mnealtx 0 #51 January 14, 2011 QuotebillVon asked (emphasis added): QuoteWhen - outside of cataclysms like asteroid impacts - has the climate changed this rapidly in the past? 1. THEORY that Y. Dryas may have been an asteriod. 2. 1., above, does not explain the sudden WARMING at the end of Y. Dryas QuoteMaybe I'm dense, but I don't see anyone claiming that CO2 is the only possible driver of climate change. NASA GISS - "CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature" QuoteI'm fairly certain that we haven't had any large asteroid impacts in the last 50 years, but the climate is certainly getting warming. CO2 is a main driver this time, it doesn't mean that it is the only driver that has ever acted. CO2 is claimed to be THE main driver, up almost 7% since the 1998 temperature peak, while temperature anomalies are down 8%. QuoteBut you already know that's the current point. Why I waste my time spelling it out is beyond me. I await your redirection/intentional misunderstanding. Redirection/Intentional misunderstanding? That would be YOU, with the unproven references again and again to a POSSIBLE asteriod triggering Y. Dryas, while IGNORING the reference (which was BOLDED) to the sudden warming at the end of it. Oh - you may want to read this, as well: Quote"Alternatively, a hypothesized Younger Dryas impact event, interpreted to have occurred in North America around 12,900 years ago (10,900 BC), has been purported to have initiated the Younger Dryas cooling and population bottleneck or near extinction of the peoples responsible for the Clovis tool culture.[17] Material reported as nanodiamonds (the hexagonal polytype of diamond, lonsdaleite) resulting from an impact turns out to be a different form of carbon.[18] A recent examination of carbon-rich materials from sediments dated 15,818 cal yr B.P. to present (including the Bølling–Ållerod-YD boundary) did not find nanodiamonds. Instead, graphene- and graphene/graphane-oxide aggregates were found in all specimens examined, suggesting that previous studies misidentified graphene/graphane-oxide aggregates as hexagonal diamond and likely misidentified graphene as cubic diamond.[19] This seems to cast unsurmountable doubts upon the validity of an impact event as an explanation for the Younger Dryas."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #52 January 14, 2011 QuotebillVon asked (emphasis added): QuoteWhen - outside of cataclysms like asteroid impacts - has the climate changed this rapidly in the past? Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see anyone claiming that CO2 is the only possible driver of climate change. I'm fairly certain that we haven't had any large asteroid impacts in the last 50 years, but the climate is certainly getting warming. CO2 is a main driver this time, it doesn't mean that it is the only driver that has ever acted. But you already know that's the current point. Why I waste my time spelling it out is beyond me. I await your redirection/intentional misunderstanding. So you are willing to conceed that it may just be the natural evolution of the world as opposed to a great major crime that we have committed?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 January 14, 2011 >So you are willing to conceed that it may just be the natural evolution >of the world as opposed to a great major crime that we have >committed? It's neither. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #54 January 14, 2011 Quote Will we wake up one morning to find LA underwater? Not likely. Well, at least until the "Big One" hits, eh? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #55 January 15, 2011 >Well, at least until the "Big One" hits, eh? Or until the next big Hollywood disaster movie. Seems like they destroy LA with great regularity in them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #56 January 15, 2011 Quote>So you are willing to conceed that it may just be the natural evolution >of the world as opposed to a great major crime that we have >committed? It's neither. Then why all of the hubub......bub? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #57 January 15, 2011 >Then why all of the hubub......bub? Because a lot of people think that if people believe the science, their side will "lose." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #58 January 15, 2011 Quote>Then why all of the hubub......bub? Because a lot of people think that if people believe the science, their side will "lose." "Belief" and "science" are mutually exclusive. Dubito ergo cogito and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #59 January 15, 2011 Yes, but you have to cut the warmists some slack. They started off with "settled science" and planted their flag in that sand. Now that the science has shifted and no longer supports their position, they are transitioning into a religious dogma. There will be moments of confusion during this transition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #60 January 15, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s notice the non sequitur 2:30-2:52 and 4:50-5:06 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #61 January 15, 2011 >They started off with "settled science" and planted their flag in that sand. >Now that the science has shifted and no longer supports their position . . . None of the science has shifted. "I don't understand the science" does not equal "the science has shifted" - although that's a favorite argument of conspiracy theorists, creationists and deniers alike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #62 January 15, 2011 >"Belief" and "science" are mutually exclusive. Of course. Still, for some reason. deniers, creationists et al are always talking about their "beliefs," thinking that a belief system can sway science. Yet no matter how hard they believed and prayed, 2010 was still tied for the warmest year in history. Science has a way of ignoring belief. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 January 15, 2011 Quote>"Belief" and "science" are mutually exclusive. Of course. Still, for some reason. deniers, creationists et al are always talking about their "beliefs," thinking that a belief system can sway science. Yet no matter how hard they believed and prayed, 2010 was still tied for the warmest year in history. Science has a way of ignoring belief. So was it written, so mote it be. Amazing what you have can have come true when you change the data to fit the hypothesis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #64 January 16, 2011 Really Bill? There has been no science that contradicts "An Incontinent Truth"? Really? Nothing that counted as settled science in the Nobel laureates movie has been debunked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #65 January 16, 2011 I have already told you that the global temp is in the process of being revised, downward. Do you doubt me? Would you like to make a pinky bet that the global temps will be revised downward in the next 90 days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #66 January 16, 2011 QuoteYet no matter how hard they believed and prayed, 2010 was still tied for the warmest year in history. Science has a way of ignoring belief. You seem to put a lot of weight on one year's worth (2010) of data. It's going to be embarrassing if 2011 turns out to tie for the coldest. Just sayin'. I'm just sayin' that as far as I can tell, the science has NOT been "settled" one way or the other. As far as I can tell, the science is being twisted and re-shaped to fit political agenda....on BOTH sides of the issue. It's a cloudy issue right now. I believe one is making a mistake to espouse one side or the other at this point. Fer shure...one side is going to be embarrassed at some later point when/if the science does get settled.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #67 January 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteYet no matter how hard they believed and prayed, 2010 was still tied for the warmest year in history. Science has a way of ignoring belief. You seem to put a lot of weight on one year's worth (2010) of data. It's going to be embarrassing if 2011 turns out to tie for the coldest. Just sayin'. I'm just sayin' that as far as I can tell, the science has NOT been "settled" one way or the other. As far as I can tell, the science is being twisted and re-shaped to fit political agenda....on BOTH sides of the issue. It's a cloudy issue right now. I believe one is making a mistake to espouse one side or the other at this point. Fer shure...one side is going to be embarrassed at some later point when/if the science does get settled. Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #68 January 16, 2011 Yep. The last decade was warmer. The problem is credibility because all the horrible things that were supposed to be happening aren't happening and haven't been happening. The dire predictions aren't coming true. It's like the predictions of doom of a religious cultist. When it doesn't happen, credibility is lost. "Well, jyst because it didn't happen doesn't mean I'm wrong" doesn't work. So now you've got the prophets of doom who are struggling migfhtily to maintain their profits of doom when they just aren't believed anymore. The warmest decade ever? "So what?" It's been almost three years since a hurricane has made landfall on the US. It was supposed to get worse. (Insurance companies sure LOVED the doom and gloom prophecies. Talk about raking in the insurance money! WOW!). Food still grows. Floods and droughts still occur. Sunny and cloudy days go on. We get snow and heat, bitter cold and unseasonable warmth. And snow cores continue to build up yuear after year. AGW may be happening. I think it probably is. Too bad the AGW alarmists chose alarm over pragmatism. They might actually have an easier time keeping people with them had they said all along that AGW is happening, and the effects are likely to be within the sort and level to which society can adapt should it be necessary - instead of the continuing insistence that not only are things worse than they've ever been but also far worse than they appear. "We had 13 hurricanes in the Atlantic last year." "Yeah, but they were less destructive per hurricane than at any time in US history, and you said they'd be more numerous, more powerful and more destructive. I'm still waiting for power and destruction like that seen in Galveston and the Florida keys in the first part of the 20th Century. Heck, Katrina wasn't even particularly powerful, noir did it even hit NOLA with a direct hit - that was a disaster of engineering as much as anything." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #69 January 17, 2011 Quote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #70 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #71 January 17, 2011 QuoteYep. The last decade was warmer. The problem is credibility because all the horrible things that were supposed to be happening aren't happening and haven't been happening. The dire predictions aren't coming true. Is deliberately confusing predictions of a complex and incomplete model with actual experimental data something they teach you to do in law school?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #72 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif so it's still just weather then. weather is not climate.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #73 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif so it's still just weather then. weather is not climate. Global temperature and precipitation trends over an entire decade are NOT just weather, much as you would like them to be. Go buy a dictionary, you'll find it very helpful. www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #74 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif so it's still just weather then. weather is not climate. Global temperature and precipitation trends over an entire decade are NOT just weather, much as you would like them to be. Go buy a dictionary, you'll find it very helpful. www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html so is a 10 year trend an indicator, weather or climate? because you reply with vitriol when I imply it's just weather, and when I imply it's climate you call it an indicator.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #75 January 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course, there is the little matter of the entire decade 2001-2010. so does 10 years of weather finally make climate? Is that what you're implying here? It's a whole lot better as an indicator than a cold month in the eastern USA, or a cold month in Australia, which mnealtx and other deniers have seized on. zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature_6.gif so it's still just weather then. weather is not climate. Global temperature and precipitation trends over an entire decade are NOT just weather, much as you would like them to be. Go buy a dictionary, you'll find it very helpful. www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html so is a 10 year trend an indicator, weather or climate? because you reply with vitriol when I imply it's just weather, and when I imply it's climate you call it an indicator. Why don't you just read the definition.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
