• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Possible Explanation for the "Pause" in Global Warming

ethanUNC said:
No data would be good enough. You would always find a blog from Rush Limbaugh or someone else who disagrees and use it as a "refutation." See my signature.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is nor do I care. If this is all you've got then why bother contributing anything at all ?
 
Threegoofs said:
This is especially hilarious coming from you.
Click to expand...

Yet another vacuous post

Still waiting for the citation for that IPCC data on deep ocean temperatures. I'm saying it isnt there and I dare you to prove me wrong :cool:
 
flogger said:
Yet another vacuous post

Still waiting for the citation for that IPCC data on deep ocean temperatures. I'm saying it isnt there and I dare you to prove me wrong :cool:
Click to expand...

I realize in your magic ocean, heat can't transfer from the upper layers to the lower layers.

I don't want to impinge on your version of reality.
 
flogger said:
If the ARGO arrays have only existed since 2005 then where has this earlier data come from then ?
Click to expand...

Read the references.

After playing chess with pigeons this long, I don't see the reward in spoon feeding you. It just creates more crap on the chessboard.
 
Threegoofs said:
Read the references.

After playing chess with pigeons this long, I don't see the reward in spoon feeding you. It just creates more crap on the chessboard.
Click to expand...

Nope . Nothing there but retrospective modelling

What global real world data on this exists before 2005 ?
 
Threegoofs said:
No. It's complex, but I'm just pointing out that AGW is real and responsible for a good bit of the warming we are seeing.
Click to expand...

How many of us have said AGW isn't real? Your problem is you deny the fact that evidence continues to show that CO2 doesn't cause as much warming as claimed by your preachers.
 
Threegoofs said:
This is especially hilarious coming from you.
Click to expand...
OMG...

Really?

I cannot recall, as many times as I have asked, any time you have explained anything scientific in your own words that deals with climate change.
 
flogger said:
If the ARGO arrays have only existed since 2005 then where has this earlier data come from then given the retrospective modelling done here is if anything even more suspect than current climate modelling ! :shock:
Click to expand...
I don't think your question is being understood...
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't think your question is being understood...
Click to expand...

You seem to think that I think there is solid deep ocean data and somehow deluded in believing it exists.

What I know is that the people who know this stuff best understand that the deep oceans are gaining heat, if you haven't guessed, I don't consider you or flogger or coach in the group that 'knows this stuff best'.

But I may be wrong, so feel free to post links to your peer reviewed research and articles.
 
Threegoofs said:
You seem to think that I think there is solid deep ocean data and somehow deluded in believing it exists.

What I know is that the people who know this stuff best understand that the deep oceans are gaining heat, if you haven't guessed, I don't consider you or flogger or coach in the group that 'knows this stuff best'.

But I may be wrong, so feel free to post links to your peer reviewed research and articles.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have strong faith my friend. AGW is your religion. The best scientific studies of the past are proven wrong on a pretty regular basis. To think you can take the past data and compare it with the more accurate ARGOs data...

Well, the words that come to mind, I cannot use here...

You aren't worth getting penalized over from a moderator.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but you have strong faith my friend. AGW is your religion. The best scientific studies of the past are proven wrong on a pretty regular basis. To think you can take the past data and compare it with the more accurate ARGOs data...

Well, the words that come to mind, I cannot use here...

You aren't worth getting penalized over from a moderator.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just like I have faith that DNA holds much of the building blocks of life and that electrons really exist as actual particles in clouds around a core nucleus in atoms.

It's my religion.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. Just like I have faith that DNA holds much of the building blocks of life and that electrons really exist as actual particles in clouds around a core nucleus in atoms.

It's my religion.
Click to expand...
Does that apple taste like an orange to you?
 
Threegoofs said:
You seem to think that I think there is solid deep ocean data and somehow deluded in believing it exists.

What I know is that the people who know this stuff best understand that the deep oceans are gaining heat, if you haven't guessed, I don't consider you or flogger or coach in the group that 'knows this stuff best'.

But I may be wrong, so feel free to post links to your peer reviewed research and articles.
Click to expand...

Nope you cant turn it around that way in order to hide . Its all on you I'm afraid.

Those pre 2005 global deep ocean temperature data sources please ? Hint ..... that means not a repetition of IPCC subjective model studies,( just to pre empt your standard get out clause) :cool:
 
Mithrae said:
Once again -
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
- and in the late 60s through the 70s, with over 60% of both scientific papers and citations of those papers recognising global warming, it's clear that at the very least a significant and growing portion of experts were already forming the conclusions which are now all but universal.

The cold war ended in 1991, more than a decade after the 1970s.
Maths really isn't your forte, is it? C'mon man, some people actually put a little effort in their conspiracy theories! ;)
Click to expand...
Alexander Graham Bell?? Are you aware that he was the guy that proposed we generate and distribute electricity as Direct Current, rather than Alternating Current? Something that would've necessitated power generating plants every couple of miles, virtually clogging our nation with the very "unchecked burning of fossil fuels" you contend he opposed!
And the only reason he advocated alternative energy sources was probably because he realized this.

It is AC that enables the sort of power distribution system we have today, that enables the transmission of massive amounts of power through relatively small conductors, with comparatively fewer power plants because only AC can be transformed where DC cannot.

As to mathematics, one of the reasons Bell supported that was because he wasn't that versed in math and didn't understand AC theory at all. And were it not for Tesla and Steinmetz et. al., who did have a grasp on mathematics, we'd still probably be in the literal "dark" ages, burning candles, gas and oil to light our homes.

Said Tesla of Bell, "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”

So putting forth Bell as some sort of "expert" on climatology is, well... it's rather amusing. :)
 
flogger said:
Nope you cant turn it around that way in order to hide . Its all on you I'm afraid.

Those pre 2005 global deep ocean temperature data sources please ? Hint ..... that means not a repetition of IPCC subjective model studies,( just to pre empt your standard get out clause) :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't have them. I haven't looked.

And I don't care what you think about it (notice I have never asked) because you're opinion on this means little to nothing. It will be noted and dismissed as biased claptrap.

The general thought right now is that deep oceans are probably taking a good chunk of the added heat in the atmosphere. That's what the guys who study this for a living say.

Your thoughts on the matter are equivalent to a toddlers opinion of the quality of a gourmet restaurant.
 
ethanUNC said:
No data would be good enough. You would always find a blog from Rush Limbaugh or someone else who disagrees and use it as a "refutation." See my signature.
Click to expand...



A fact cannot be refuted.

The weight of presenting the evidence is on those who are making the assertions that there is a new cause for an effect that has been ongoing since the Earth cooled to a relatively solid globe.

You obviously do not have the facts, the science, the history or the real world performance on your side to support your case.

There is little doubt that real and actual science is real. What AGW Science lacks is science.
 
Threegoofs said:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Click to expand...



Do you have any predictions from 30 years ago that are correct? The science of this issue has not changed since the mid 1800's. That by itself should be enough to cast doubt for you.

There has been about 170 years to prove this and to refine the prediction capabilities. Where are they. By now, they should be 100% spot on unless they are just wrong headed in the methodology and the process.
 
flogger said:
I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is nor do I care. If this is all you've got then why bother contributing anything at all ?
Click to expand...



Ethan neglects to have any knowledge when dismissing the arguments of others. Whether you have heard of Rush Limbaugh or not, you should have in his biased and discriminatory view of the world.
 
code1211 said:
Do you have any predictions from 30 years ago that are correct? The science of this issue has not changed since the mid 1800's. That by itself should be enough to cast doubt for you.

There has been about 170 years to prove this and to refine the prediction capabilities. Where are they. By now, they should be 100% spot on unless they are just wrong headed in the methodology and the process.
Click to expand...

Yep. We've gone over this ad nauseum.

The prediction 30 years ago was that we would see record warmth.

We are.

Nailed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom