Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I've never posted up any pseudoscience. That's the fun thing about only posting up the verifiable.
And yes I will lol @ infowars and prisonplanet truebelievers every single time.
Break out the tinfoil hats.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I've gone back and looked at your posts on this site (both this thread and others, what's up with posting stupid links to other sites). IMHO you're a political shill that has absolutely no interest in cannabis... smoking or growing it and has only come on here for political reasons.

sounds like you've got him sussed out.

 

[sac beh]

Alex Jones is about as good of a news source as Jack van Impe and Hal Lindsey... lol.

Christian dispensationalism anyone?

 

[Ben Tokin]

I must admit, I find it amusing that some here feel the need to vent their frustration at others once they are confronted with doubt about their convictions.

In order to have an informative and intelligent discussion, you must first put aside all of your emotional attachments to the subject.

You must also refrain from personal attacks that have no connection to the subject. When you attempt to discredit a source of information or an individual partaking in the discussion, it exposes your weak argument and self doubt.

When a discussion reaches this level of discourse, the global cooling position has scored a major victory and all team members have the to right to engage in a snoopy dance.

When you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with a particular subject, you lose all perspective of reality and lose your credibility as well as the debate.

Bering Sea Was Ice-Free and Full of Life During Last Warm Period, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2010) -

Deep sediment cores retrieved from the Bering Sea floor indicate that the region was ice-free all year and biological productivity was high during the last major warm period in Earth's climate history.

Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, will present the new findings in a talk on December 13 at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Ravelo and co-chief scientist Kozo Takahashi of Kyushu University, Japan, led a nine-week expedition of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) to the Bering Sea last summer aboard the research vessel JOIDES Resolution. The researchers drilled down 700 meters through rock and sludge to retrieve sediments deposited during the Pliocene Warm Period, 3.5 to 4.5 million years ago.

"Evidence from the Pliocene Warm Period is relevant to studies of current climate change because it was the last time in our Earth's history when global temperatures were higher than today," Ravelo said.

Carbon dioxide levels during the Pliocene Warm Period were also comparable to levels today, and average temperatures were a few degrees higher, she said. Climate scientists are interested in what this period may tell us about the effects of global warming, particularly in the polar regions. Current observations show more rapid warming in the Arctic compared to other places on Earth and compared to what was expected based on global climate models.

Ravelo's team found evidence of similar amplified warming at the poles during the Pliocene Warm Period. Analysis of the sediment samples indicated that average sea surface temperatures in the Bering Sea were at least 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today, while average global temperatures were only 3 degrees warmer than today.

Samples from the expedition showed evidence of consistently high biological productivity in the Bering Sea throughout the past five million years. The sediments contain fossils of plankton, such as diatoms, that suggest a robust ecology of organisms persisting from the start of the Pliocene Warm Period to the present. In addition, samples from the Pliocene Warm Period include deep-water organisms that require more oxygenated conditions than exist today, suggesting that the mixing of water layers in the Bering Sea was greater than it is now, Ravelo said.

"We usually think of the ocean as being more stratified during warm periods, with less vertical movement in the water column," she said. "If the ocean was actually overturning more during a period when it was warmer than today, then we may need to change our thinking about ocean circulation."

Today, the Bering Sea is ice-free only during the summer, but the sediment samples indicate it was ice-free year-round during the Pliocene Warm Period. According to Ravelo, the samples showed no evidence of the pebbles and other debris that ice floes carry from the land out to sea and deposit on the seafloor as they melt. In addition, the researchers didn't find any of the microorganisms typically associated with sea ice, she said.

"The information we found tells us quite a bit about what things were like during the last period of global warming. It should benefit the scientists today who are sorting out how ocean circulation and conditions at the poles change as the Earth warms," Ravelo said.

The expedition led by Ravelo and Takahashi was part of an ongoing program conducted by the IODP with funding from the National Science Foundation and support from the United States, Japan, and the European Union. The JOIDES Resolution is the only ship operated by the United States capable of taking undisturbed core samples at the depths required to study conditions during the Pliocene Warm Period. The current program will end in 2013, and planning for the next phase of ocean drilling is now under way.

 

[sac beh]

I must admit, I find it amusing that some here feel the need to vent their frustration at others once they are confronted with doubt about their convictions.

In order to have an informative and intelligent discussion, you must first put aside all of your emotional attachments to the subject.

You must also refrain from personal attacks that have no connection to the subject. When you attempt to discredit a source of information or an individual partaking in the discussion, it exposes your weak argument and self doubt.

When a discussion reaches this level of discourse, the global cooling position has scored a major victory and all team members have the to right to engage in a snoopy dance.

When you allow yourself to become emotionally involved with a particular subject, you lose all perspective of reality and lose your credibility as well as the debate.

For the record, my above criticism of Alex Jones is based on the fact that he doesn't even pass the smell test for evidence-based journalism, much less for climate science.

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker.

It can really stop there. I thought we already addressed the problems with citing political journalism and opinion pieces as sources for climate science?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

BT, what does that say 4 million years later where 6+ billion humans are spewing 30 billion+ tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

[Green lung]

PrisonPlanet.com and InfoWars LLLLMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAOOOO. OMG lol

Straps on Tin Hat

 

[Ben Tokin]

For the record, my above criticism of Alex Jones is based on the fact that he doesn't even pass the smell test for evidence-based journalism, much less for climate science.

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker.

It can really stop there. I thought we already addressed the problems with citing political journalism and opinion pieces as sources for climate science?

One can make the same argument about the founder of AGW, Big Al.

The article I posted above involves a scientific research team that is involved with attempting to prove AGW. Their decisive conclusions are at odds with the existing climate models being used to promote AGW.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So you'll believe a few rouge opinions but not the consensus community?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The only one's who've been confronted with doubt about their convictions, and the only ones ranting to vent frustrations, are the deniers... Though it does frustrate me trying to educate a handful of people who are so entrenched in believing what makes them happy, that they believe that which can be proven false over that which anyone can verify and no one has been able to refute.

I was absolutely confronted with doubt about my convictions back when I too was in the denier camp... but instead of getting frustrated and ranting to vent my frustrations, I got educated and changed my convictions to match the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that you choose to ignore.

Nothing spouted off by and denier propagandist could possibly make any reasoning person who has any background knowledge doubt verifiable evidences in favor of political rhetoric and lies.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

So you'll believe a few rouge opinions but not the consensus community?

they'll believe whoever tells them what they want to hear.






unlike AGW acknowledgers whom the evidence has given no choice but to believe what we wish wasn't so.

 

[sac beh]

One can make the same argument about the founder of AGW, Big Al.

The article I posted above involves a scientific research team that is involved with attempting to prove AGW. Their decisive conclusions are at odds with the existing climate models being used to promote AGW.

Its completely different. Neither H3ad, nor I, nor anyone else posting evidence of AGW uses Al Gore as a source of information. How many times have I had to say in this thread that I don't care about Al Gore, that he's not a scientist, and that AGW does not depend on him? 3, 4 times? You still don't see the difference?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

One can make the same argument about the founder of AGW, Big Al.

What part of "AGW science is 60 years older than Al Gore" do you not get?


time traveling gores part of your doctrine now?

Do you think the athlete on the wheaties box invented the cereal?
You understand the concept of a person of notoriety taking up an existing cause?

 

[Ben Tokin]

The only one's who've been confronted with doubt about their convictions, and the only ones ranting to vent frustrations, are the deniers... Though it does frustrate me trying to educate a handful of people who are so entrenched in believing what makes them happy, that they believe that which can be proven false over that which anyone can verify and no one has been able to refute.

I was absolutely confronted with doubt about my convictions back when I too was in the denier camp... but instead of getting frustrated and ranting to vent my frustrations, I got educated and changed my convictions to match the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that you choose to ignore.

Nothing spouted off by and denier propagandist could possibly make any reasoning person who has any background knowledge doubt verifiable evidences in favor of political rhetoric and lies.

There is no consensus on AGW. The majority of people with knowledge enough to form an opnion on AGW realize the flaws and absurdity of its' nature.

Everyday, in increasing numbers, the best and the brightest are taking issue with the fanaticism and lack of scientific evidence that comprises the AGW argument. It is more clear now than ever that AGW is simply a house of cards and is quickly collapsing with the Arctic winds blasting through the European and North American continents.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

There is no consensus on AGW. The majority of people with knowledge enough to form an opnion on AGW realize the flaws and absurdity of its' nature.

That statement is provable false. The vast majority of the people with enough knowledge to know acknowledge AGW. Here's the graphic of the Gallup Poll information:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

sell your lies to the uninformed.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

weather ain't global cooling, BT... you know that

 

[Ben Tokin]

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

again... this statement patently untrue denier propaganda... or wishful thinking.


Meanwhile... in the real world, every day the jigsaw puzzle is becoming more complete, and the evidence for AGW is becoming more solid.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

fail

 

[Ben Tokin]

The poll you cited is of those whose papers were published. That amounts to less than 1/1000 of a percent of relevent individuals. You don't have the actual number of people polled. When you use percents only, I can poll whoever I want and get 100% favorable to my argument. You do not know who polled and who was polled.

I never use a percent graph unless I can sample 100% of the population. Otherwise, it's a tool to mislead the readers.

Here's a comment from that article you cited:

The cited statistics are compelling, but, in all areas of peer review science, there is a publication bias favoring agreement with conventional wisdom -- likewise a similar funding bias. In a scientific environment where such an overwhelming majority of scientists favor a certain point of view, one can readily appreciate how difficult it would be to obtain funding or publication of ideas and data contrary to those of the predominate school of thought.


This is a point that should not be ignored. Scientists who challenge the consensus are often shut out of journals or even worse, forced to retract papers they have managed to get published. Just ask Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He's more than happy to tell folks all about how he's been repressed by the corrupt scientific establishment.