Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

So, according to you, >99% of climate change is natural and the massive scientific consensus that it is man-made (95-99% of climate scientists depending on the survey) is a conspiracy to get funding.

Interesting.

Pretty much, yeah.

There's a ton of credible evidence that climate change is a cyclical, naturally occurring event.  You can basically set your watch to it (assuming your watch works on intrervals of thousands of years instead of hours).

We have barely 150-200 years of somewhat accurate weather data.  For a planet over 4.5 billion years old.  At what appears to be the back end of a natural heating up cycle.  And the "climate scientists" are using this to draw definitive conclusions, when there is no baseline to compare to.  It's like sticking your head out the window for 3 seconds, looking up into the sky, and then predicting the next six months of weather.

You can appeal to authority if you wish.  I'll stick to the credible science and common sense.

FYI . . . 40 years ago, many of the climate scientists were predicting a noticeable cooling down of the planet by the year 2000.  How accurate was that prediction?

___

There's a ton of credible evidence that climate change is a cyclical, naturally occurring event.

This is from UCSD:

QUESTION: If climate changes naturally over time, why isn't the current warming just another natural cycle?

ANSWER: Earth's climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural.

From NASA:

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

We have barely 150-200 years of somewhat accurate weather data.

There are proxy measurements we can use to get temperature data from much farther back.

From NOAA:

Paleoclimatology data are derived from natural sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments. These proxy climate data extend the archive of weather and climate information hundreds to millions of years. The data include geophysical or biological measurement time series and some reconstructed climate variables such as temperature and precipitation.

And the "climate scientists" are using this to draw definitive conclusions, when there is no baseline to compare to.  It's like sticking your head out the window for 3 seconds, looking up into the sky, and then predicting the next six months of weather.

Yes, climate scientists like the people working for NASA and NOAA. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate scientists study this stuff.

You can appeal to authority if you wish.  I'll stick to the credible science and common sense.

The credible science is the authority on this. And yes, we should listen to them since we aren't scientists. Unfortunately for you, though, you aren't sticking to credible science.

Meh. I still don't care. I'm buying a new SUV in December. Gonna get me some 16/22 mpg.

HOPEFULLY PRESIDENT SANDERS IMPOSES A NATIONAL GAS TAX OF $2.00 TO PAY FOR CRUMBLING INFRASTUCTURE

PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL MAKE ILLEGAL MEXICANS PUSH THE PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE AROUND TO AVOID BURNING FUEL!!!!

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

So, according to you, >99% of climate change is natural and the massive scientific consensus that it is man-made (95-99% of climate scientists depending on the survey) is a conspiracy to get funding.

Interesting.

Pretty much, yeah.

There's a ton of credible evidence that climate change is a cyclical, naturally occurring event.  You can basically set your watch to it (assuming your watch works on intrervals of thousands of years instead of hours).

We have barely 150-200 years of somewhat accurate weather data.  For a planet over 4.5 billion years old.  At what appears to be the back end of a natural heating up cycle.  And the "climate scientists" are using this to draw definitive conclusions, when there is no baseline to compare to.  It's like sticking your head out the window for 3 seconds, looking up into the sky, and then predicting the next six months of weather.

You can appeal to authority if you wish.  I'll stick to the credible science and common sense.

FYI . . . 40 years ago, many of the climate scientists were predicting a noticeable cooling down of the planet by the year 2000.  How accurate was that prediction?

___

There's a ton of credible evidence that climate change is a cyclical, naturally occurring event.

This is from UCSD:

QUESTION: If climate changes naturally over time, why isn't the current warming just another natural cycle?

ANSWER: Earth's climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural.

From NASA:

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

We have barely 150-200 years of somewhat accurate weather data.

There are proxy measurements we can use to get temperature data from much farther back.

From NOAA:

Paleoclimatology data are derived from natural sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments. These proxy climate data extend the archive of weather and climate information hundreds to millions of years. The data include geophysical or biological measurement time series and some reconstructed climate variables such as temperature and precipitation.

And the "climate scientists" are using this to draw definitive conclusions, when there is no baseline to compare to.  It's like sticking your head out the window for 3 seconds, looking up into the sky, and then predicting the next six months of weather.

Yes, climate scientists like the people working for NASA and NOAA. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate scientists study this stuff.

You can appeal to authority if you wish.  I'll stick to the credible science and common sense.

The credible science is the authority on this. And yes, we should listen to them since we aren't scientists. Unfortunately for you, though, you aren't sticking to credible science.

The bottom line is that all of this global climate change stuff works over periods of thousands of years, and not decades.  Nobody alive today will be around when anything close to a definitive conclusion about man-made versus natural causes for what is (or what people think is) happening today.

Except for the doomsday proponents who are predicting what will happen in 2025 or 2030.  They'll look like and feel like idiots at that time.

The bottom line is that all of this global climate change stuff works over periods of thousands of years, and not decades.

No...no that isn't the bottom line. 

The actual bottom line is this, backed up by credible science:

Our actions are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere above and beyond any sort of normal variation. We know the increased CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the C14 levels. The increased CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, both on land and in the oceans, and this warming is impacting and will continue to impact the climate in many ways.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 2:07:00 PM (view original):

The bottom line is that all of this global climate change stuff works over periods of thousands of years, and not decades.

No...no that isn't the bottom line. 

The actual bottom line is this, backed up by credible science:

Our actions are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere above and beyond any sort of normal variation. We know the increased CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the C14 levels. The increased CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, both on land and in the oceans, and this warming is impacting and will continue to impact the climate in many ways.

No.  What I said was the bottom line.

Feel free to believe what you want.  I'll believe the science that passes the smell test.

As I've mentioned previously in some other thread a while ago, I pretty much agree with most (if not all) of the recommendations that are coming from the tin-foil-hat doom prognosticators.  We should decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and turn to renewable sources of energy.  Just not for the reasons of "OMG, WE HAVE TO REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING, WE"RE DESTROYING THE PLANET!!!", but for more pragmatic reasons.  That being, our current rate of consumption of fossil fuels is not sustainable over the long run.  There's only so much oil left in the well.  Renewable energy, like solar or wind, only makes sense as it doesn't consume anything to generate, and has the added benefit of not polluting our water or air.

My house went solar nine months ago (mid-November of last year) with the installation of 48 solar panels on my roof.  We've generated around 10% more electricity than we've used in that time span.  Even at the peak of the summer months (July and August), when we consume the most electricity due to our central air conditioning, we're not only breaking even but are averaging 1 or 2 kWh in excess of what we're using.  So I'm doing my part.  But not because I think it's going to impact climate change (it's not, that's going to happen regardless of what I or anybody else does), but because it makes sense.  In the long run, after the system is paid off, it's free electricity with no by-products.

The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

You mean the science that's based on accurate weather records and other observations from around the last 0.000004% (or less) of the planet's history, with no baseline to compare it to?

OK.  You go with that.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/13/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

You mean the science that's based on accurate weather records and other observations from around the last 0.000004% (or less) of the planet's history, with no baseline to compare it to?

OK.  You go with that.

Nope. See my post above. There are ways of measuring weather records going back thousands of years.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/13/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

You mean the science that's based on accurate weather records and other observations from around the last 0.000004% (or less) of the planet's history, with no baseline to compare it to?

OK.  You go with that.

Nope. See my post above. There are ways of measuring weather records going back thousands of years.

Really - so what exactly was the weather in Argentina on July 1st, 2200 BC? Your 'science' that you want me to believe is based on estimates and not exacts. That's the problem I have with it.

SUNNY,35 WIND-SW 9MPH

Posted by moy23 on 8/13/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/13/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

You mean the science that's based on accurate weather records and other observations from around the last 0.000004% (or less) of the planet's history, with no baseline to compare it to?

OK.  You go with that.

Nope. See my post above. There are ways of measuring weather records going back thousands of years.

Really - so what exactly was the weather in Argentina on July 1st, 2200 BC? Your 'science' that you want me to believe is based on estimates and not exacts. That's the problem I have with it.

Climate change and weather aren't necessarily the same thing.

Climate science focuses on trends over time. For example, here is a bore hole study that tracked temperatures over the last 500 years.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/13/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/13/2015 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):
The science that passes the smell test is the science that backs man-made climate change.

You mean the science that's based on accurate weather records and other observations from around the last 0.000004% (or less) of the planet's history, with no baseline to compare it to?

OK.  You go with that.

Nope. See my post above. There are ways of measuring weather records going back thousands of years.

Really - so what exactly was the weather in Argentina on July 1st, 2200 BC? Your 'science' that you want me to believe is based on estimates and not exacts. That's the problem I have with it.

Climate change and weather aren't necessarily the same thing.

Climate science focuses on trends over time. For example, here is a bore hole study that tracked temperatures over the last 500 years.

As you say they aren't 'necessarily' the same thing (but they are correlated, no doubt)

Regardless - your link is using a climate model based on opinion. That's not factual. So many climate models have already been debunked. Why is this one so much better than the last 50 models? Tec is correct, we have such a small sample of data that we are trying to 'predict' the last 1000s of years from. You might as well PROVE Jesus was the son of God to me while you are trying to PROVE this apocolyptic man-made climate change thing. They are both a stretch.