 year solar cycle has been mathematically shown to be 10 times less significant as greenhouse gasses. Of course, I might be wrong -- show me a mathematical model (not just a graph, as I'm sure you'll agree that correlation does not equal causation) and we can talk. Again, you didn't read the article I've posted three times now have you? It directly addresses claims about cosmic rays though you've never acknowledged that you've seen it much less understood what's in it!
I think you're quite confused -- base stations will always be able to record their ambient temperature highly accurately -- much better than satellites that rely on noisy radiation passing through absorptive atmosphere! This seems to suggest you don't really understand how temperature is measured! Of course, satellite data has greatly improved climate models by giving a much wider range of measurements than even weather balloons (especially over the oceans) and by helping to separate the effect of cities on local temperature since many 'base stations' have historically been near population centers.
I have no idea what a coming minimum is. If you mean temperature minimum, then yes, most scientists think the temperature will rise from here.
Nonsense, the solar forcing is ten times less than greenhouse gas effects as I showed in the article now posted three times. Further, it was also pointed out to you that while other planets have warmed slightly with increased solar activity, they have not warmed enough to account for the same relative warming on Earth. In other words, while it is an effect, if it were the primary effect, basic physics says that other planets should have warmed much more than they have.
You ever going to read and respond to the actual science with which I've been responding rather than simply finding more half-related websites/comics to paste in while repeating your claims without addressing the details I put a lot of work into posting?
Brainless? I've put a couple of hours of research into actual journal articles to make sure I'm getting my details right just for this thread, and that's beyond my usual reading... and you call it brainless because I agree with the vast majority of scientists? *sigh*
That you didn't specifically claim authorship is immaterial -- copying somebody else's work without attribution is a violation of copyright law and thus a violation of the board's rules. When you post something it is ASSUMED that you wrote it unless you note otherwise. At least according to US copyright law which is repeated by board rules.
Not always, and it's still not clear who wrote what unless you clearly attribute a source.
Oh, lol. I was under the impression that you WERE Greatcloud because you said "posted by greatcloud" rather than using quote tags. Sorry for the confusion, I thought it was weird that you were responding through another avatar (though I've seen it done before -- it's not unheard of) but your MO of copying and pasting other peoples' work without attribution and making it rather unclear which content is yours is quite similar to Greatcloud's.
Um no? Should it be? I've been called Fred in many contexts, but that isn't my real name either. You can call me Deamiter (or Dick, that's good too).
Um... copying somebody else's work without attribution violates copyright law and thus violates the rules of the board. Apparently they got rid of the rule against stealing bandwidth (and no, I'm not sure it has precedent in court) but it's sure disrespectful! Don't believe me? Here's one of MANY articles on the subject found via a famous search engine:
Like what?
While the Eastern ice shelf in Antarctica is gaining some ice, this is more than offset by the loss in ice in the Western shelf. Measurements of the overall mass of the Antarctic ice attest to this:
Well, besides the fact that polar bears will have a hard time surviving, the primary problem will be the difference in surface albedo: sea water doesn't reflect as much sunlight as ice. This means that instead of being reflected back off into space, more sunlight in the arctic during the summer months will be absorbed by the sea, which accelerates the warming in that region. This is most worrying for Greenland, which is melting at an extraordinary rate.
Because most of them haven't been predicted to occur for a few decades yet, some for a couple of centuries. But we've already seen one effect: the strengthening of hurricanes. While global warming doesn't make hurricanes more frequent, it does tend to make them stronger. And hurricanes of recent years have been much, much stronger than they were fifty years ago.
Despite some rather amazing records of local temperature variation (in England for example), warming in the medieval period was actually rather mild compared to current levels and was largely limited to the northern hemisphere. Given the small overall deviation in European temperatures especially as reconstructed in more recent years, it's likely that there was significant oceanic forcing as well as
Good question. Most global climate models predict that the arctic will warm much faster than the antarctic. One reason is that there is more land in the northern hemisphere which releases absorbed energy directly into the atmosphere rather than 'storing' it in subsurface layers pretty quickly. It also takes a LONG time for heat to make it from the northern hemisphere to the southern through the oceans! Finally, the circumpolar current buffers the antarctic from tropical heat but there is no analogous buffer in the northern hemisphere.
The primary effect would be increased heat absorption on the planet as ice reflects MUCH more energy compared to water.
You'd have to be more specific, especially with sources of these predictions. There are certainly many mainstream media reports that report limits (i.e. if somebody claimed that the next century's sea level rise will be within 60cm and 3 meters, you might see a news reporter claiming that 3 meters was predicted even though it was presented as highly unlikely). I'd prefer to discuss specific predictions from specific sources than trying to guess to which you are refering. In short, it might well be because most climate predictions are on the order of decades to centuries and good data like ice cores and coral cores have only really become widely available from which to construct accurate models within the last few decades.
CO2
