|
Post by visitor on Sept 21, 2012 7:25:12 GMT
Spot the difference
|
|
Geddit Reddit and Beddit
Guest
|
Post by Geddit Reddit and Beddit on Sept 21, 2012 8:57:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 9:08:38 GMT
I can "spot the difference", visitor. Anyone can. Point is, can YOU explain it for us? Seems there are some REGIONAL influences at work in this Anthropogenic Global Warming rather than GLOBAL ones.
But don't worry NOAA and the IPCC can't explain it either, so you're in good (?) company.
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Sept 21, 2012 18:35:56 GMT
I can "spot the difference", visitor. Anyone can. Point is, can YOU explain it for us? One has a land mass larger than either the European Continent or Australasia, the other is ocean, subject to currents, etc that cannot effect landmass. Would you really expect these to react to AGW in the same way? But as somebody that denies basic physics, no doubt you do.
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Sept 21, 2012 18:48:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 19:53:40 GMT
Seems obvious. The hot air is rising.
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Sept 21, 2012 20:01:51 GMT
Seems obvious. The hot air is rising. Seems obvious. Science is beyond your grasp without a blog post telling you what to think
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 20:06:09 GMT
Seems obvious you have no sense of humour, visitor, but ernest do-gooders, saving the planet rarely have.
Seriously though, natural internal variation and forcings can account for all the temperature variability we see round the world in space and in time.
That is the paradigm alarmists need to overturn.
As for Serreze, it's models all the way down!
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Sept 21, 2012 20:12:59 GMT
Seriously though, natural internal variation and forcings can account for all the temperature variability we see round the world in space and in time. No it cannot What's your next anti-science proclamation?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 20:34:45 GMT
Talking about despised blog posts how about this headline above the Serreze quote you lifted from "Live Science"? here www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.htmlRecord-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warmingby Natalie Wolchover The converse is also true, alas, Record Low (i.e since 1979!) Arctic Sea Ice levels don't Prove Anthropogenic Global Warming Either!Back to Cook's SkS crib sheet and his Rapid Response Team, eh, visitor? You'll be telling me I believe the Moon Landings were faked next! What? You didn't know all these travesties originated from the same pens? You do now!
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Sept 22, 2012 9:11:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2012 11:40:13 GMT
What a triumph of unadorned speculation. And how percipient of you to highlight this trash in bold for us!
"plausible"! "virtually certain"! "consistent with"!
This is not scientific language, visitor.
The question enquiring minds want an answer to, visitor, is what conditions would you accept as INCONSISTENT with your pet hypothesis? Because a speculation cannot evolve into a hypothesis and thus into a fully fledged theory unless the conditions are specified in advance which would disprove it. So, please, what would be the definitive proof that the anthropogenic CO2 meme is WRONG?
You see, when we keep hearing words like "consistent with" and "Models predict" and "plausible" we know we are dealing with bullish**ers who should be on a journalism course and leave science alone.
In fact, the purported anthropogenic "signal" of warming is so totally indistinguishable from natural causes of warming that we might as well disregard it and get on with tackling all problems that are genuinely manifest on this planet like poverty, sickness and lack of educational opportunity instead of the climate neuroses of the worried well of the West.
So, tell us, just give us a clue, what observations would be "inconsistent with" anthropogenic global warming? Would you be even capable of measuring such falsifiers? Forgive us for suspecting that whatever happens is "consistent" with your hypothesis. How VERY convenient for an alarmist but how very UNscientific.
Stay away from discussions of climate if you don't have answers to these questions, visitor.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 23, 2012 13:27:46 GMT
At exactly the same time Arctic summer sea ice was at its lowest for a few decades Iceland was experiencing unseasonal snow. 10.09.2012 | 12:17 Early Snow in North Iceland, Storm Warnings IssuedBetween 15 and 20 centimeters of snow fell in North and Northeast Iceland overnight leaving roads impassable. It is believed to be a new record for snowfall at this time of the year. www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=393377Are these facts connected? Ain't climate complicated?
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 24, 2012 9:16:40 GMT
What a triumph of unadorned speculation. And how percipient of you to highlight this trash in bold for us! "plausible"! "virtually certain"! "consistent with"! This is not scientific language, visitor. The question enquiring minds want an answer to, visitor, is what conditions would you accept as INCONSISTENT with your pet hypothesis? Because a speculation cannot evolve into a hypothesis and thus into a fully fledged theory unless the conditions are specified in advance which would disprove it. So, please, what would be the definitive proof that the anthropogenic CO2 meme is WRONG? You see, when we keep hearing words like "consistent with" and "Models predict" and "plausible" we know we are dealing with bullish**ers who should be on a journalism course and leave science alone. In fact, the purported anthropogenic "signal" of warming is so totally indistinguishable from natural causes of warming that we might as well disregard it and get on with tackling all problems that are genuinely manifest on this planet like poverty, sickness and lack of educational opportunity instead of the climate neuroses of the worried well of the West. So, tell us, just give us a clue, what observations would be " inconsistent with" anthropogenic global warming? Would you be even capable of measuring such falsifiers? Forgive us for suspecting that whatever happens is "consistent" with your hypothesis. How VERY convenient for an alarmist but how very UNscientific. Stay away from discussions of climate if you don't have answers to these questions, visitor. So rivetting I re-posted it on the climate change board...
|
|