Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[Dr Kynes]

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

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

making claims based on assumptions, especially ones which are unprovable, and centered around "what would the climate be like if the industrial revolution never happened" is pure and unadulterated sophistry.

when the thermostat in my house gets set to 90 degrees, and it gets HOT, i dont blame the cat for exuding too much body heat, i check the thermostat setting.

 

[ginjawarrior]

making claims based on assumptions, especially ones which are unprovable, and centered around "what would the climate be like if the industrial revolution never happened" is pure and unadulterated sophistry.

when the thermostat in my house gets set to 90 degrees, and it gets HOT, i dont blame the cat for exuding too much body heat, i check the thermostat setting.

you cannot claim the natural variations work like clockwork then in next breath claim it's impossible to show that clockwork

According to you the industrial revolution has such little effect when compared to natural forcing so I'm confused as to why your bringing that up?

Your dodging and hiding from the answers is pretty feeble

 

[Dr Kynes]

i googled "global warming causes" and heres the results in the order in which they appear:

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003411/causes.htm
6 lines about "natural causes" and a vague single sentence about the glacial cycle, with no mention of the current natural upslope to an interglacial maximum, but 35 lines about man-made causes

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
no mention of natural cycles at all.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/
2 sentences about natural cycles, and how they have been discounted.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/about/global-warming-causes.html
no mention of natural cycles at all.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/experts-even-surer-now-humans-are-cause-global-warming-6C10962827
"at least 95 percent likely that human activities — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels — are the main cause of warming since the 1950s." "We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change ... is largely man-made,"
no mention of natural cycles at all

http://www.livescience.com/37152-global-warming-causes.htmlsu
surprisingly they actually mention the glacial cycles, and natural fluctuations, but then dismiss these factors entirely in favour of a purely anthropogenic hypothesis.

yep.
nobody is arguing the natural cycles are irrelevant, except all these guys.

 

[ginjawarrior]

i googled "global warming causes" and heres the results in the order in which they appear:

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003411/causes.htm
6 lines about "natural causes" and a vague single sentence about the glacial cycle, with no mention of the current natural upslope to an interglacial maximum, but 35 lines about man-made causes

You just posted a link saying it's been steady last 8 to 10 thousand years and you still haven't shown proof of natural upslope

Not to mention they talk about natural variation....

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
no mention of natural cycles at all.

they also do not talk about unicorns

Now if you could just show a study showing its natural forcing perhaps they would have reason to mention it

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/
2 sentences about natural cycles, and how they have been discounted.

Natural cycles that have been discounted right got you

http://www.climatehotmap.org/about/global-warming-causes.html
no mention of natural cycles at all.

Show that natural cycles cause it?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/experts-even-surer-now-humans-are-cause-global-warming-6C10962827
"at least 95 percent likely that human activities — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels — are the main cause of warming since the 1950s." "We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change ... is largely man-made,"
no mention of natural cycles at all

Erm did you bother to read that article?

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 percent in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

http://www.livescience.com/37152-global-warming-causes.htmlsu
surprisingly they actually mention the glacial cycles, and natural fluctuations, but then dismiss these factors entirely in favour of a purely anthropogenic hypothesis.

That would be called following the data...

yep.
nobody is arguing the natural cycles are irrelevant, except all these guys.

Yeah that doesn't prove anything natural cycles were mentioned just not in the way you believe they should be

Natural cycles is not a new thing to climate scientists

Now you think they should pay more attention then where's the data for them to follow?

 

[Dr Kynes]

You just posted a link saying it's been steady last 8 to 10 thousand years and you still haven't shown proof of natural upslope

Not to mention they talk about natural variation....


they also do not talk about unicorns

Now if you could just show a study showing its natural forcing perhaps they would have reason to mention it

Natural cycles that have been discounted right got you

Show that natural cycles cause it?

Erm did you bother to read that article?

That would be called following the data...


Yeah that doesn't prove anything natural cycles were mentioned just not in the way you believe they should be

Natural cycles is not a new thing to climate scientists

Now you think they should pay more attention then where's the data for them to follow?

now you are being deliberately obtuse.

your absurd refusal to examine the possibility that the "little ice age" is still in recession, as one small part of a much longer recession in glacitation is bordering on the pathological.

the NYtimes article cited was discussing how the climate has been "stable" ONLY in relation to previous interglacials which had wild and violent fluctuations which the study called "Catastrophic". the study at question in NO WAY implied a stability in temperature because temps have been steadily rising since the 1400's, as stated. you are now DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the facts to bolster your own position.


you have been rude, condescending, childish, fallacious and generally obnoxious, so, i entreat you to get bent.

 

[ginjawarrior]

now you are being deliberately obtuse.

your absurd refusal to examine the possibility that the "little ice age" is still in recession, as one small part of a much longer recession in glacitation is bordering on the pathological.

Cite the paper that suggests that

Again again I ask for data

the NYtimes article cited was discussing how the climate has been "stable" ONLY in relation to previous interglacials which had wild and violent fluctuations which the study called "Catastrophic". the study at question in NO WAY implied a stability in temperature because temps have been steadily rising since the 1400's, as stated. you are now DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the facts to bolster your own position.

Care to quote my position? Or give evidence for sweeping claims you made pages back?

"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."

So about this evidence of natural forcing that you claim the websites you listed should be showing

you have been rude, condescending, childish, fallacious and generally obnoxious, so, i entreat you to get bent.

Ah yes the signature butt hurt of someone who can't support what he.s claiming

Next you'll be calling me a monsanto shill oh wait no AGW SHILL

 

[UncleBuck]

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.

kynes' tomato plants and a creationist named roy disprove the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed climatologists.

 

[UncleBuck]

anthropogenic climate change crawled in through the window in the darkness and was not arrested.

FACT.

 

[Jimdamick]

Look out the window, and witness the craziest weather patterns in fucking history. The last 20 years have pummeled us weather wise from Japan to New Orleans, NJ, and now Colorado. One way or the other, whether it be manmade or not, we seem to be fucked. I blame it on the Chinese. One way or the other, they will be part of the destruction of mankind. The shit they make will kill us all, eventually.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Look out the window, and witness the craziest weather patterns in fucking history. The last 20 years have pummeled us weather wise from Japan to New Orleans, NJ, and now Colorado. One way or the other, whether it be manmade or not, we seem to be fucked. I blame it on the Chinese. One way or the other, they will be part of the destruction of mankind. The shit they make will kill us all, eventually.

why blame the Chinese? Per capita the USA is a much worse offender (even worse if you talking historic)
They make a lot of shit but there's a fuck load of Americans buying it, stop buying it maybe?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Cite the paper that suggests that
Again again I ask for data

unfortunately i dont have a well funded team of feamongers preparing my citations for me, so ill get back to you on that

Care to quote my position? Or give evidence for sweeping claims you made pages back?

your position vis a vis the cited article was that the idea of an overall warming trend was INCONSISTENT with climate stability, smugly inferring 9erroneously) that a warming trend stretching over millenia was anything but stable, while the pertinent articel discussed a previous interglacial which was notably UNSTABLE with temperature swings as high as +/- 25 degrees F in spans of a few decades, making our 100 years and less than +2 degrees F seem trivial, despite the alarmism.
of course this was only AFTER attempting to dismiss the report for being 20 years old, as if i had not read it.

So about this evidence of natural forcing that you claim the websites you listed should be showing

the natural cycles hypothesis is currently out of fashion, because nobody will fund research into "we are fucked and there aint shit we can do" while "we are fucked if we dont do SOMETHING" research gets funded by the truckload.
however, heres one:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Unstoppable_Global_Warming.html?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC

whoops looks like maybe this is NOT just my own fevered imagination. but these guys are probably discredited too.
it's an Oprahs favorite things party of dis-accreditation
You get discredited! You get discredited YOUUU get discredited!
Eeeeeverybody gets discredited!
look under your seat! Thats right! Dis-accreditation!

Ah yes the signature butt hurt of someone who can't support what he.s claiming

nope, you have been a smug prat.
remember your little graph that "proves" there was no global ice age scare in the 70's (despite stories in the press, scientific papers published, etc...), i spent 3 hours trying to track down the survey (not even a study!) it came from, and here it is:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
i wonder if you have read it...
I am reading it now, and guess whats in the abstract, which is directly contrary to "skeptical science"'s implication that "the 70's ice age scare never existed"...

3. THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND?
Efforts to accumulate and organize global
temperature records began in the 1870s
(Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show
long-term warming trends was published in 1938.
But such analyses were not updated very often.
Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been cooling
for more than two decades when scientists first
documented the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who
in 1963 published the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend
had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the
World Weather Records project under the
auspices of the World Meteorological
Organization, to calculate averaged temperatures
into latitudinal bands. His analysis showed that
global temperatures had increased fairly steadily
from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about
1940 before the start of a steady multi-decade
cooling (Mitchell 1963).
By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated
his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global
cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly
understood. The first satellite records showed
increasing snow and ice cover across the northern
hemisphere from the late 1960s to the early
1970s, capped by unusually severe winters in Asia
and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973
(Kukla and Kukla 1974), pushed the issue into the
public consciousness (Gribbin 1975). The new
data about global temperatures came amid
growing concerns about world food supplies,
triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend
might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself
(Thompson 1975).

ohh my. in the early 60's there WAS an ice age scare, and what do you know, by the time the 70's had rolled around, those studies which suggested global cooling hit the mainstream press, resulting in warnings that the ice age was coming!

look at that first paragraph, the first program to gather temperature records starting in the 1870 showed a warming trend which was still present in 1938. there really is a general upward trend stretching back to the beginning of the end of the little ice age, with occaisional cold spells.
nahhh, a short cold snap between '45 and '79 "disproves" the long term trend because... ummm... well just because!
so, if they could be wrong then, why are they so absolutely right now?

i propose that the forces that control the advance and retreat of glacial ages might be a little more powerful than human produced greenhouse gasses, particularly since such greenhouse gasses were much more abundant during other interglacial periods, yet the glaciers came down anyway.

Next you'll be calling me a monsanto shill oh wait no AGW SHILL

i would never imply you are paid to shill for the climate change lobby. those guys are paid well, and work much larger markets than a couple stoners worried about whether they will be able to grow their weed outdoors in the future.

 

[heckler73]

1. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

Which of those are natural variation?

That one, at least.

Even NASA agrees.
[HR][/HR]The x-rays from flares are stopped by our atmosphere well above the Earth's surface. They do disturb the Earth's ionosphere, however, which in turn disturbs some radio communications. Along with energetic ultraviolet radiation, they heat the Earth’s outer atmosphere, causing it to expand. This increases the drag on Earth-orbiting satellites, reducing their lifetime in orbit. Also, both intense radio emission from flares and these changes in the atmosphere can degrade the precision of Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements.
[HR][/HR]http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/spaceweather.htm

You know what's kind of funny about this? On the "Physics Forums" they don't even allow discussion of this topic
Why? Because it's "too hard to moderate" and they still don't have an "expert" to help with the task after 3+ years of trying to get one to participate.

 

[ginjawarrior]

That one, at least.

Even NASA agrees.
[HR][/HR]The x-rays from flares are stopped by our atmosphere well above the Earth's surface. They do disturb the Earth's ionosphere, however, which in turn disturbs some radio communications. Along with energetic ultraviolet radiation, they heat the Earth’s outer atmosphere, causing it to expand. This increases the drag on Earth-orbiting satellites, reducing their lifetime in orbit. Also, both intense radio emission from flares and these changes in the atmosphere can degrade the precision of Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements.
[HR][/HR]http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/spaceweather.htm

You know what's kind of funny about this? On the "Physics Forums" they don't even allow discussion of this topic
Why? Because it's "too hard to moderate" and they still don't have an "expert" to help with the task after 3+ years of trying to get one to participate.[/QUOTE

• 
  

  1. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract

  
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

I think your confused

 

[UncleBuck]

You get discredited! You get discredited YOUUU get discredited!
Eeeeeverybody gets discredited!
look under your seat! Thats right! Dis-accreditation!

 

[ginjawarrior]

unfortunately i dont have a well funded team of feamongers preparing my citations for me, so ill get back to you on that

You have a well funded bunch of deniers to pool from have you not?

your position vis a vis the cited article was that the idea of an overall warming trend was INCONSISTENT with climate stability, smugly inferring 9erroneously) that a warming trend stretching over millenia was anything but stable, while the pertinent articel discussed a previous interglacial which was notably UNSTABLE with temperature swings as high as +/- 25 degrees F in spans of a few decades, making our 100 years and less than +2 degrees F seem trivial, despite the alarmism.
of course this was only AFTER attempting to dismiss the report for being 20 years old, as if i had not read it.

From you article
"one "catastrophic event" during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported."
Plunged =/= +/-

the natural cycles hypothesis is currently out of fashion, because nobody will fund research into "we are fucked and there aint shit we can do" while "we are fucked if we dont do SOMETHING" research gets funded by the truckload.
however, heres one:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Unstoppable_Global_Warming.html?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC

whoops looks like maybe this is NOT just my own fevered imagination. but these guys are probably discredited too.
it's an Oprahs favorite things party of dis-accreditation
You get discredited! You get discredited YOUUU get discredited!
Eeeeeverybody gets discredited!
look under your seat! Thats right! Dis-accreditation!

Oh I see I ask for studies and you present me with a non peer reviewed book

And you notch about discrediting?

nope, you have been a smug prat.
remember your little graph that "proves" there was no global ice age scare in the 70's (despite stories in the press, scientific papers published, etc...), i spent 3 hours trying to track down the survey (not even a study!) it came from, and here it is:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
i wonder if you have read it...
I am reading it now, and guess whats in the abstract, which is directly contrary to "skeptical science"'s implication that "the 70's ice age scare never existed"...

No the graph I posted showed that the global cooling studies were heavily outweighed by the global warming studies

I did think the pictorial nature wouldn't have needed explaining

ohh my. in the early 60's there WAS an ice age scare, and what do you know, by the time the 70's had rolled around, those studies which suggested global cooling hit the mainstream press, resulting in warnings that the ice age was coming!

look at that first paragraph, the first program to gather temperature records starting in the 1870 showed a warming trend which was still present in 1938. there really is a general upward trend stretching back to the beginning of the end of the little ice age, with occaisional cold spells.
nahhh, a short cold snap between '45 and '79 "disproves" the long term trend because... ummm... well just because!
so, if they could be wrong then, why are they so absolutely right now?

Go back look at that graphic again then come back and clear up all this butt hurt your spreading it everywhere

i propose that the forces that control the advance and retreat of glacial ages might be a little more powerful than human produced greenhouse gasses, particularly since such greenhouse gasses were much more abundant during other interglacial periods, yet the glaciers came down anyway.

Proclaim/propose away just get some data

i would never imply you are paid to shill for the climate change lobby. those guys are paid well, and work much larger markets than a couple stoners worried about whether they will be able to grow their weed outdoors in the future.

that's alright then

 

[UncleBuck]

You have a well funded bunch of deniers to pool from have you not?

no, the millions and millions of dollars they get from the deep pockets of those who have the most to lose pale in comparison to the measly stipends paid to actual scientists with no agenda.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You have a well funded bunch of deniers to pool from have you not?

nope.
"We are fucked and there aint shit we can do about it" is almost exactly as unpopular from the climate deniers' side.
most of your opposite number prefer a "Nothing to see here, Move along" approach, while others prefer to simply try and direct the research grants into their pet theories.

there are almost no research grants for examining how glacial cycles will Pwn us in 200-300 years. it's not immediate enough, there no Hook to sell newspapers, and theres really no fix. just like theres almost no money for searching for near earth crossing asteroids.

From you article
"one "catastrophic event" during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported."
Plunged =/= +/-

yes. you found the reference statement. what is your question regarding it? temp was A, then rapidly dropped to temp B which was 25 degrees colder, then after a couple decades went back to A.
since over 100 years, a temp change of >+2 degrees is an environmental disaster, then a sudden drop by ~-25 degrees for 70 years, and then a return to the previous higher temps should be a god damned nightmare.
if the worm turns and over the next 100 years the temps for some reason reduce by ~-2 degrees back to the "New Normal" would you consider that a calamity as well?

or were you implying that it was Just One Event, and that does not mean instability? cuz that was answered too, the cited example was just one of several such events in the last interglacial. hence the interest in why This interglacial has been so steady and manageable. thats why the cheif author referred to the holocene as "blessed", or did you assume he was talking about jesus?

or was that vague reference with no actual criticism simply a Macguffin, providing every observer the opportunity to draw his own inference and nod wisely in agreement?

Oh I see I ask for studies and you present me with a non peer reviewed book

not seeing any peer reviewed evidence from you either, almost exclusively skepticalscience, which focusses more on attacking the opponents, rather than addressing their arguments. when they do actually approach a point of contention they do it with a sneering superiority and assumption of righteousness that sickens me. their stupid animated graphs are intellectual dishonesty, which only displays their OPINION about the data, rather than actual data
anyone with a crayon can draw on somebody else's charts, but they dont attribute their sources.

And you notch about discrediting?

"Hide the decline."
fortunately for science, your side is discrediting themselves. i dont have to attack your side's true believers. they signed their fraud personally.

No the graph I posted showed that the global cooling studies were heavily outweighed by the global warming studies

no, the graph you posted is found nowhere in the survey, it is an unattributed third party analysis which robs the survey in question of it's context, making it appear to be proof that the cooling assertions were fictional, misrepresented, or the product of whackos.
that graph is propaganda, not science.
it was created by the agenda driven turds at skepticalscience who cannot address any opposing view without , as you have in, in this very thread, being condescending prats who pretend certainty that NOBODY actually possesses.
nobody anticipated the cooling trend in the 60's and 70's and once it became news it was NEWS, and, you probably didnt know this, but there WAS NO INTERNET at the time, so most people's exposure to scientific literature was through popular periodicals and the press, so when Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite reports "scientists say a new ice age is coming", people didnt run down to the local university to check out the latest issue of The Journal of Geological Research to see if Wally got it right. "science" may have already decided on greenhouse forcing, but the story had legs, just as the scaremongers have given the new story legs.

there was no new ice age, there may in fact be no great meltdown, given some of the evidence i have read, regarding long term warming trends (yes yes yes, its a fiction we are still in the last ice age, but Niels Boher left his electric blanket plugged in...), previous climate reversals, and the fact that ice ages came back even when CO2 levels were FAR FAR FAR (thats 3x more) higher than they are now.

I did think the pictorial nature wouldn't have needed explaining

no, you assumed i would not look up the source which was NOT easy to find, as Skeptical Science only listed the author's last name and the year.
cuz attribution is for bitches right?

Go back look at that graphic again then come back and clear up all this butt hurt your spreading it everywhere

why would i do that when i have the actual information already?
it's an interesting read, and not nearly as one sided as you or Skeptical Science imply

Proclaim/propose away just get some data

that's alright then

still a condescending prat ehh?

 

[UncleBuck]

temp was A, then rapidly dropped to temp B which was 25 degrees colder, then after a couple decades went back to A.

exactly when was this event? did it directly follow a major volcano blocking out the sun?

25 degrees for 70 years and then back again sounds pretty damn impossible.

"Hide the decline."
fortunately for science, your side is discrediting themselves. i dont have to attack your side's true believers. they signed their fraud personally.

what fraud?

they were exonerated, you dullard.

cooling assertions were ... the product of whackos.

i sense plenty of transference there.

all he showed was how you are exaggerating these cooling claims, much like you exaggerate everything else.

crawling in through windows in the dark ring a bell? you do this constantly.

that graph is propaganda, not science.

you rely on creationists. you cite them.

creationists, dude.

there may in fact be no great meltdown

no, there is one.

condescending prat ehh?

damn prats and their pesky facts. no match for a bircher and his creationist buddy roy.

 

[Dr Kynes]

exactly when was this event? did it directly follow a major volcano blocking out the sun?

25 degrees for 70 years and then back again sounds pretty damn impossible.

read the cited report.

what fraud?

they were exonerated, you dullard.

no, they were not.

i sense plenty of transference there.

all he showed was how you are exaggerating these cooling claims, much like you exaggerate everything else.

crawling in through windows in the dark ring a bell? you do this constantly.

as i have already conceded that i misremembered the event to which you repeatedly refer, you are encouraged to eat a sack of dicks.

you rely on creationists. you cite them.

creationists, dude.

bullshit. argue against the position, not the person, or STFU when grownups are talking.

no, there is one.

big giant particoloured pictures dont prove shit, nor does the length of sea ice shelfs mean anything, since at one point, not terribly long ago, the arctic ice cap stretched to the gulf of mexico all year round for millenia.

damn prats and their pesky facts. no match for a bircher and his creationist buddy roy.

yeah, youre really making your case here.

good job dingus. youre making your own case look weaker by being a mindless dolt who doesnt even read the material presented, yet still pretends to know whats going on.

maybe you should spend less effort crafting these trenchant barbs, and more time reading the material cited.

Protip: my links dont lead to malware sites or Lastmeansure. you might want to try having some integrity, then maybe people could take you seriously.

 

[ginjawarrior]

nope.
"We are fucked and there aint shit we can do about it" is almost exactly as unpopular from the climate deniers' side.
most of your opposite number prefer a "Nothing to see here, Move along" approach, while others prefer to simply try and direct the research grants into their pet theories.

Yeah your knowledge on this is so poor I'd need cites from you showing exactly where the money is being spent

What's that you don't have the foggiest idea? Why on earth would you say it here are you lying?

there are almost no research grants for examining how glacial cycles will Pwn us in 200-300 years. it's not immediate enough, there no Hook to sell newspapers, and theres really no fix. just like theres almost no money for searching for near earth crossing asteroids.

That's going to happen really? Let's see the data from that

yes. you found the reference statement. what is your question regarding it? temp was A, then rapidly dropped to temp B which was 25 degrees colder, then after a couple decades went back to A.
since over 100 years, a temp change of >+2 degrees is an environmental disaster, then a sudden drop by ~-25 degrees for 70 years, and then a return to the previous higher temps should be a god damned nightmare.

They quote a sudden drop not sudden increase

And all this info has been available for 20 years now of you think climatologists are ignoring you should mail them

if the worm turns and over the next 100 years the temps for some reason reduce by ~-2 degrees back to the "New Normal" would you consider that a calamity as well?

It would have to be a massive volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike throwing up enough debris to block out substantial amounts of sunlight
Pretty calamitous don't you think

or were you implying that it was Just One Event, and that does not mean instability? cuz that was answered too, the cited example was just one of several such events in the last interglacial. hence the interest in why This interglacial has been so steady and manageable. thats why the cheif author referred to the holocene as "blessed", or did you assume he was talking about jesus?

I'm implying that your putting way too much importance on a cherry picked study from 20 years ago


or was that vague reference with no actual criticism simply a Macguffin, providing every observer the opportunity to draw his own inference and nod wisely in agreement?

[/quote]


not seeing any peer reviewed evidence from you either, almost exclusively skepticalscience, which focusses more on attacking the opponents, rather than addressing their arguments. when they do actually approach a point of contention they do it with a sneering superiority and assumption of righteousness that sickens me. their stupid animated graphs are intellectual dishonesty, which only displays their OPINION about the data, rather than actual data
anyone with a crayon can draw on somebody else's charts, but they dont attribute their sources.
[/quote]
Are you that technologically challenged that you missed the multiple links to studies on ever fucking piece I posted?



"Hide the decline."
fortunately for science, your side is discrediting themselves. i dont have to attack your side's true believers. they signed their fraud personally.

Go back and read them again it's all there in fucking text go back and count them

no, the graph you posted is found nowhere in the survey, it is an unattributed third party analysis which robs the survey in question of it's context, making it appear to be proof that the cooling assertions were fictional, misrepresented, or the product of whackos.
that graph is propaganda, not science.

They graphic is a pictorial representation of the fucking numbers

It is attributed and its written on the graph itself (Peterson 200

Are you that unable to make a case thAt you decided to lie about everything now?

it was created by the agenda driven turds at skepticalscience who cannot address any opposing view without , as you have in, in this very thread, being condescending prats who pretend certainty that NOBODY actually possesses.

It to show idiots like yourself that your idiots

nobody anticipated the cooling trend in the 60's and 70's and once it became news it was NEWS, and, you probably didnt know this, but there WAS NO INTERNET at the time, so most people's exposure to scientific literature was through popular periodicals and the press, so when Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite reports "scientists say a new ice age is coming", people didnt run down to the local university to check out the latest issue of The Journal of Geological Research to see if Wally got it right. "science" may have already decided on greenhouse forcing, but the story had legs, just as the scaremongers have given the new story legs.

Seems your reading comprehension lets you down again I clearly said you were mixing media with science

also your mixing tabloid coverage with actual science

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

there was no new ice age, there may in fact be no great meltdown, given some of the evidence i have read, regarding long term warming trends (yes yes yes, its a fiction we are still in the last ice age, but Niels Boher left his electric blanket plugged in...), previous climate reversals, and the fact that ice ages came back even when CO2 levels were FAR FAR FAR (thats 3x more) higher than they are now.

previous interglacial turnover there was less co2 in the air than there is now

If you bothered to get information instead of asserting without fact you would have known that

no, you assumed i would not look up the source which was NOT easy to find, as Skeptical Science only listed the author's last name and the year.
cuz attribution is for bitches right?

not only is the name and date "attribution" I just got this from their page http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Lying again?

why would i do that when i have the actual information already?
it's an interesting read, and not nearly as one sided as you or Skeptical Science imply

what exactly is being implied as compared to the shit you made out of whole clothe?

still a condescending prat ehh?

Still a sniviling liar?