09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humybecause climate scientists can't agree on certain predictions
-a long term global warming trend generally NOT being one of them thus this is irrelevant.
If the different climate models [b]agreewith each other
“agree” with what? They ALL agree that there will be a significant long term global warming trend (I ...[text shortened]... cannot agree on exactly how much temperature rise or exactly where and when it will rain?[/b]You are purposely trying to digress again. I have always agreed that there is a warming trend. You claim this point is irrelevant is nonsense unless you are prepared to concede that your previous claims of increased weather related natural disasters was a mistake on your part. If you want to point to predictions of future weather patterns as you have many times before you have no right to call it irrelevant. If you want to call it irrelevant then admit that long term weather predictions within the context of GW are not relevant anymore.
You are trying to have it both ways.
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyYou have not shown me the data. If by "we" you mean those skeptical science link googlefudgepacker posted they contain mere claims without backing it up with data. If they contained another link with data from a reputable source that would be acceptable too, but make sure your source is at least a climate scientist like Singer is. Anything else is probably misleading junk unlike Singer's statements. He has other scientists waiting to point out anything inaccurate he says. He would not risk losing funding and being ridiculed by his peers like that. He has nothing to gain by making any false statements at the time of the interview. The assertion that he is doing that is ridiculous.
We have already shown you the climate data; stop pretending we haven't.
Have you even bothered to read the two links?
I read them. The links are poorly done. They are simple answers to questions that deserve a detailed response. There are many examples, but I will use just one for the sake of saving time. I have other things to do and this is taking up too much of my time.
Skeptical science (which is probably not a website built by a scientist at all) claims that aerosols caused the cooling period after 1940. Someone claimed it was sulfur compounds from a volcano and posted that explanation on this thread. Were the aerosols anthropogenic or not?
The claim that man caused global cooling is a significant one. It seems we have the capability to warm and cool the climate if that assertion is correct. I would not count on it though. Climate change has happened in the past. Man did not cause the ice ages.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainGet my name right and stop offensively altering it or I will have you banned.
You have not shown me the data. If by "we" you mean those skeptical science link googlefudgepacker posted they contain mere claims without backing it up with data. If they contained another link with data from a reputable source that would be acceptable too, but make sure your source is at least a climate scientist like Singer is. Anything else is probab ...[text shortened]... not count on it though. Climate change has happened in the past. Man did not cause the ice ages.
You get one warning, that was it.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have not shown me the data. If by "we" you mean those skeptical science link googlefudgepacker posted they contain mere claims without backing it up with data. If they contained another link with data from a reputable source that would be acceptable too, but make sure your source is at least a climate scientist like Singer is. Anything else is probab ...[text shortened]... not count on it though. Climate change has happened in the past. Man did not cause the ice ages.
You have not shown me the data.
Your memory must be bad. We have in this thread and on several occasions. Reminder of one example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
Or are you denying this is data? If so, in what way is that not data? Do you deny temperature measurements is data? If so, what would you call "data" then?
Were the aerosols anthropogenic or not?
Not. Relevance?...
They are simple answers to questions that deserve a detailed response.
Wrong! They don't “deserve a detailed response” precisely BECAUSE they have very simply answers! Get it? Why say a simple truth in 1000 words when it can be perfectly concisely expressed in 10 words?
Climate change has happened in the past. Man did not cause the ice ages.
So what? How does that indicate that man cannot change the climate now? Man has only relatively recently been putting a net CO2 into the atmosphere so what climate changes occurred including ice ages before that man made net CO2 release is totally irrelevant to man made global warming. What has ice ages that occurred before any possible man made global warming got to do with any possible man made global warming?
-your silence on this very simple question will be revealing.
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyThat was for ocean temps and how long ago was that? You can't blame me that much for not remembering it.You have not shown me the data.
Your memory must be bad. We have in this thread and on several occasions. Reminder of one example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
Or are you denying this is data? If so, in what way is that not ...[text shortened]... possible man made global warming?
-your silence on this very simple question will be revealing.
Why does the chart on the link only go back to 1958 or so? Is that as far back as ocean temps were recorded or is it a deliberate omission prior to 57 or 58?
09 Feb 15
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made. Get it? That answers your questions.
That was for ocean temps and how long ago was that? You can't blame me that much for not remembering it.
Why does the chart on the link only go back to 1958 or so? Is that as far back as ocean temps were recorded or is it a deliberate omission prior to 57 or 58?
That was for ocean temps
-which is the most reliable way to see what the temperature trend for the climate is because most of the heat in the system is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Do you deny that this is data that is clear evidence for a general warming trend for the global climate?
Do your eyes notice how the line of the graph seems to generally go up as you approach the present? -you must do!
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyWere the aerosols anthropogenic or not?You have not shown me the data.
Your memory must be bad. We have in this thread and on several occasions. Reminder of one example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
Or are you denying this is data? If so, in what way is that not ...[text shortened]... possible man made global warming?
-your silence on this very simple question will be revealing.
"Not. Relevance?..."
That seems to be a debatable topic. I ran across a link that claimed it was anthropogenic aerosols. It seems nobody can agree whether or not it was caused by anthropogenic aerosols. As I have been saying all along, the only thing underestimated is how little anybody really knows about it.
It is not just the ice ages. Past climate change before man were also warmer than now and so were the CO2 levels. You cannot blame those CO2 levels on man, yet you still beat the drum on how CO2 is a scary threat. Life went on back then and man survived the last ice age even though an ice age is more challenging to survive. Man will do well during this warming period and may even flourish because of it.
Why do you keep thinking I am implying man cannot change the climate now? I don't know how many times I stated that man is a factor in climate change and you still want to convince others I am denying it. It seems you are the one with the faulty memory. It really is sad.
I keep telling you that climate change is not a big threat and your irrational kneejerk reaction is to scream "denier!" What did I deny except that man has adapted to climate change before and will do well with any future climate change despite your chicken little panic attack? Surely you are not claiming that global warming can be worse than the last ice age, right? You would never be stupid enough to claim that, right?
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyWhy does the chart on the link only go back to 1958 or so? Is that as far back as ocean temps were recorded or is it a deliberate omission prior to 57 or 58?
The line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made. Get it? That answers your questions.That was for ocean temps
-which is the most reliable way to see what the temperature trend for the climate is because m ...[text shortened]... ce how the line of the graph seems to generally go up as you approach the present? -you must do!
Stop evading this very good question.
09 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is his same flawed argument he gives again and again. He keeps pointing out natural causes for past climate change but which cannot explain all the more recent warming thus is all totally irrelevant.
Claiming that present climate change can't be man made because past climate change
is natural, is like standing in front of a mile deep open pit mine and saying it can't have
been man made because natural erosion can makes holes in the ground.
09 Feb 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have just answered your question to the full. Reminder:
Why does the chart on the link only go back to 1958 or so? Is that as far back as ocean temps were recorded or is it a deliberate omission prior to 57 or 58?
Stop evading this very good question.
"The line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made."
Which part of that don't you comprehend?
Given the graph, the "and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made." part clearly logically implies no ocean temp measurements were made before about ~58. THAT is why. Do you finally get it now?
If not, the answer is the "Is that as far back as ocean temps were recorded" part of your question. Do you finally get it NOW?
Stop saying I am "evading" the question because this was never true! I have now answered SEVERAL times in different ways. Do you deny this?
09 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy"The line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made."
I have just answered your question to the full. Reminder:
"The line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made [b]and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made."
Which part of that don't you comprehend?
Given the graph, the "and not drawn for areas on the graph were n ...[text shortened]... ause this was never true! I have now answered SEVERAL times in different ways. Do you deny this?[/b]
I recall someone posting on this thread a criticism that a link that Kazetnaggora posted (not me, but he thought so much like you think anybody who points out natural causes must be denying man made causes entirely) showing the 1900-1940 warming period did not have ocean temps and must be denier propaganda 🙄
It seems you GW alarmists are proving each other wrong more than you are me. 😛
10 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI think you have me confused with someone else.
"The line on the graph obviously is only shown for when the temperature measurements were made and not drawn for areas on the graph were no temperature measurements were made."
I recall someone posting on this thread a criticism that a link that Kazetnaggora posted (not me, but he thought so much like you think anybody who points out natural causes mu ...[text shortened]... propaganda 🙄
It seems you GW alarmists are proving each other wrong more than you are me. 😛
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. I don't think this and have never implied that I do. But you repeatedly clearly imply that the mere existence of natural causes is evidence against man made causes, which is clearly false. And it makes no difference whether that is against made causes "entirely" (as you said above) or 'partly', either way, it is STILL clearly false.
you think anybody who points out natural causes must be denying man made causes entirely
IS the mere existence of natural causes evidence against man made causes? (whether "entirely" or 'partly' -doesn't matter much which. lets say 'partly' ) IS that your 'argument'? Yes or no?
If not, then you admit natural causes are are irrelevant to man made causes. But, if you admit that irrelevancy, and here is the critical question that I bet we all want you to answer; why do you keep pointing out the existence of natural causes if you are NOT trying to make out this is evidence against man made causes when you KNOW natural causes are irrelevant to man made causes because you know the two are NOT in any way mutually exclusive?
10 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyI have stated before that man made causes are a factor. I have also said that an estimate of 97% man made is an overestimate. If man could tell the difference between natural and man made warming that accurately it would be nice, but the reality is that nobody really knows with any accuracy as you would like to believe. What I do know is that some think the aerosols that caused global cooling were mostly man made. A lot of people seem to think man has a larger impact on climate change than it has.
Nope. I don't think this and have never implied that I do. But you repeatedly clearly imply that the mere existence of natural causes is evidence against man made causes, which is clearly false. And it makes no difference whether that is against made causes "entirely" (as you said above) or 'partly', either way, it is STILL clearly false.
IS the mere existe ...[text shortened]... rrelevant to man made causes because you know the two are NOT in any way mutually exclusive?[/b]
If determining the cause of warming is such an exact science as you imply why don't you explain the warming between 1900-1940? For you to claim you know what causes warming now but not back then is a feeble position to take. If you can't explain the other what business do you have claiming the right to explain anything with any degree of confidence.
You want to have it both ways.