Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

104 pages and STILL waiting for someone to come up with a mechanism that explains the current warming trend.

And still waiting for you to explain the past warming periods........

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

I apologize. I just googled "oldest continuous ice cores". I should know better.

The oldest continuous ice core records extend to 130,000 years in Greenland, and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores are typically drilled by means of either a mechanical or thermal drill. Both types of drills incise an annulus, or circle, around a central, vertical core.

Interesting though out of all the things I have said that is what you comment on.

Hello; If you have been on this thread from the start you will have seen a similar pattern. He and one other made a big deal out of the way I use the term "theory". Not that my comments could not be followed but several posts about it and leveling personal attacks along the way.

 

[sk47]

Another factual error. There was NEVER a scientific consensus that ALL the glaciers would be gone by now.
Stop reading shit.

Hello; By my count this must be four or more posts since you officially quit the thread?

quote burkey "There‘s plenty there that I take issue with but I’m not taking part in the discussion except to correct statements that ar factually incorrect."

So you are still officially quit but have reserved the option to be a fact checker? You did start the thread but it has a life of it's own now and after all you did "officially" quit. I like writing that you officially have quit while responding to one of your posts.

 

[Burkey]

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery - Scientific American

Hello; Some interesting things in this article. One is studies of ice cores have suggested that temperatures had gotten warmer some 1400 before the CO2 levels rose. Yes it got warmer before the CO2 level rose. This article claims to have narrowed this difference down to 200 years. That the temperatures warmed "only" 200 years before CO2 levels are measured to have risen. The reason given has something to do with how gas bubbles "move' around in the ice.

So I am not an ice core specialist so this becomes a guess. I was given to believe the value of the ice cores was that the ancient air is trapped and by measuring things such as lengths some sort of timeline can be had. Tree rings I can read and have done so. It is pretty clear from one season to the next. I have watched videos of ice cores over the decades but must have missed the fact the air can move around. I do get while before the snow fall becomes compressed that the air is not trapped. I can even see how when the ice begins to be more solid ice there can be some movement. I have been going on faith that the ice scientist had it figured out a good while back.

Well this gets back to one of my so far ignored questions. That of significant numbers. I will be brief. Today we can measure fractions of a degree on a daily basis. I have asked what the time interval might be from the ice cores. It would appear the author of this article is proud to claim he may have narrowed a range from 1400 years down to 200 years. I concede this does not answer my question directly, but it is among the first few articles I have searched so far.
My earlier question was could there be an period in the past of similar warming as today which could be hidden because the ice core record because the data intervals are too wide? I still do not know if the data from the ice has significant gaps.

I have collected raw data and collated it onto graphs. After you get enough data points you can sort of summarize the line of the graph to get the curve. It is important to know the scale of the time line. I would be comfortable with a scale of say ten years. Not so comfortable with a scale of a century. No confidence at all with a scale of over 100 years. I could not make confident predictions on a time line of the next 50 or 100 years from a data point scale of less than a year or so.

Before I go let me ask this. Even if the author is correct and has narrowed the time down to 200 years. It still reads that the warming happened 200 years before the CO2 levels rose, does it not? That ought to be a backward thing from what we are being told about CO2 currently.

The simple answer to your question, is this:
Co2 concentrations have both lead and lagged warming over the course of geologic time. This is well understood and documented.

Here, watch this and come back with questions regarding the parts you don’t understand.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; By my count this must be four or more posts since you officially quit the thread?

quote burkey "There‘s plenty there that I take issue with but I’m not taking part in the discussion except to correct statements that ar factually incorrect."

So you are still officially quit but have reserved the option to be a fact checker? You did start the thread but it has a life of it's own now and after all you did "officially" quit. I like writing that you officially have quit while responding to one of your posts.

It’s my thread. I can and will do as I please.
I’ve decided it best to continue to try and educate those who think their ignorance of the topic is a legitimate threat to the scientific consensus.
I won’t however argue with you over the economics etc because I don’t have a crystal ball. Seems plenty think they do though.

 

[K4fxd]

It’s my thread. I can and will do as I please.

Is that like, "it's my ball and I'm going home?"

I’ve decided it best to continue to try and educate those who think their ignorance of the topic is a legitimate threat to the scientific consensus.

I suggest looking in the mirror.

Still waiting for an answer to other warming periods, since you have all the "facts" answering should be easy for you.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Well we got the answer. Co2 levels have both led and lagged warming over geologic time. That sure makes it clear. Maybe like the Texas two step? He does not even see the flaw in the statement. If the CO2 levels actually followed warming, then it seems logical something else caused the warming.
The burner on my stove gets hot after I turn it on. It never has gotten hot before I turned it on.

 

[sk47]

What we should be talking about is UFOs though.

Hello; I know nothing about them. I see the videos on TV from fighter planes, but cannot make anything out of it. None of it makes sense to me. I will have to defer to the experience of the pilots.

I do read a lot of science fiction so can recall a lot of fiction.

 

[Burkey]

My middle school actually did a fund raiser for Greenpeace because the polar bears were going extinct. Don't hear much about that either anymore.

And yes we learned the glaciers would be gone in our lifetimes.

I‘m not suggesting that you weren’t taught these things. I suggesting that the things you were taught weren’t supported by the scientific consensus.

Ahh, back to the old polar bears claim..,
Find me the article in a peer-reviewed, respected, scientific journal where that claim was being made.

No, your preferred media source doesn’t count. I want the title, the author/s and the date of publication.
I don’t care what the media has to say unless they’re accurately reporting the findings (Which is quite rare), and nor should you.

 

[Burkey]

I don't have any of that. I am just telling you what the consensus was in middle school. The fear that was taught is that is glaciers would be gone soon if we didn't change the planet.

That was the start of all the green house phase.

No, that was NOT the consensus. What you’re talking about is the hyped up media reports that came from journalists who needed a sensational story.
Seems that it worked.
In fact, based on much of what I’ve read here, I’d say that misinformation/disinformation is STILL rife.
Whether it’s coming from ignorance or malice on the behalf of the reporters doesn’t really matter. It’s wrong when it’s wrong.

If you can’t find the scientific papers that I’m asking you to find, you don’t have the evidence you need to make the case you’re making. It’s pretty simple really.

 

[K4fxd]

Years ago it was taught in science classes as scientific fact. Somehow those facts have been removed.

 

[Burkey]

Years ago it was taught in science classes as scientific fact. Somehow those facts have been removed.

Ahhh yes. It’s all part of the grander conspiracy.

 

[526 HRSE]

Hello; Not gonna be able to give you a clear answer. First the average temps around the world do measure out to be on an increase.

This is where the "scientists" become disconnected from science. Average temps are on an increase - from what?

The fact is, average temperatures are on the decrease. The Earth is in a cooling off period. Just like the stock market, nothing goes straight up and nothing goes straight down. Along the way down, there will be highs and lows. We may be on the upswing of a cycle, but ultimately, we are cooling off. The Earth goes through many cycles, most notably, the 100,000 year cycle. It will continue to do so, with or without humans. We are just along for the ride.

 

[Gregs24]

Are all the glaciers gone? Do we even hear about that anymore?

BTW read you stories before posting. That was about mountain glaciers AND

Scientists have described more than one hundred thousand glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory, but only a small fraction of these have been consistently monitored for long enough to measure climate-related changes in their size or mass. Scientists refer to this collection of about 40 glaciers as "reference" glaciers.

The reference is .016%. Nice.

You very clearly said that none of the predictions had come true - whereas clearly this is happening. I didn't see you specify what sort of glaciers. Just because they have not 'all gone' doesn't mean they are not reducing as predicted, and this was just one example.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that glaciers are shrinking? And of course we hear about it now.

Seriously - anthropomorphic climate change is having an impact on the globe in many different ways, some very significant and some much less so. Somewhere between 80% and 99% depending on how you determine 'agreement' of climate scientists agree on this. This is a huge level of consensus backed up by scientific facts and evidence. organisations such as NASA strongly support this (and remember they put probes on Mars and man on the Moon so they do know what they are doing) but more than that, globally it is agreed where petty domestic US politics are not a factor.

If you choose not to believe it then so be it - it doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm not a climate change warrior, far from it, but I am a realist. I understand my life has to change, which seems to be the key sticking point for climate change deniers, where they will support anything as long as they don't have to change themselves. Would you challenge your dentist over the choice of treatment or disagree with your consultant orthopaedic surgeon on how to fix your leg?

Your lack of trust in people who have spent their entire careers researching climate is astonishing, and even more so that your reasoning behind it ignores the evidence in front of you. Glaciers are shrinking, sea levels are rising, global temperature is increasing in relation to global CO2. These are not theories but reality.

 

[Gregs24]

This is where the "scientists" become disconnected from science. Average temps are on an increase - from what?

The fact is, average temperatures are on the decrease. The Earth is in a cooling off period. Just like the stock market, nothing goes straight up and nothing goes straight down. Along the way down, there will be highs and lows. We may be on the upswing of a cycle, but ultimately, we are cooling off. The Earth goes through many cycles, most notably, the 100,000 year cycle. It will continue to do so, with or without humans. We are just along for the ride.

As has been pointed out many times over long term factors are very slow to change but anthropomorphic changes are having a rapid impact.

@sk47 correctly described average global temperature as rising - this is the average temperature of the globe as a whole, and a very good indication of the energy in the atmosphere. Here is the absolute data rather than an anomaly.

The 'along for the ride' aspect of your post is frequently trotted out by those who don't want to believe what is happening. Unfortunately that is also incorrect. Just look at the end of this graph where that 'cooling period' comes to an abrupt end. That certainly doesn't look like a 'natural' variation.

Sponsored