Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 122 of 122
Like Tree99Likes

Thread: Can we get some of your views/input on this please?

  1. #101  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Advice: sculptor, there is an automatic tendency on the part of many members here to react with a certain degree of emotion to those who question AGW. However, you often exacerbate the situation by adopting a posting style that comes across as snide and acerbic. Or, if you prefer, patronising. You would do yourself and the forum a service if you were to seek to modify this.
    PumaMan and Strange like this.
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    AdeLady
    think of your earth as a heat sink
    energy(heat) input, or the lack there-of
    takes awhile to show effects.

    Now consider the mass of the earth compared to your little pot............

    Are the gears in the critical mind meshing?
    I beg your pardon?

    You presume to tell me about heat sinks and delayed effects and climate and How To Think.

    How dare you!
    lol

    'twas but a response to your:
    Anyway, on to quiet sunspot cycles, I've yet to see anyone explain why the temperature didn't go down over the last few such cycles.
    Since about mid century last the very high sunspot activity with short low spaces between cycles has been moderating compared to the earlier much higher than normal activity. But, the level was still in the high range.
    Only in the last couple cycles has the activity begun actually falling to and now below the average.

    Much like the captain of the boat mentioned above, we look to the past searching for pattern that we may apply to the present.
    When we think we've found a fit-----------Then we speculate---------and wait and see what really happens.
    Very few of us will live through more than 7 solar cycles(with our minds intact and functioning), and many of us will not live through 7.
     

  3. #103  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Doesn't really change the fact that you spoke to her like she was a nine-year-old. And the "gears" comment was unnecessary.
    PumaMan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Advice: sculptor, there is an automatic tendency on the part of many members here to react with a certain degree of emotion to those who question AGW. However, you often exacerbate the situation by adopting a posting style that comes across as snide and acerbic. Or, if you prefer, patronising. You would do yourself and the forum a service if you were to seek to modify this.
    I would leave out "acerbic". It comes close to being a compliment that is not deserved.
    I'm happier with "snide" and "patronising".
    John Galt and PumaMan like this.
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Thanks ophiolite and flick

    There really is a reason why I didn't take my degrees and become a teacher or professor.
    Call it a personality flaw.

    If you had been following the bouncing ball(another reference which I think everyone understands):
    You'd have known why I posted what I posted in post #99.
    I really took what Adelady posted in post 100 as "tongue in cheek".
    I'm reasonably certain that adelady knows when i'm trying to be offensive and when I'm not.

    Now:
    You guys have me wondering if she really did take offense.....................................damn.. ............

    .....................
    You probably know by now John that I prefer AAF to AGW
    Last edited by sculptor; April 9th, 2014 at 09:57 AM.
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    So
    Did any of you want to discuss the science?
    ...............
    Did you all understand the "trim tab" reference?
    Last edited by sculptor; April 9th, 2014 at 09:48 AM.
     

  7. #107  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You guys have me wondering if she really did take offense.....................................damn.. ............
    Wonder no longer.

    I didn't find your comment at all amusing, let alone helpful.

    You make an argument/speculation of dubious quality with no provenance. I do the work, or someone else does, to assemble relevant evidence to show the flaws / errors in your proposition. You don't argue with it. You don't even acknowledge it. You shift the goalposts to talk about something else entirely (or you retreat into silly smart aleck psychologising or accuse scientists of being dishonest) or, worst of all, you adopt the superior tone of a wise counsellor urging the hoi polloi to not let themselves get carried away.

    If you disagree with a scientific matter, bring your best scientific refutation or query to the table. You can find over 5000 papers (an incomplete list) here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...ce_history.php

    Click a balloon, any balloon and look at the papers listed for that year for that category. Go for it. Or use google scholar or Science Daily or the latest IPCC report or any other resource which gives you links to the climate science paper/s you need to support your argument. If you don't want to do the work/ research/analysis needed, it's easy. Just walk away.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  8. #108  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Call it a personality flaw.
    OK.
    PumaMan likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I didn't find your comment at all amusing, let alone helpful.
    WOW-that's an odd response being as my comments were in response tho your:
    Anyway, on to quiet sunspot cycles, I've yet to see anyone explain why the temperature didn't go down over the last few such cycles.
    (Or, are you just teasing?)

    Ok
    How about if we all address the issue raised in/for this thread.

    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.

    What changed?

    CO2 enrichment continues apace (no change)
    The arctic has been regaining ice (recently measurable---change)
    The antarctic continues to have increased ice ( only recently measurable-- no change------perhaps?)
    The greening has accelerated(recent trend----change or no change?)

    etc......................
    WHAT CHANGED?

    From my perspective
    The biggest change I see was the quieting of the sun.
    (noted cosmic rays increase)
    etc---(see above)

    You posted---
    We get all of our heat from the sun.
    I posted, charts and words from scientists who study the sun.
    Did my posting of their assertions generate discussion?

    Do any of you have a better explanation of what it is that actually changed?

    Do you believe there was a recent change in the temperature pattern/trend anomalies?
    Are you stuck in denial phase?

    ...................
    I'm really trying to stay on topic here guys--------(and could use a little help).

    What changed"
    From what changed, can we collectively determine a likely causal factor?

    Do you care?
    (a "NO" would be ok, and end this )

    .......................
    edit:
    I hadn't considered that there might be an emotional component until John Galt mentioned it thusly:
    there is an automatic tendency on the part of many members here to react with a certain degree of emotion to those who question AGW
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    is this subject emotionally taboo for anyone reading this?
    Last edited by sculptor; April 9th, 2014 at 11:09 AM.
     

  10. #110  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.
    This kind of crap is the very reason I usually DON'T put any effort into responding to your posts. You put the sardonic quotes around 'global warming' and apply the unsupported "many" to your cooling statement. You've already made up your mind and there isn't really a discussion to be had with you.
    PumaMan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    but I don't see the point of making co2 the bad thing and then regulating it because of climate models and scientific collusion for profit.
    Number 1. CO2 isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's the only reason we're here at all. This planet would be as uninhabitable as any other without it. But just like all good things, it's possible to have - or create - too much of a good thing. And that's a bad thing.

    Number 2. The concern is not because of climate models. The concern is based entirely on physics. Tyndall, Arrhenius, Fourier in previous centuries had no computers to help them with calculations, let alone models, and Gilbert Plass in the 1950's was equally deprived of their help. Nobody used a computer to come up with this 1958 film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

    Number 3. Scientific collusion for profit. Perhaps you don't understand scientists. Firstly, every year there is a new crop of scientists keen and eager, willing and wanting to make their mark on the world of science.

    You should know that there's a Nobel Prize there for the taking for anyone who could demonstrate an entirely new understanding of radiative physics that would undercut or overturn a couple of centuries (if we start with Fourier in 1822) of accepted science. If anyone could show that CO2 lasers and heat-seeking missiles did not work in the way that everyone else thought they did would guarantee honours, prizes and worldwide recognition. Competition of this sort means that there'd always be a renegade willing to step outside any such collusion.

    Collusion? That's been kept secret? How many physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, ecologists, statisticians as well as CO2 laser operators and military munitions specialists and satellite data processing technicians do you think there are in the world? How many have there been altogether since, say, the 1960s. There were thousands of people involved just in collating and writing the IPCC reports themselves, let alone doing the research included in those reports. I don't know if you've ever tried to keep something confidential, but when you're talking about tens of thousands of people keeping quiet about a conspiracy during several decades - you're talking about the impossible.

    I understand what your saying but after articles keep poping up in public media worldwide suggesting that global warming alarmism is more of a problem than global warming it makes alarmists seem suspect.

    Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death
    A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax | Somewhat Reasonable

    It seems like the global warming agenda was to be used to redistribute wealth via the UN through a global carbon tax. Regulations regarding co2 has cost the USA billions and threatens to cost trillions more as coal burning plants are phased out.

    Should the carbon tax be phased in the tax would be an economic disaster, imo.
    Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association
     

  12. #112  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Pineapple you probably need to learn to distinguish between credible media and disinformation. For example Alan Caruba the author of your first link isn't a journalist, certainly not a science journalist, and definitely hasn't done one iota of climate research nor ever represented an organization that does. I don't know about Alex Newman, though I can confidently say he's not a science journalist. You should probably dismiss anything they write about climate without further thought.

    If there is some global warming agenda, it goes back over a century and really took off in the 1970s when research dollars started to flow the government agencies in the US and in Europe after paleo research confirmed there's been significant climate changes in the geological record. I can't speak to the Europeans but in the US, where I did research during the Reagan years, most of the government employees were X-military (much as I am now) and it would have difficult to find a more conservative group of people anywhere (I used to shoot skeet over launch with many of them). Regardless, nearly all their combined work, through analysis of data, integration of new instruments, and improvement climate models, pointed towards significant global warming and major shifts of rain patterns if we continued to burn fossil fuels. You find the consensus by scientist in popular layman's journalism, you'll find it in the thousands of research papers internationally and across multiple disciplines. And despite claims to the contrary by prominent, well organized, and well funded disinformation campaigns, the research money has been flat for decades, most of the researchers are government employees who can't take extra money (e.g. Hanson stayed in the same position for decades).

    I highly recommend you read Naomi Orlanski's 2004 and later papers who did several meta-studies of the body of climate research. The papers are better but here one of her presentations that shows the scientific consensus goes back the 1970s, long long before there was any UN papers about the topic (or the US disinformation campaign infecting the political right).
    http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meeti...al_warming.pdf
    KALSTER likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.

    What changed?
    Nothing changed. You still just ignore or dismiss as conspiracy/corrupt all the science presented in, for example, posts 5, 15, 20, 84, 97, 98, etc. of this thread.

    The biggest change I see was the quieting of the sun.
    Which is known to have a small but not particularly significant effect. It certainly isn't going to solve the problem in the long run, even if it were causing a slight, temporary slowing.

    From what changed, can we collectively determine a likely causal factor?
    Not if you are going the dismiss the science that doesn't fit your preconceptions and exaggerate the importance of that which does.

    is this subject emotionally taboo for anyone reading this?
    Not taboo. People just get a bit pissed off with a constant stream of anti-science types on the forum (evolution is wrong, GR is wrong,climate change is a con, the big bang never happened, pi=4, etc.) who appear to be driven by ignorance and ideology. Don't be that guy.
    Lynx_Fox, KALSTER and PumaMan like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.

    What changed?
    Nothing changed.
    nonsense

    In a recent paper hansen et.al.
    noted the recent change

    wow
    even hansen sees a change

    And, You do not?

    .......................
    I think I get the emotional component:
    You still see potential climate change as a "PROBLEM";
    and are thereby prejudiced.
    ..........
    An old lesson from bucky
    roughly
    "Take a step back and re-evaluate your assumptions"
    Last edited by sculptor; April 9th, 2014 at 11:52 AM.
     

  15. #115  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.
    What cooling? There is no cooling.

    Cowtan & Way is good because it's open access for the whole paper. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library
    Background for Cowtan and Way Chemistry, The University of York
    And a statistical review of the paper by an expert. Uncertain T | Open Mind

    And you might take special note. All of this is about atmospheric/surface temperatures only. If you want to rephrase your position from "cooling" to "pause in warming" you will then have to take into account the heat content of oceans. Which has continued rising unabated.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Cooling
    What caused the abatement of AAF(Anthropogenic Atmospheric Forcing) induced "global warming", and/or (many have said) cooling.
    This kind of crap is the very reason I usually DON'T put any effort into responding to your posts. You put the sardonic quotes around 'global warming' and apply the unsupported "many" to your cooling statement. You've already made up your mind and there isn't really a discussion to be had with you.
    Good Morning:

    I put the quotes around "Global Warming" because almost all scientific evidence indicates that it ain't "global"

    .................
    Would you like to discuss the troposphere's shunting of heat to the stratosphere?
    And, whether or not the incidences of ssw and msw events are increasing?

    ............
    perspective matters
    can you try using an objective one?

    Can you step back from the global warming perspective and see anthropogenic atmospheric forcing
    and from that perspective look for dynamic mixes within the atmosphere

    In a previous thread we considered rossby waves influence in/on atmospheric mixing.
    Remember that?
     

  17. #117  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    "Take a step back and re-evaluate your assumptions"
    I don't have any assumptions. I don't know enough about the subject to form any assumptions. I can only look at the data produced by those with the relevant expertise. See, for example, posts 5, 15, 20, 84, 97, 98, etc. of this thread.

    The "nothing changed" comment was a hilarious aside regarding your refusal to even look at the evidence that contradicts your preconceptions. See, for example, posts 5, 15, 20, 84, 97, 98, etc. of this thread.

    Feel free to show the flaws in the data provided (see, for example, posts 5, 15, 20, 84, 97, 98, etc. of this thread) instead of throwing around accusations of bias.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  18. #118  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I put the quotes around "Global Warming" because almost all scientific evidence indicates that it ain't "global"
    Citation needed.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  19. #119  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    can you try using an objective one?
    Stop doing that. It makes you look like an arrogant dick who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is being unreasonable, biased, alarmist, etc.

    While you, of course, are the cool, clear, calm voice of reason. Which would be fine, apart from the fact that most of your conclusions appear to be wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Would you like to discuss the troposphere's shunting of heat to the stratosphere?
    Now we're right down the rabbit hole. The stratosphere ... is ... cooling.

    It's a prime piece of evidence that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are blocking infrared radiation from progressing out of the troposphere in the way it did when CO2 concentrations were lower.

    ‘Vertical Human Fingerprint’ Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

    Please, just this once, READ the reference. Read it carefully.

    Find more references. Understand what the science and its supporting evidence are telling you.
    PumaMan and PhDemon like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  21. #121  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I'm really trying to stay on topic here guys--------(and could use a little help).
    Then stop being a frigging asshole. Stop being a patronising twat. Stop posting in abbreviated "artsy" phrases. Start posting clear, concise objective statements. Start giving honest responses to refutations of your claims. Start honouring the scientific approach you claim you support.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    there is an automatic tendency on the part of many members here to react with a certain degree of emotion to those who question AGW
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    is this subject emotionally taboo for anyone reading this?
    No - the emotion arises when lightweight poseurs such as yourself pretend you hold some kind of moral high ground. It's not your position that is the major offense, it is your presentation of that position.
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Seriously...what is with some of the hostility on here at times?

    Do you answer your front doors clutching a crucifix whilst wearing bulbs of garlic around your neck? ffs!
    I agree with you on that one about hostility- cant see reason so use abuse instead - be ashamed.
    sculptor likes this.
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Input to our brain without using any SENSE.
    By sir ir r aj in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2013, 03:32 PM
  2. In need of input for a project!
    By annayvo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2013, 08:57 PM
  3. Input Work vs Input Force
    By WriterTyper in forum Physics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 11th, 2011, 09:59 PM
  4. Input On A Derivative .. x(absolute value of X )
    By MohaveBiologist in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 30th, 2009, 10:40 PM
  5. A MUST READ! and A MUST INPUT!
    By redrum4196 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 25th, 2006, 07:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •