Warming whoops

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,653
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +2,735
    After you googled, "Climate change is stupid, help me prove it"

    The entirety of my comments were directed at the image.

    [​IMG]
  2. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    So you mean to tell me that you don't agree with the IPCC? Wow, that's a stretch.
  3. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    First of all I didn't google it and second of all you are saying satellite images are BS? Where's the goalpost?
  4. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,036
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,535
    In the past I've been pretty outspoken about concerns that IPCC models may not be effectively accounting for all significant factors impacting climate change... such as irradiation and solar activity related impacts.

    But I don't see this lull in warming as some victory moment that I was "right". People are too quick with the "confirmation bias" that Rade has pointed out numerous times (and that was true when things were warming as well).

    We've discussed other factors such as marine cycles that could help explain the current lull in warming, and how temps could increase pretty quickly again and jump right back into range predicted by the 2007 models.

    If temps continue to stay pretty flat over the next decade or more, I think you've got a long enough timeline (from what I have read of these marine cycles) that the scientists have to acknowledge they're missing some offsetting factor(s), and try to figure out what's missing in the models.

    Until we understand these offsetting factors (assuming they are there), we really don't know what's going to happen - what levels of CO2 are okay to help keep us relatively stable and what levels would cause further warming.

    My .02.
  5. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    It's THE SUN!!! How many years have I said this? 10 now....

    Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up. My liberal Man Made Global Warming Breatheren read for yourself.

    LMAO!!!!

    The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,653
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings Received:
    +2,735
    Right where I left them.

    The images aren't "BS", but they don't say what the meme says they say, and they're either doctored or mislabeled.
  7. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,036
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,535
    It could well be the sun has a larger role than current models give it.

    But if you're going to claim an IPCC admission, shouldn't you link to it? From the closing paragraph in your link:
    Anyone writing a blog that refers to AGW proponents/believers as "greentards" isn't exactly an objective source. And really shouldn't be linked in any objective discussion of the subject. Or probably any rational discussion of any subject.
  8. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    The link provided does give a lot that will be in the report. If you want to pick out certain pieces that aren't in the article as you did then I can't help you with that. There is an entire article about what the leaked report is about.
  9. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    Is this picture better?

    [​IMG]
  10. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,046
    Likes Received:
    2,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,549
    Another stone thrower living in a glass house..
    • Like Like x 1
  11. jimgata

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,866
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,038
    How can any model projecting future climate, take into consideration, any natural event that would affect it? Volcano eruptions, sun activity , etc.?
    If they can't predict future natural events, how can anyone be so adamant the models are correct ?
  12. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,940
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +750
    If you say that the models are "wrong", I hardly think it ridiculous to ask if a change in the models' performance would change your mind. I'm wondering if it actually matters to you whether or not the models are wrong.
  13. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,940
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +750
    If I am not mistaken, the warming from the 70s to the 90s occurred without increases in solar inputs. Do you agree with this? If so, what do you think caused that warming?
  14. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,176
    Likes Received:
    4,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,633
    Dadx4-GW has become their god-they will never believe it is just the sun
  15. jimgata

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,866
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,038
    The 1930's produced the most extreme temps and actually hotter than the 70's and 90's. What caused that?
    There were more record high temps in that decade than the current high temps being discussed.
  16. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    How dare you use common sense on Too Hot..... RACIST!!!! :laugh:
  17. OaktownGator

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    26,036
    Likes Received:
    2,349
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,535
    You can't trust information from anyone with such an extreme level of bias and contempt for the subject that he's calling scientists retards or "greentards".

    I've had my questions about whether the models adequately reflect solar impacts for awhile now.

    But I sure don't want that legitimate quest for understanding to be associated with this Enquirer style agenda driven "science" reporting. He has no interest in the truth of what is going on with the climate, or any other potential impacts of abnormally high CO2 levels.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,570
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,385
    I will play, for me to believe that our climate is being changed by humans, I need concrete proof which there has never been any, just theory by global scientists getting paid by "global warming" governments and the UN for their studies to show proof that humans are the cause. It's not there and never has been. Show me concrete proof that's not BS and I will jump on the GW bandwagon, until then it's nothing but BS to me.
  19. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,940
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +750
    We have a situation that looks like this:

    • One group of people seems to believe that the warming is only caused by the sun
    • The second group of people seems to believe that the warming is also a result of human inputs.

    You've drawn one possible conclusion: The second group of people has made human inputs their "God", as you've so frequently and derisively claimed. But you seem to miss that there is another: The first group has made the sun their God.

    So my question to you is how do you know that it isn't you that is being irrational?
  20. GatorRade

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,940
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +750
    I'm glad to hear that you are open to data, dad. My question ends up being a bit more complex, as we then need to know what constitutes "concrete proof". What is an example of data that would change your mind?

Share This Page