Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[Dr Kynes]

citation needed.



you listen to creationists, who cares what you think?

grownups are talking.

why dont you go outside and play.

 

[UncleBuck]

also, Climate Gate, "Hide The Decline", fraudulent "Hockeystick Graphs", dumping the data from hundreds of weather monitoring stations when they didnt show the warming predicted, deliberate falsification of data from weather stations in russia and india, etc...

somebody was going to mention it, so i just did.

also, exonerated.

you weren't going to mention it, so i just did.

 

[UncleBuck]

grownups are talking.

why dont you go outside and play.

"GOD DID THAT" a

 

[ginjawarrior]

again, i am not arguing that humans have ZERO EFFECT on the environment, i am saying that the trend was already there.

Assertion without facts?

arguing that human activity might be accelerating the change in climate is reasonable, at which point you must ask "How Much", but thats not the thrust of the press, the fearmongers, or particularly, Bucky's assertions.

argument to buck?

the message is "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change!!" and any other cause, like the Maunder Cycle, volcanism, or even the well established evidence that we have been in a naturally occurring warming climate for millenia is ignored like it just doesnt exist.

Again assertion without facts. climate scientists are well aware of natural cycles

this smacks of propaganda and hucksterism, not science.

don't pay attention to media....?

also, Climate Gate, "Hide The Decline", fraudulent "Hockeystick Graphs", dumping the data from hundreds of weather monitoring stations when they didnt show the warming predicted, deliberate falsification of data from weather stations in russia and india, etc...

Again get your data from denialist like Roy Spencer and you'll end up believing a lot of shit

Go find links for above and we will be able to see your version of natural news

somebody was going to mention it, so i just did.

Yeah you make a fuck load of assertions without facts


If only you spent as much time adding substance to your posts.....

 

[Dr Kynes]

skeptical science is inserting tags in your quotes, and fucking up the operation.

really, drop in a simple link, and ill take a look at your citation.

and now back to the action!

the 1979 cutoff is yes, based on the beginning of satellite data, but the beginning of satellite data was in the midst of the Great Ice Age Scare of the late 70's. this was a Global Cold Snap, which has skewed the temperature expectation, until you look farther back, and discover the line on the graph has been pointing up for 11,000 years.

climatologists using ice cores, tree rings, isotope decay rates and all manner of data sources which can look beyond 1979 find that the upward trend is LONG, but yes, there are fluctuations. setting your new normal at 1979, in the midst of a Global Ice Age Scare makes the entirely expected temperature increases look larger and more scary than they are, and despite the claims of many, we are still running quite a bit cooler than the height of the Medieval Warm Period's average.

 

[ginjawarrior]

skeptical science is inserting tags in your quotes, and fucking up the operation.

really, drop in a simple link, and ill take a look at your citation.

and now back to the action!

the 1979 cutoff is yes, based on the beginning of satellite data, but the beginning of satellite data was in the midst of the Great Ice Age Scare of the late 70's. this was a Global Cold Snap, which has skewed the temperature expectation, until you look farther back, and discover the line on the graph has been pointing up for 11,000 years.

climatologists using ice cores, tree rings, isotope decay rates and all manner of data sources which can look beyond 1979 find that the upward trend is LONG, but yes, there are fluctuations. setting your new normal at 1979, in the midst of a Global Ice Age Scare makes the entirely expected temperature increases look larger and more scary than they are, and despite the claims of many, we are still running quite a bit cooler than the height of the Medieval Warm Period's average.

T
it's not set At 1979 it's only you claiming that.... again assertion without evidence

also your mixing tabloid coverage with actual science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Again we know about natural variations we know what they should be doing now (you know clockwork an all)

Where are your studies saying current trend matches natural variation?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Assertion without facts?
argument to buck?


Again assertion without facts. climate scientists are well aware of natural cycles

don't pay attention to media....?

Again get your data from denialist like Roy Spencer and you'll end up believing a lot of shit

Go find links for above and we will be able to see your version of natural news

Yeah you make a fuck load of assertions without facts


If only you spent as much time adding substance to your posts.....

everybody who disagrees cannot be insane, creationists, or on the payroll of monsanto/the koch brthers/big oil/the marcab confederation/iblis/sauron and his minions in mordor

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

/shrug

you keep shouting about dr spencer, but that was just one citation.

just one out of several

thats what we call Cherry Picking (it's also a bit of an ad hominem against dr spencer, and Guilt By Association against me)

i also cited dr humlum's project

http://www.climate4you.com/

and a few others.

but i think the best evidence is Al Gore.

he still maintains his many homes, many cars, private jet and lavish lifestyle despite being the high priest of global warming

i prefer ed begley jr. at least he walks the walk.

 

[UncleBuck]

humlum is a well known denier.

you've cited a denier and a bible thumper who believes in creationism.

 

[ginjawarrior]

everybody who disagrees cannot be insane, creationists, or on the payroll of monsanto/the koch brthers/big oil/the marcab confederation/iblis/sauron and his minions in mordor

Poisoning the well? Is that because you already know their associate's ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

/shrug

Lol yes you poisoned that well just in time
Heartland institute?

you keep shouting about dr spencer, but that was just one citation.

just one out of several

thats what we call Cherry Picking (it's also a bit of an ad hominem against dr spencer, and Guilt By Association against me)

When you cite something as an argument from authority it's neither cherry picking or an ad hominem to point out the authority stands for nothing

i also cited dr humlum's project
http://www.climate4you.com/

and a few others.

but i think the best evidence is Al Gore.

he still maintains his many homes, many cars, private jet and lavish lifestyle despite being the high priest of global warming

i prefer ed begley jr. at least he walks the walk.

well when you get you climate science from the lifestyle of a politician.....

 

[Dr Kynes]

T
it's not set At 1979 it's only you claiming that.... again assertion without evidence

also your mixing tabloid coverage with actual science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Again we know about natural variations we know what they should be doing now (you know clockwork an all)

Where are your studies saying current trend matches natural variation?

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/15/us/study-of-greenland-ice-finds-rapid-change-in-past-climate.html

yep.

 

[abandonconflict]

but i think the best evidence is Al Gore

The way I look at it, he knows what he is talking about, because he feels guilty about it.

Well maybe he doesn't feel guilty, but he ought to. The complicit will always have inside knowledge.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Poisoning the well? Is that because you already know their associate's ?

Lol yes you poisoned that well just in time
Heartland institute?

When you cite something as an argument from authority it's neither cherry picking or an ad hominem to point out the authority stands for nothing

and a few others.
well when you get you climate science from the lifestyle of a politician.....

and now youre just spitting venom.

i disagree with your assertions and the conclusions of the un panel, that doesnt mean im on the Koch Brothers payroll either.

you are demanding i prove a negative or accept your assertions, but thats not how a discussion works.

but yes i must confess to Argumentum Ad Bucky earlier. i feel a little ashamed about that.

 

[ginjawarrior]

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/15/us/study-of-greenland-ice-finds-rapid-change-in-past-climate.html

yep.

I'm sorry bit confused what this 20year old study is supposed to be proof of?

 

[ginjawarrior]

and now youre just spitting venom.

i disagree with your assertions and the conclusions of the un panel, that doesnt mean im on the Koch Brothers payroll either.

you are demanding i prove a negative or accept your assertions, but thats not how a discussion works.

but yes i must confess to Argumentum Ad Bucky earlier. i feel a little ashamed about that.

No your making the assertion that it's natural variation that works like clockwork

That isn't a negative to prove

You just need to show the studies/predictions that show its natural

Edit: the climate models I showed a few links back showed non anthropogenic forcing modelling as
Well as Agw forced models

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'm sorry bit confused what this 20year old study is supposed to be proof of?

proof that the current "Normal" is in fact abnormal, and a return to historical norms does not prove that man is the root cause.

i figured that would be obvious.

 

[ginjawarrior]

proof that the current "Normal" is in fact abnormal, and a return to historical norms does not prove that man is the root cause.

i figured that would be obvious.

Hmm who's cherry picking now.....

That article does not prove what you say

 

[Dr Kynes]

No your making the assertion that it's natural variation that works like clockwork

That isn't a negative to prove

You just need to show the studies/predictions that show its natural

Edit: the climate models I showed a few links back showed non anthropogenic forcing modelling as
Well as Agw forced models

over millenia, yep, like clockwork, if clocks were subject to random outside influences like meteor strikes, solar instability and volcanic eruptions. in the short term the trends are much harder to map, which is why the most dramatic graphs are the 1979-present ones, which (not coincidentally) is why the 1979-present graphs are so popular with the anthropogenic global warming proponents.

when my tomatoe plants come up with denuded limbs, i dont run tests to check if my neighbors got buck-wild with the roundup, i look for Hornworms, and so far, it's been Hornworms every time.

this is a logical and rational assumption based on long term trends in my neighbors NOT hosing my garden with defoliants, as well as the reasonable expectation that a natural source is the likely cause of the observed phenomena.

i do not discount the possibility that at some point defoliant overspray may damage my crops, but until my Hornworm search comes up empty, ill bet on caterpillars.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Hmm who's cherry picking now.....

That article does not prove what you say

that article clearly states what im trying to say.

"The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been "strangely stable."


"In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability."

~http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/15/us/study-of-greenland-ice-finds-rapid-change-in-past-climate.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

 

[ginjawarrior]

over millenia, yep, like clockwork, if clocks were subject to random outside influences like meteor strikes, solar instability and volcanic eruptions. in the short term the trends are much harder to map, which is why the most dramatic graphs are the 1979-present ones, which (not coincidentally) is why the 1979-present graphs are so popular with the anthropogenic global warming proponents.

You seem stuck inanly repeating 1979 as if it supports your case...

We've established that I'm not asking you to prove a negative

Now let's see studies

when my tomatoe plants come up with denuded limbs, i dont run tests to check if my neighbors got buck-wild with the roundup, i look for Hornworms, and so far, it's been Hornworms every time.

this is a logical and rational assumption based on long term trends in my neighbors NOT hosing my garden with defoliants, as well as the reasonable expectation that a natural source is the likely cause of the observed phenomena.

i do not discount the possibility that at some point defoliant overspray may damage my crops, but until my Hornworm search comes up empty, ill bet on caterpillars.

Rambling anecdotes without evidence is a sure sign of woo woo

If only you could step back and see the similarities between your opinions on here and the waffle from the anti gmo crowd

 

[ginjawarrior]

that article clearly states what im trying to say.

"The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been "strangely stable."


"In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability."

~http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/15/us/study-of-greenland-ice-finds-rapid-change-in-past-climate.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Lol I saw that bit

Now haven't you been arguing for pages that the temps haven't been stable and been rising anyway?

But at the risk of repeating myself

NO ONE IS DENYING NATURAL VARIATION HAPPENS