- This topic has 192 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ April 23 2010,00:50) seekingtruth it really does not help that you just post stuff like this that goes round the houses without addressing the one thing I asked. The modeling says that global warming could change the Gulf Stream and cause the UK and Western Europe to freeze
That could happen but it might be perfectly natural. A change in ocean currents will change climates around the world. But we know in the past that this has happened many times. Australia for example was once covered in tropical rain forest. That is why you can still find tropical palms in desert areas where there is an oasis. Ocean currents probably oscillate or have a cycle for all we know.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 23 2010,02:49) Why resort to ad hominems? The cartoon is obviously meant to be – well, a cartoon for communicating a general concept to lay people, but frankly, I am surprised by your behavior given your constant declarations that you are willing to look at contradictory evidence and to be proven wrong via the scientific method. Did you go beyond the cartoon and read anything from “these amateur buffoons” before you made up your mind?
His mind is already made up. He is no different to those people from yesteryear who crucified those for saying the world wasn't flat.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 23 2010,02:49) From the buffoons' website:
Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades. Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials and quoted in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Wall Street Digest, Farm Journal, Top Producer, Successful Farming, Futures Magazine, The Boston Globe and many other publications. … His weather and commodity forecasting success rate is approximately 75% and he accurately predicted the current prolonged cycle of global weather “extremes” in 1966.
Obviously Stu know more than these guys if he calls them buffoons.Stu, where is your diagram that makes their one look buffoonish?
Or do you just despise all that is not in agreement to your philosophy? I have thought for a long time that you are a victim of your own bias and narrow mind. So far you haven't proven my observation wrong and with comments like this I am not in a hurry to change my mind.
Quote (Stu @ April 24 2010,22:20) You are welcome to your opinion. Good science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of robustness. The absurdity you linked to is not robust, as I have shown. Stuart
That's a priceless comment from someone who debunks God and has no alternative.Look in the mirror Stu. Your debunking of God and other things is less about robust science and more about wishful thinking.
Quote (Stu @ April 25 2010,10:47) Does Cliff have academic credentials? No, he does not even have a qualification in science, let alone a position at a university or other organisation that would demonstrate the appropriateness of the “top ten” self-adulation. How about Randy? No, he is a weather man on TV.
Ha ha ha.Do you have the credentials to debunk God?
A man who does the very thing that he preaches against is funny in a sad sort of way.
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2010,15:09) Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,21:27) Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,10:10) Western Australia had a 5.0 the other day. Certainly qualifies as a diverse place when it comes to earthquakes. The workers in two mines there got the day off.
I'm a bit surprised that a mag 5.0 quake would cause this kind of damage. We have a few that size each year in NZ with no reports of anything more than cans falling off supermarket shelves. Maybe we enjoy higher building standards without realising it.Stuart
Although a 5.0 near the surface and on loose ground can be quite damaging. I remember being in a quake in Petone which is situated on sand. Everyone in the building I was in thought it was the expected big one when it was shaking. It went for a minute and it really shook the place up. But most houses in Wellington are on hills and they are quite solid. They didn't really feel that much.Those mines in Australia are probably on sand. From what I understand, sand magnifies earthquake waves and solid rock constrains them.
This is true. Good point.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2010,15:28) Quote (Stu @ April 25 2010,10:47) Does Cliff have academic credentials? No, he does not even have a qualification in science, let alone a position at a university or other organisation that would demonstrate the appropriateness of the “top ten” self-adulation. How about Randy? No, he is a weather man on TV.
Ha ha ha.Do you have the credentials to debunk God?
A man who does the very thing that he preaches against is funny in a sad sort of way.
To debunk what god?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2010,15:25) Quote (Stu @ April 24 2010,22:20) You are welcome to your opinion. Good science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of robustness. The absurdity you linked to is not robust, as I have shown. Stuart
That's a priceless comment from someone who debunks God and has no alternative.Look in the mirror Stu. Your debunking of God and other things is less about robust science and more about wishful thinking.
You can't disprove gods.Which is why I think you should pay a bit more attention to the Roman god Jupiter. After all, if what they say about him is right, he won't be forgiving your wanton neglect of him.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2010,15:23) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 23 2010,02:49) From the buffoons' website:
Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades. Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials and quoted in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Wall Street Digest, Farm Journal, Top Producer, Successful Farming, Futures Magazine, The Boston Globe and many other publications. … His weather and commodity forecasting success rate is approximately 75% and he accurately predicted the current prolonged cycle of global weather “extremes” in 1966.
Obviously Stu know more than these guys if he calls them buffoons.Stu, where is your diagram that makes their one look buffoonish?
Or do you just despise all that is not in agreement to your philosophy? I have thought for a long time that you are a victim of your own bias and narrow mind. So far you haven't proven my observation wrong and with comments like this I am not in a hurry to change my mind.
No, well obviously your bias is not happy with what it perceives as my bias.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 27 2010,15:16) Quote (Stu @ April 23 2010,00:50) seekingtruth it really does not help that you just post stuff like this that goes round the houses without addressing the one thing I asked. The modeling says that global warming could change the Gulf Stream and cause the UK and Western Europe to freeze
That could happen but it might be perfectly natural. A change in ocean currents will change climates around the world. But we know in the past that this has happened many times. Australia for example was once covered in tropical rain forest. That is why you can still find tropical palms in desert areas where there is an oasis. Ocean currents probably oscillate or have a cycle for all we know.
In geological time the continents have wandered all over the surface of the planet, coming together as supercontinents at least five times in Earth's history. So you would expect there to be evidence of a time before Australia relocated to the Tropic of Capricorn.We are talking about climate change happening not on a geological time scale, but at an unprecedented rate on a human lifetime scale.
Bit of a difference.
Stuart
By the way, before I got sidetracked by that 'Long Range Weather' site, this is what I was actually looking for:
I had seen it in the past, but couldn't remember where. In any case, my previous point about the climate being more complicated than represented by the “hockey stick” graph is based on this observed data. I believe the original source for this data is here.
Let's continue this back in time to 4.55 billion years ago. The surface temperature of the earth was at least 2000 degC. Do you think that means we have nothing to worry about?
Stuart
Stu,
My problem is where is the proof of it being caused by man, there has been spikes in the past why is this one “man made”.Wm
Quote (Stu @ May 01 2010,21:19) Let's continue this back in time to 4.55 billion years ago. The surface temperature of the earth was at least 2000 degC. Do you think that means we have nothing to worry about? Stuart
The point of the video is to put the current warming into context. In other words, it is NOT beyond recent historical norms. Secondarily, when I watch the video, I become more concerned about the possibility of a new ice age within a millennium than I am about warming the planet up by a few extra degrees. An ice age, natural or otherwise, would be extraordinarily more devastating to mankind than a hotter planet.Quote (Stu @ April 27 2010,22:07) Ha ha ha. Do you have the credentials to debunk God?
A man who does the very thing that he preaches against is funny in a sad sort of way.[/quote]
To debunk what god?Stuart
You prove my point with your reply.You debunk things by bias. You are no better than any religious bigot in history. You have no science to debunk God just as you and others have no science to debunk the existence of life on other planets.
WIT and seekingtruth:
The difference is that this time we are raising carbon dioxide levels to heights unprecedented in “recent” history.
The right-hand black bulge shows the frequencies of infrared radiation emitted by the surface of earth. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and blocks much of the frequency window in that black bulge. There's not much we can do about that. The adjacent absorption band of carbon dioxide fills in part of the rest of the window, and at low concentrations has relatively little effect. However, concentrations are rising at speed. The atmosphere / oceans / geological system is extremely complicated. The consensus is that increases in CO2 correspond to the time following the industrial revolution. Unless it is a stunning coincidence with some other undetected natural phenomenon, that means the net increases are caused by human activity.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 02 2010,09:45) Quote (Stu @ April 27 2010,22:07) Ha ha ha. Do you have the credentials to debunk God?
A man who does the very thing that he preaches against is funny in a sad sort of way.
To debunk what god?Stuart[/quote]
You prove my point with your reply.You debunk things by bias. You are no better than any religious bigot in history. You have no science to debunk God just as you and others have no science to debunk the existence of life on other planets.
I am an agnostic, just as you must be: we cannot know for sure whether Jupiter, uh I mean Jehovah, or whatever, exists.I am an atheist because of all the data we have ever collected on any subject, none of it suggests any truth to the claims made by believers in Zeus…there I go again, I mean YHWH or HWEH, or Baal.
It is reasonable to say that there is no evidence for any god, and therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that no such thing exists. That is a scientific position, but it is only a restatement of the location of the burden of proof, which is on the god-believer, not the skeptic.
I don't know if there is life on other planets. What does that have to do with believing in Imaginary Friends?
Stuart
If there is life on other planets, be well assured you will be having the same conversation with them, any intelligent life form very well knows that there is a higher intelligence, a creator.
Rest assured, they eat apes for breakfast or is it lunch…….especially the orange ones, most likely because they taste like chicken.
Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,04:49) WIT and seekingtruth: The difference is that this time we are raising carbon dioxide levels to heights unprecedented in “recent” history.
The right-hand black bulge shows the frequencies of infrared radiation emitted by the surface of earth. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and blocks much of the frequency window in that black bulge. There's not much we can do about that. The adjacent absorption band of carbon dioxide fills in part of the rest of the window, and at low concentrations has relatively little effect. However, concentrations are rising at speed. The atmosphere / oceans / geological system is extremely complicated. The consensus is that increases in CO2 correspond to the time following the industrial revolution. Unless it is a stunning coincidence with some other undetected natural phenomenon, that means the net increases are caused by human activity.
Stuart
Yes, however, CO2 concentration levels have always lagged temperature changes, implying that higher temperatures cause higher levels of naturally occurring CO2 – not the other way around. There is no historical evidence that I have seen that would indicate that CO2 levels drive temperature changes. As a prime example, despite the runaway CO2 levels to “unprecedented” levels, during that same time period we have had a few extended periods of either stagnant temperatures or outright cooling – most recently in the years after 1998. If CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, then why does the planet appear to be exhibiting an anemic response to such quickly rising levels of CO2?Clearly, CO2 plays some role in the overall climate, but both recent history and long term history seem to indicate that there are many other more important factors as well. If not, what is the explanation for the CO2 lag?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 04 2010,06:50) Quote (Stu @ May 02 2010,04:49) WIT and seekingtruth: The difference is that this time we are raising carbon dioxide levels to heights unprecedented in “recent” history.
The right-hand black bulge shows the frequencies of infrared radiation emitted by the surface of earth. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and blocks much of the frequency window in that black bulge. There's not much we can do about that. The adjacent absorption band of carbon dioxide fills in part of the rest of the window, and at low concentrations has relatively little effect. However, concentrations are rising at speed. The atmosphere / oceans / geological system is extremely complicated. The consensus is that increases in CO2 correspond to the time following the industrial revolution. Unless it is a stunning coincidence with some other undetected natural phenomenon, that means the net increases are caused by human activity.
Stuart
Yes, however, CO2 concentration levels have always lagged temperature changes, implying that higher temperatures cause higher levels of naturally occurring CO2 – not the other way around. There is no historical evidence that I have seen that would indicate that CO2 levels drive temperature changes. As a prime example, despite the runaway CO2 levels to “unprecedented” levels, during that same time period we have had a few extended periods of either stagnant temperatures or outright cooling – most recently in the years after 1998. If CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, then why does the planet appear to be exhibiting an anemic response to such quickly rising levels of CO2?Clearly, CO2 plays some role in the overall climate, but both recent history and long term history seem to indicate that there are many other more important factors as well. If not, what is the explanation for the CO2 lag?
We have never tried the experiment of artificially radically raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before, have we. The graphic tells you what is likely to happen. Do you not believe the measured infrared absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
