General Climate Discussion

[avionix]

Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.

That might be  a little rude. 

Very few factors in determining when water will boil on a stove.  If you are doing it in a controlled environment, you can get a recordable result.  You could take that result and figuringa a few factors in can see very much the same result outside that controlled environment. 

Weather is highly unpredictable.  Too many factors to keep track of.  If the forcaster says that a system is moving in, they must factor in variables that are not constant.  Angus, I believe that you are trying to compare a simple grade school experiment with something that we still don't understand.  You can take an ice core from your area of the world and see that it might be warming.  But, to say that the entire earth is warming based on those cores is not smart science.  How long have we as people been recording weather data?  Less than a couple of hundred years.  It still boils down to the fact that the climate has changed before and will keep changing.  Have you not read some of my posts earlier about finding fossils in the Antarctic that could only have been found if the climate had been warmer at some point in the past?  Please explain that one to me. 

[Angus]

What I was pointing at is that the big occurence is easier to spot than the little one.
Even a pot of water includes complicated mechanics, hence the bubble point, - where's the fist one going to form? How much time does it take? How much precize amount of energy does it take, since the stove is also heating the air around it, and there are more factors.
But the big thing that's simple is that the water is warming and the pot will boil with overwhelming odds.
Same with GW. It's a huge algorythm with many factors from many branches of science, not just your termometer.
Add it all up and all you have is a big hint for what's going on.
BTW it was Lazs that claimed that one could not predict at all if it would boil in the pot. And the "moronic" argument is that since you cannot predict the slightest detail in the weather systems, there is no foundations for seeing a big picture.
A straw, and a weak one.

[Jackal1]

Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.

Weak..........but expectable.

[lazs2]

so angus..   when have they ever seen "the big picture"?    They have had 40 years or so and they have never seen the big picture..   now..  in the last few years... using nothing but algores hot air and some totally flawed, laughable, computer models...   now you, and they... think that suddenly they have this iron fisted grasp on "the big picture"    I would say that you are the one being.. if not moronic... naive in the extreme.

lazs

[avionix]

When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica?  Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it?  That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.   

Take care, it might be to complicated for you.

This whole issue is too complicated even for the "scientists" working it.  We still don't have a firm grasp on being able to predict the weather as stated before.  I live in Florida.  Home to hurricanes every summer.  The last two years were predicted as being "hot" years and major hurricanes were going to hit the state.  Did it happen?  Heck no.  We have tropical storm Fay getting ready to hit us in the next couple of days.  Now, can they predict where it will come ashore?  No.  They can give us an estimate of a couple hundred miles of shoreline.  Have seen these storms predicted to come ashore is certain areas, only to have them turn and go in another direction back out to sea.  And that is just hurricanes. 

Even a pot of water includes complicated mechanics, hence the bubble point, - where's the fist one going to form?

That has about the same logic as seeing the rain coming and trying to predict where the first drop will fall on your driveway.  You know it will rain in a few minutes, just as you know the pot will boil.

[Jackal1]

That has about the same logic as seeing the rain coming and trying to predict where the first drop will fall on your driveway.  You know it will rain in a few minutes, just as you know the pot will boil.

Yep.......and the rain will fall on your driveway and a certain area..............but not the entire world.
Same as the lame water boiling theory.The water in the pot will boil if there is enough fuel to keep the fire burning........but not the kitchen.
All sorts of little nifty examples of nothingness can be thrown in such as Al Bore`s boiling frog, etc.
I guess one could get real crafty and relate to just about anything.
In the end, when it comes to climate, it means nothing, nada, zilch and is more than just a little south of reason.
The unpredictable cannot be predicted other than the prediction of it being unpredictable. That`s the best shot and the only one.
The horses pulling the MMGW wagon have jumped from a cliff, the wagon has fell and still the naive are trying to cling to the canvas for a parachute.
Doomsdayers just got to have something to make them bite the pillow at night.

[Angus]

Look at the last 100 years to see the big picture. You can google it if you are creative enough.
A typical big picture in weather development by the way, would be a hurricane. Where you sit, there is no chance you beat the met guys at spotting it, and seeing it on the go. Same with low-pressure areas basically. They form, you can see them jump over, you know they will, and they will eventually "die", however, where exactly they will do what is much more trickier to predict.
So, you see the big one, but not the detail.
Do you get this point, or are you still the frogs in the kettle? 

[Baitman]

When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica?  Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it?  That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.   

Have to remember the continents are drifting. Find the age of the fossil and then the positioning of the continents when fossil was alive. We in Canada have the burgess shales http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/ that contain many aquatic fossils, but the shales are on top of a mountain now.

[WWhiskey]

Look at the last 100 years to see the big picture. You can google it if you are creative enough.
A typical big picture in weather development by the way, would be a hurricane. Where you sit, there is no chance you beat the met guys at spotting it, and seeing it on the go. Same with low-pressure areas basically. They form, you can see them jump over, you know they will, and they will eventually "die", however, where exactly they will do what is much more trickier to predict.
So, you see the big one, but not the detail.
Do you get this point, or are you still the frogs in the kettle? 

?
100 years nothing more than a microscopic pin mark on the timeline of  earth.1000 years would be just as hard to see!
lets talk 100,000 years, maybe a whole 1/4 inch on a timeline 100 feet long, then tell me how much of a difference man has made?  or how easily the earth could just remove us from itself?  once upon a time the earth was nothing more than a molten mass of lava! one day it may be again! id like to say to all those who think man is ruining the earth to hurry up and get that space ship built and have a nice trip to anywhere but here!

[MORAY37]

?
100 years nothing more than a microscopic pin mark on the timeline of  earth.1000 years would be just as hard to see!
lets talk 100,000 years, maybe a whole 1/4 inch on a timeline 100 feet long, then tell me how much of a difference man has made?  or how easily the earth could just remove us from itself?  once upon a time the earth was nothing more than a molten mass of lava! one day it may be again! id like to say to all those who think man is ruining the earth to hurry up and get that space ship built and have a nice trip to anywhere but here!

That timescale, you see, IS the point.  We can prove unequivocably that the increases in CO2 and CH4 from the past 50 years is many hundred times faster than any other event preceding. There's only one difference that accounts for this increased load.  Usually these things take MILLENNIA....thousands of years.... and are causally based upon orbital mechanics and other features which are easily proven.  This time...no underlying phenomena.... and the sun has entered into a cooler, less active period.  I'm sure you think that this portends to a cooling trend, and that all the science is wrong.  But, from the other side, the sun's inactivity is in effect, hiding (or better put, "delaying") the affects of CO2 and CH4 that are still being compounded within our atmosphere.  You really should check into the national agencies that are monitoring this.  I doubt this administration would have put into place contingency plans for climate change had they not seen a threat.

It is true.  CO2 and CH4 content in the atmosphere was at or above the current levels, historically.  It was much warmer then.  Of course, we also had Dinosaurs.

[WWhiskey]

That timescale, you see, IS the point.  We can prove unequivocally that the increases in CO2 and CH4 from the past 50 years is many hundred times faster than any other event preceding. There's only one difference that accounts for this increased load.  Usually these things take MILLENNIA....thousands of years.... and are causally based upon orbital mechanics and other features which are easily proven.  This time...no underlying phenomena.... and the sun has entered into a cooler, less active period.  I'm sure you think that this portends to a cooling trend, and that all the science is wrong.  But, from the other side, the sun's inactivity is in effect, hiding (or better put, "delaying") the affects of CO2 and CH4 that are still being compounded within our atmosphere.  You really should check into the national agencies that are monitoring this.  I doubt this administration would have put into place contingency plans for climate change had they not seen a threat.

It is true.  CO2 and CH4 content in the atmosphere was at or above the current levels, historically.  It was much warmer then.  Of course, we also had Dinosaurs.

 yep we sure did, i bet it was there fault the last time, when they all died!   so how many volcano's do you think it would take, at once, to equal what you say we are doing? by the way of the 3600 climatologist that signed on to mmgw   over half of them now say they didn't understand how the science came to that conclusion but went along with the results anyway! yet 34000 have signed that it does not exist and of that group 9600 are phd's, (roughly of course)  what would it take for the earth to rid itself of us, an asteroid, 4 volcano's at the same time, a major shift in its axis????
 it would be much more easy for the earth to just remove us than the way we are going at it!
we will try to bankrupt ourselves serving this beast called man made global warming, and war will follow, trade keeps war at bay, when we can no longer trade, we will no longer be able to afford to keep tyranny at bay, socialists will soon follow, they will tell us what is good for us! and we will live in the dark, cold and hungry!!
 then those who hate us, those that do not care about the earth,those who still drive there cars, and tanks, and produce the oil that the rest of the world still lives on, tho not nearly as safely as we once did, nor as cleanly
 they will make the decisions about who gets what and we will have none! how will you stop them, do you think that you can make them that wish you dead understand? i know you don't care about yourself but how will you make the rest of the world stop polluting? the only way is to keep America strong! yet AL gore and his kind wish to break it, wish to bring it too its knee's,,, much to the pleasure of the middle east, Russia, and china! how will you get those countries to stop polluting?

[Overlag]

tax man loves gullible people.....

[MORAY37]

 yep we sure did, i bet it was there fault the last time, when they all died!   so how many volcano's do you think it would take, at once, to equal what you say we are doing? by the way of the 3600 climatologist that signed on to mmgw   over half of them now say they didn't understand how the science came to that conclusion but went along with the results anyway! yet 34000 have signed that it does not exist and of that group 9600 are phd's, (roughly of course)  what would it take for the earth to rid itself of us, an asteroid, 4 volcano's at the same time, a major shift in its axis????
?

Sadly, you and Lazs must read the same newspaper.  You really should delve a little deeper into that document that you and Lazs spout off as having any sort of clout on the issue.  When you do, and find false individuals listed on it (like I did)(Unless there is an R2D2 AND a C3PO  really alive out there, which were two of the many ficticious names on it) as well as individuals who proport to be climatologists.... yet their degrees are in textiles...  you might find out how stupid you really are in using this document in any support to your argument.  (But you won't listen to that)

In the end you'll believe it has something to do with America being taken over by Russian or Iranians or whomever.... or other conspiracies you can dream up or read on your rediculous websites.  I suggest you do a little research into the priciple of Acchem's Razor, a scientific tenet for hundreds of years.

With no disrespect intended, you really should look into deciphering information from true sources, then deciding upon your opinion, rather then deciding upon your opinion then looking for information in biased sources,  which support your pre-conceived opinion.

I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ to start out with.  It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.

After that, move onto governmental sites required by oversight to post their numbers publically, most online.  NOAA and the Earth System Research Laboratory are excellent sources.  I do have access to more sets of data, but I am employed by a federal research institution.

[MORAY37]

When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica?  Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it?  That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.   

I'm in no one's "camp" except for factual representation.

I'll start with Plate Tectonics.  Antarctica was much higher in Latitude in various times of this planet's history.


Second, orbital mechanics.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1506/es1506page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization



All of these contributed to the continent of Antarctica being much more tolerable for life.  If you cannot see that these processes ore on a MUCH longer timescale than the past 50 or 60 years.... I'm sorry. 

Go back to your prior state of existence.

[WWhiskey]

Sadly, you and Lazs must read the same newspaper.  You really should delve a little deeper into that document that you and Lazs spout off as having any sort of clout on the issue.  When you do, and find false individuals listed on it (like I did)(Unless there is an R2D2 AND a C3PO  really alive out there, which were two of the many ficticious names on it) as well as individuals who proport to be climatologists.... yet their degrees are in textiles...  you might find out how stupid you really are in using this document in any support to your argument.  (But you won't listen to that)

In the end you'll believe it has something to do with America being taken over by Russian or Iranians or whomever.... or other conspiracies you can dream up or read on your rediculous websites.  I suggest you do a little research into the priciple of Acchem's Razor, a scientific tenet for hundreds of years.

With no disrespect intended, you really should look into deciphering information from true sources, then deciding upon your opinion, rather then deciding upon your opinion then looking for information in biased sources,  which support your pre-conceived opinion.

I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ to start out with.  It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.

After that, move onto governmental sites required by oversight to post their numbers publically, most online.  NOAA and the Earth System Research Laboratory are excellent sources.  I do have access to more sets of data, but I am employed by a federal research institution.

o was a big supporter of M.M.G.W. for years!! not sure why but i was,, i also thought jimmy carter would be a good president!! of course  i eventually had to do the research to help my cause, that's when i started to see all the misrepresentations that had been used to support the theory's you so strongly  support! mostly the fact that there was more carbon based poluution during the last part of the 19th century than there is now! i 'll be back with more EMERGENCY IN THE FAM. BBL