I’m really not arguing either side. I thought I’d share an article about a new scientific approach with high accuracy, since I know you love great science
When the river Thames froze over it was just a blip on the chart like you showed, something people wouldn’t even notice without the precise accuracy to measure temperature changes we had centuries ago which made your above chart with precision and clarity possible. I also like the scientific clarity that frigid conditions were “probably” caused by volcanoes and not the sun. As if something like the sun has the ability to affect temperatures on earth, right? Anyway, I appreciate your unbiased love for all science and your objective approach to presenting diverse opinions.
buzzkill, if you want to talk science you need to have some minimal ability to interpret what you read.
The temperature difference caused by the previous Maunder Minimum wasn’t a “mini ice age” - that’s just a phrase journalists use to sell newspapers:
Note that the term “Little Ice Age” applied to the Maunder Minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years.
It lasted 50-odd years. If we took it as an excuse to carry on regardless, the CO2 concentration in 2100 (the projected end of the next Maunder Minimum) would be enormous. We would then be royally fucked, wouldn’t we?
[quote=“finley”]buzzkill, if you want to talk science you need to have some minimal ability to interpret what you read.
The temperature difference caused by the previous Maunder Minimum wasn’t a “mini ice age” - that’s just a phrase journalists use to sell newspapers:
Note that the term “Little Ice Age” applied to the Maunder Minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years.
[/quote]
So there was a warm winter during a cooling cycle? Is that possible? Sort of like a cold winter last year despite global warming? What about long periods of warmer conditions during the ice age? All I’m saying is it shouldn’t be surprising if much reduced solar activity affects weather. How much it will affect it and how much other things will cause different affects is another argument. I’ll leave that debate to people with deep scientific understanding like Vay
And in that time there might be 3 or 5 billion more people, a much larger threat to the greater population than warmer weather, in my humble opinion. I’m sure those vested in the game would argue otherwise
Buzzkill, I don’t mean to question your stated intentions, but the section quoted by you says nothing about a new ice age. You didn’t link to the actual article, but something tells me it was the media source which made the inference that we can therefor expect a new ice age. Further, I find it a little funny that, if you just want to share new climate science, you would happen to pick something that flies in the face of everything mainstream climate science tells us (in terms of the media’s interpretation of it, at least).
As far as your snark: I do appreciate “great science”. But if the media is going to interpret findings from one piece of research as overriding a body of over ten thousand such pieces, well, as the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Are you claiming it wasn’t? An incidence of extreme weather does not a climate make. When a lot of such incidences begin to assemble themselves into a trend, that’s when we can start to infer something about the climate. Based on the evidence, the inferences made are that the “mini-ice age” wasn’t global, nor was it particularly icy.
Are we now throwing out the vast and well-corroborated body of research using temperature proxies? I thought you support actual science…
Come on. What do you think scientists have done to make this inference, flipped a coin? There is a body of research behind this apparently off-the-cuff claim compromising multiple lines of converging evidence, as with most good science.
Let’s stay away from caricatures, shall we? Is this what you really believe my article says? Have a look at the TSI chart I posted three times for Fred on the last two pages, and maybe reconsider your interpretation.
Well yes. But they’d be a much greater liability if we had a reduced ability to feed all the dead wood due to climate change. You’d be talking about plagues and mass die-offs. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I’d rather people get their act together BEFORE such things happen, that’s all.
Depends what those quotes say, and what you mean by “sufficient”.
Who doesn’t mention them? And why wouldn’t they? That famous error in AR4 was one error in roughly three thousand pages of scientific assessment… a mistake which didn’t make it into the Technical Summary,the Synthesis Report or the crucial policy maker’s summary. As for the glaciers themselves, you act as if they’re hunky-dory. They’re not:
[quote=“USGS”]Many of Asia’s glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change. This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea-level rise.
The U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with 39 international scientists, published a report on the status of glaciers throughout all of Asia, including Russia, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.
“Of particular interest are the Himalaya, where glacier behavior impacts the quality of life of tens of millions of people,” said USGS scientist Jane Ferrigno. “Glaciers in the Himalaya are a major source of fresh water and supply meltwater to all of the rivers in northern India.”
As glaciers become smaller, water runoff decreases, which is especially important during the dry season when other water sources are limited. Climate change also brings warmer temperatures and earlier water runoff from glaciers, and this combined with spring and summer rains can result in flood conditions. The overall glacier retreat and additional melt can increase the amount of water dammed in the vicinity of a glacier, and the added pressure enhances the likelihood of disastrous outburst flooding.
While most glaciers in Asia are in recession, some glaciers have been found to advance. Some of the advancing glaciers are surge-type glaciers, which move forward more rapidly than average in a short period of time. The reason for this is being studied by glaciologists, and is likely due to unique and local conditions.[/quote]
Yes, I included the one part you’ll cherry pick to wave the whole thing away. We’ve talked about it before. Nuance is a big no-no in the anti-intellectualism of the modern conservative, I realize. I will add that later research by Kehrwald in 2008 concludes that 500 million people depend on the melt water being depleted by the melting of these glaciers…
“Had been peer-reviewed?” No documents on Earth have been peer-reviewed more:
[quote=“IPCC”]Multiple stages of review are an essential part of the IPCC process to ensure a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of the current state of knowledge of the science related to climate change1. Expert Reviewers and governments are invited at different stages to comment on the scientific, technical and socio-economic assessment and the overall balance of the drafts. The review process includes wide participation, with hundreds of reviewers critiquing the accuracy and completeness of the scientific assessment contained in the drafts.
Assessment Reports and Special Reports are prepared by chapter teams of authors and Review Editors. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC select its authors?) The Review Editors ensure that all substantive comments received during review are given appropriate consideration by the author teams and ensure that genuine diversity in perspectives in the literature is reflected adequately in the report.
The first draft of a report is prepared by the authors based on scientific, technical and socioeconomic literature in scientific journals and other relevant publications. (See IPCC Factsheet – What literature does the IPCC assess?) This First Order Draft is reviewed by experts. Every interested expert is encouraged to submit comments. Working Groups, members of the author teams, governments, IPCC observer organizations, and other organizations can all encourage experts to register as reviewers, facilitating the participation of experts encompassing as wide a range of views, expertise and geographical representation as possible. For the Fifth Assessment Report, experts could register as reviewers through a process of self-declaration of expertise.
After the expert review of the First Order Draft, author teams prepare a Second Order Draft of the report, taking into account the review comments received; a first draft of the report’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is also prepared. These are subject to simultaneous review by experts and governments. Experts who registered for the review of the First Order Draft of the report are automatically registered for this round of review; further experts may register at this stage.
Following receipt of the review comments, author teams then prepare final drafts of the full report and SPM, taking into account review comments received. The final draft of the report is distributed to governments for a final round of written comments on the SPM, before governments meet in plenary session to approve the SPM line by line and accept the underlying report. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC approve reports?)
All comments submitted through this review process are addressed by authors, and a written response is provided to each comment on the First Order and Second Order Drafts for later publication.
There are special procedures for the review of the Synthesis Report and its SPM, which undergo one round of simultaneous expert and government review. After revision the Synthesis Report and SPM are sent to governments and IPCC observer organizations for consideration before governments meet in Plenary Session to approve the SPM and adopt the Synthesis Report.
During the review period, access to the First Order and Second Order Drafts is provided to those who register as Expert Reviewers on condition that the drafts are not cited, quoted or distributed. The drafts are not made public before the final document is approved because they are works in progress and may not yet meet IPCC quality and accuracy standards. Draft text will necessarily change as review comments are addressed and the latest literature is assessed. The IPCC sets cut-off dates for literature to be accepted for publication by scientific journals, if it is to be included in the current assessment: for the Fifth Assessment Report, literature must be accepted for publication approximately two-three months before completion of the final draft. To assure transparency, First and Second Order Drafts are made publicly available, along with the reviewer comments and the responses of the author teams to all comments, when the final reports are published.
Number of review comments on Fifth Assessment Report
Number of Comment / Experts / Governments
Working Group I
First Order Draft 21,400 / 659 / -
Second Order Draft 31,422 / 800 / 26
Working Group II
First Order Draft 19,598 / 563 / -
Second Order Draft 28,544 / 452 / 33
Working Group III
First Order Draft 16,169 / 602 / -
Second Order Draft 19,554 / 444 / 24
Synthesis Report First Order Draft 5,944 / 85 / 42
Total 142,631 / 3,606 / 125[/quote]
Coming full circle: regarding Paruchai’s “admissions”, here’s the only one in your text that IMO really has any significance:
Now, remember what you said about Frank Luntz before:
I would contend that Luntz’ comment was taken in context, exactly as it was intended. Paruchai’s - unfortunately for you - is not at all like that. Seriously, this use of the quote is like 9/11 Truthers using Larry Silverstein’s ‘I told the fire chief to pull it’ to claim he ordered the demolition of Building Seven. Honestly, do you think Paruchai was casually admitting scientific malfeasance in a Guardian interview… (that’s about as likely as Silverstein casually admitting horrific insurance fraud on PBS). HERE is the context:
[quote=“Former IPCC Director Paruchai”][b]Some scientists involved in the IPCC effort have asked whether such huge undertakings are still relevant, now that the science is now so certain, and asked whether it might not be a better use of resources to focus on specific regions or extreme weather events.
Pachauri said the IPCC would discuss those suggestions at a meeting in Batumi, Georgia, next month. But he said the final decision on the IPCC’s mission, and the future of the blockbuster climate reports, would rest with governments.[/b]
“We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” he said. “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”[/quote]
Now tell me again that this calls into question the review of over ten thousand pieces of scientific research, authored by several hundred experts and reviewed by thousands more?
LOL that’s the most disproportionately-short response ever. You’ve written impromptu Apostles’ Creeds ten times as long. I guess the only way you can ever admit error is by omission. So I take it you are implicitly conceding you were wrong on:
the Himalayan glaciers
the error about said glaciers
IPCC peer-review
former director Paruchai’s comment
About Lunzt: not going to bother attempting to re-address your selective amnesia (or dementia?) on my point about him.
So there are ONLY climate scientists in the review process for the IPCC report?
You have added additional comments for only one of the quotes, why?
You said there was a grand Republican strategy to confuse the issue of climate change and global warming but then you studiously fail (haha) to look at who is using the term global warming and who is using climate change. Despite Luntz’s efforts, Republicans by far and way use global warming, while Democrats by far and away use climate change. So, er, amnesia about the point that your point made absolutely no sense? that it was utterly irrelevant? No, I still remember that VERY clearly.
As do I remember the creed:
I believe in one global warming, the Father of Climate Change, which together with climate change and the call for urgent action, give all manner of opportunities for creative expression which is far more important than actually doing something. To believe is to be saved/forgiven and thus any manner of carbon emitting lifestyles is acceptable including one involving a CAR! Light of light. Heat of heat. Meaningless words of meaningless words, now and forever more. Amen! Hallelujah!
Did I say it was not an error? Please try actually addressing what I write, not just spouting off whatever.
So there are ONLY climate scientists in the review process for the IPCC report?[/quote]
No. Why should that be the case? Was the IPCC document above not clear enough for you? The number of expert, non-expert and government comments is even tallied for you there. It’s all totally transparent. What’s the point of this question?
You have added additional comments for only one of the quotes, why?[/quote]
As I said, it was the only one I really felt was interesting. If you want to discuss another, please post it for me. Now, as for your “admission by omission”:
do you concede that Paruchai’s comment was taken totally out of context, for the purposes of a smear, as is so typical with denialist tactics?
You said there was a grand Republican strategy to confuse the issue of climate change and global warming but then you studiously fail (haha) to look at who is using the term global warming and who is using climate change. Despite Luntz’s efforts, Republicans by far and way use global warming, while Democrats by far and away use climate change. So, er, amnesia about the point that your point made absolutely no sense? that it was utterly irrelevant? No, I still remember that VERY clearly. [/quote]
Where’s the icon for drumming my fingers on the table… let me refresh your memory:
No, and I proved this was never my point by showing a post I’d made about Luntz before Fred began his spin counter-attack:
[quote=“Vay”]Fred, bit busy now. Looking forward to coming back and showing you, again, the irrefutable evidence of Luntz encouraging Republicans to say “climate change” instead of “global warming”, as well as the empirical evidence that scientists have been saying …
[/quote]
That, right there, should’ve been the end of it. He was just shown wrong.[color=#0040FF] My point in mentioning Luntz was never to claim Luntz had any particular impact in this case; it was simply to show that it was he who had done exactly what the denialist canard said. In fact, I’d never even considered the question of Luntz’ impact. If I had, it would’ve been obvious he failed, because clearly it’s now Republicans who are about as touchy about “climate change” as they are about “Happy Holidays!”[/color]
I really don’t think this is so hard to understand, but just as with anything, when Fred thinks he’s got a window for attack (and a way to take the attention off the real issue, which is what the SCIENTISTS have been saying, all along), no amount of facts or evidence EVER alters it. So I have to just keep repeating myself. And repeating myself. Until I’m about ready to throw my computer through the window.[/quote]
(That last bit turned out to be rather prophetic, eh?)
…and…
[quote=“Vay”]You seem to be forgetting something: “climate change” has been used [by scientists] all along - and you’ve now admitted this - because increases in frequency and intensity of extreme weather phenomena of many types other than just heat waves, fire tornados and lava-rain are predicted by it. This isn’t liberals equivocating, it’s just science… So I’d it’s YOU who has a problem with an accurate term, because this kind of reasoning plays so well with your base:
Do you see my point here? It doesn’t fucking matter which term liberals prefer, because they’re ~both right~. I’d say liberals generally prefer “climate change” because it’s a more pretentious, PC-ish sounding word (edit: sort of like “Asian” as opposed to “Oriental”). Moreover, we’ve all seen the Fox News reports with the image of ten feet of snow and the sneering heading “Where’s your ‘global warming’ now???”, causing us to do a face-palm.
Personally I prefer “AGW” because it contains the all-important, absolutely proven causal agent… and anyway, it isn’t just any climate change. The net effect really is global warming.[/quote]
Now, are you going to accuse me of solipsism for quoting myself on the question of my own argument? That would be a novel approach. Might want to try it.
Wow! Deep! Like some sort of symbolic code to represent how the dangers of global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) are going to have a devastating impact on EACH and EVERY aspect of our lives!!!
Buzzkill, I don’t mean to question your stated intentions, but the section quoted by you says nothing about a new ice age. You didn’t link to the actual article, but something tells me it was the media source which made the inference that we can therefor expect a new ice age. Further, I find it a little funny that, if you just want to share new climate science, you would happen to pick something that flies in the face of everything mainstream climate science tells us (in terms of the media’s interpretation of it, at least).
[/quote]
LOLz…get it? THE NEW ICE AGE>>>>HAHAHA…Vay, you crack me the hell up. You wouldn’t know irony if it crawled up your posterior and wiggled. Next time I pull a piece of crap out of the toilet I’ll make sure it’s MAINSTREAM…LOLz. How again does solar activity fly in the face of climate science? Oh wait…I get it…good one! …ROFL…
Are you claiming it wasn’t? An incidence of extreme weather does not a climate make. When a lot of such incidences begin to assemble themselves into a trend, that’s when we can start to infer something about the climate. Based on the evidence, the inferences made are that the “mini-ice age” wasn’t global, nor was it particularly icy.[/quote]
HAHAHA…again, funny… What about the baby seals who froze to death that year? Only a frozen heart wouldn’t cry for a frozen seal pup, lolz… Yes, a frozen river is a blip. The last ice age was a blip on the chart too. The meat of the information in the article was the accuracy in predicting solar activity, not it’s effects on climate. The rest of it was thrown in there in typical journalistic style and prompted you to make particular inferences. How challenging. Your lack of ability to detect sarcasm is concerning,as it’s one of the early signs of dementia
Science has looked at the “mini ice age” period and correlated it with solar activity, others dismiss it. Another way to look at it is the opposite…, does increased solar activity increase temperatures? Again, some scientists show it indeed does, other data collections show it has little or no effect. Funny how data can vary so much between seemingly equally reputable and qualified scientists. How could it be? Maybe we need a scientific vote so we can fall back on the consensus
SOOOO FUNNY…LMAO>>>>LOLZZZZ…NO Vay…that just goes to show you are truly ignorant when it comes to science. How did you ever get to be a renowned scientist anyway? I thought Taiwan didn’t recognize online degrees. How many real scientists have you had personal relationships with? Did they share with you any clues about research and publishing? The rigors of data collection and how it can be used? If they did I’m convinced none of it registered, considering your previous posts and early dementia diagnosis
Great science can be given in one simple paper, and a single article can be enough to discredit 100,000 previous ones. Science is not merely a head count of scientists and scientific opinion, nor is it the tally of the volume of focus. Scientific consensus does not good science make. The voluminous extravagance of climate alarmist parroting screams more of desperation than anything else. But I believe in your ability to navigate and police the data getting thrown around, since you have your finger on the pulse of what’s mainstream and being an English teacher and all. Keep up the good work
What kind of solar activity- are you talking TSI? Or sun spots, as is the focus of this article? What do you mean by “dismiss”? Like, they just sort of wave their hands at it like Fred does to all the studies I post? Or that they responded using reasoned arguments based on logic and evidence? My guess would be the latter.
Which collections? How many? Have they been replicated? Have there been refutations published? What do other experts say about them?
IE, there is disagreement among scientists, they’re always changing their minds, it’s all random, we’ll never know the truth, so just screw it- does that basically describe what you’re saying?
If so, how very Post Modernist. Also how very typically denialist. Sewing doubt because of a tiny minority of dissenting science is strategy número uno. To quote that recently-contentious Republican strategist, Frank Luntz;
He didn’t originate this strategy, though- it goes back to PR firms and think-tanks in collusion with the cigarette industry in the mid-twentieth century. It has been subsequently honed to an art form in the proceeding decades.
But two words for you: 1) forest 2) trees. You’re trying to dismiss the former by pointing at some stones and grass among the latter.
If we follow your reasoning, we should also throw out the CDC: hell, they don’t really know what really causes illness! Tomorrow some scientist might publish something that will turn over the Germ Theory of Disease! Come to think of it, why do we teach, say, Evolution, or Plate Techtonics, or Relativity in school… these are all just theories. For all we know, apples might start floating tomorrow!
Zzz is right. All this means is, ‘I can’t argue with the humongous body of research, the conclusion of which I refuse to accept for ideological reasons- but it MIGHT be wrong anyway!’
Yeah yeah yeah. Science doesn’t work by vote of hands. It works by logic and evidence. But here’s a question you’ve apparently never considered: since there is an awful lot of evidence out there, most of which we as non-experts have never seen and probably wouldn’t have been able to interpret if we had, how is a rational person to be able to distinguish what is probably true and make necessary decisions based on this information? Ditto for society. Wanna guess my answer?
1 Scoping Meeting to outline 14 Chapters Over 1000 nominations from 63 countries 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries Over 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries Over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data from climate model simulations Over 9200 scientific publications cited [/b]
Next comes the inevitable ‘that’s just argument from authority/popularity!’
To save effort, and because he says it better than I ever could, here is the founder of the New England Skeptics’ Society:
[quote=“Steven Novella”]Why do we care about the consensus? Isn’t this just an argument from authority? Well, yes and no.
It seems reasonable, especially for those who consider themselves skeptics, to argue that facts and logic should determine a scientific question, not authority. Or that we should “let the facts speak for themselves.”
[b]Unfortunately, facts cannot speak for themselves. Scientific evidence needs to be examined, rated for quality, interpreted, and put into a broader context. There is often no simple connect from facts to conclusions in science – background knowledge, knowledge of the processes of science, familiarity with critical thinking, logical pitfalls, and the effects of bias on interpretation are all necessary to come to a reliable conclusion about what those facts are telling us.
Different individuals are likely to have different biases and knowledge bases, and therefore may come to different conclusions about the same set of data. No individual, therefore, can be the ultimate authority on any scientific question.
The power of consensus is that individual quirks and biases will tend to average out. The consensus of scientific opinion, therefore, is a way to gauge the agreement and power of the scientific evidence.
The only other alternative is to evaluate all the scientific evidence first hand and come to your own conclusion. The potential pitfall here, however, is that individuals who are not experts in the relevant field believe that they can do this by examining secondary sources, such as popular writings on the topic. This is naive, however.
In order to really understand the evidence base for any scientifically question you need to be able to read the technical literature first hand, and have a reasonable working knowledge of this literature. You then need to challenge your understanding of the evidence by discussing it with other experts, who may be familiar with evidence you missed, or have a perspective you do not. In other words – you have to engage intimately and extensively with the evidence and with the community.
In order to do this you pretty much have to be a full-time scientist focusing on the relevant area of study.
It seems absurd, when you really look at it, to substitute your own opinion based upon reading a smattering of simplified popular writings for that of the consensus of scientific experts who live and breathe the science.[/b]
What typically happens is that individuals who reject the consensus often come to the conclusion that science itself is broken. They reject science and the institutions of science, in order to justify their rejection of the particular consensus on which they disagree. Scientists, they believe, are therefore closed-minded, corrupt, or mindlessly follow the herd.
This is little more than ad-hoc special pleading, however (they are just making it up). Anyone who works with actual scientists would find such statements to be hopelessly out of sync with reality. Sure, there are individual scientists who are corrupt or closed-minded, but most vigorously defend their own intellectual independence.
Conclusion
For the average person (someone who is not a working expert in a particular field) the consensus of scientific opinion must be taken very seriously, and should not be casually tossed aside. In grappling with any scientific question, you should first try to understand what the scientific consensus is, how confident are scientists, is there any significant and viable minority view, and why scientists have come to that conclusion.
[b]Humility and reason dictate that the consensus view should be given appropriate respect. I am not discouraging anyone from trying to understand the evidence first hand, in fact I recommend it. Learn and understand the primary evidence as much as your interest, time, and ability take you. Just be extremely cautious before you believe your opinions trump those of hundreds or thousands of working scientists.
With respect to anthropogenic global warming, there is a solid and confident consensus. You should be especially cautious of rejecting this consensus because it does not agree with your political world view.[/b][/quote]
WOW!!!.. Those are very compelling arguments Vay…you really are a scientist aren’t you? Did you do your dissertation on horse fecal matter and odor variants?..cause I just got a strong whiff while reading your post…HAHAHAAHA…LMAO…
Did you google all of that while throwing your sticky ball, or do you have direct access to IPCC’s network?..LOLZZZZ…ROLFL…
If you have a point then get to it buzzkill, ROLF LOLZZZZ and calling a posters remarks horseshit belongs in temp.
No one is disputing variations in solar activity, this is well known. Whats your point? No one argues the Milankovitch cycles are not real, or solar variations dont happen, or there is a solar cycle or periods like the Maunder Minimum.
Buzzkill, when you did the ‘Euthyphro’s Dilemma’ style argument about action on climate change only being possible with world government, that was great stuff. Let’s see more of that calibre, and less of this derision and Argument from Authority-type stuff.
As far as the IPCC’s “network”- not sure what this means. The info I posted is straight from their own factsheet which can easily be found. The report itself is also downloadable for free, and the whole point of “9,200+ citations” is that you can trace claims back to their sources.
I really think you should read and seriously consider Dr. Novella’s post above. I didn’t just Google that up while throwing the sticky ball - he is one of a handful of modern thinkers I respect most.
Finally, as far as your use of the term “alarmist” - guilty as charged, in my case. IMO however it’s quite rational to be alarmed when a situation is genuinely alarming. I think our civilization’s one-off chemistry experiment on our planet’s one-and-only atmosphere qualifies.
[quote=“Mick”]If you have a point then get to it buzzkill, ROLF LOLZZZZ and calling a posters remarks horseshit belongs in temp.
No one is disputing variations in solar activity, this is well known. Whats your point? No one argues the Milankovitch cycles are not real, or solar variations dont happen, or there is a solar cycle or periods like the Maunder Minimum.[/quote]
My point is…my models tell me, adjusted for variables known and unknown, that if carbon isn’t increased 264% from 2005 levels by 2028 then only 13% of seal pups will survive the winters by 2040. If carbon isn’t further increased 314% from 2010 levels by 2036 then only 4% will survive by 2044. If carbon isn’t doubled in 10 years from 2007 levels then all seal pups will be frozen by 2049, lolz…
My models are congruent with IPCC’s unpublished files and precisely match future events… and Vay has sticky balls
[quote=“buzzkill1”][quote=“Mick”]If you have a point then get to it buzzkill, ROLF LOLZZZZ and calling a posters remarks horseshit belongs in temp.
No one is disputing variations in solar activity, this is well known. Whats your point? No one argues the Milankovitch cycles are not real, or solar variations dont happen, or there is a solar cycle or periods like the Maunder Minimum.[/quote]
My point is…my models tell me, adjusted for variables known and unknown, that if carbon isn’t increased 264% from 2005 levels by 2028 then only 13% of seal pups will survive the winters by 2040. If carbon isn’t further increased 314% from 2010 levels by 2036 then only 4% will survive by 2044. If carbon isn’t doubled in 10 years from 2007 levels then all seal pups will be frozen by 2049, lolz…
My models are congruent with IPCC’s unpublished files and precisely match future events… and Vay has sticky balls[/quote]
Ok, you’re going with if ANYTHING is unknown, then NOTHING is known argument.
Apply this to anything and see how much sense it makes. Example, because gravity remains a mystery in many areas, we know nothing about gravity hence it is useless to draw conclusions that use gravity in their formula.
