Contributors

Friday, March 15, 2013

More Climate Change Facts

Here are more facts for the bubble boys and girls that read this blog. Is it ever possible for people on the right to accept that humans have caused climate change?

21 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm pretty sure Somalis and Ethiopians have been starving most of my life.

Sam Kinison had the definitive statement.

The Bubba T said...

I know we have been slowly destroying our only home (earth) your entire life.

The Bubba T said...

Juris, I'm pretty sure you care about the environment and being a hunter like myself, I know you have seen first hand what climate change has done to the natural world. I would also bet the speed of the change has you worried just like me, knowing that humans have fucked up.

Juris Imprudent said...

I know you have seen first hand what climate change has done to the natural world.

No, and I don't think even the most aggressive scientific case supports us seeing change in such short terms.

Considering that the vast majority of the world was pre-industrial not much more than a century ago, it is logically implausible to say that human kind was causing climatic change up until very recently.

The Bubba T said...

200 plus years of industry and samples from ice cores show us when the game changed its that simple. The list of evidence is endless and being a hunter your one with the land and she communicates her pain.

Anonymous said...

200 years, eh? Interesting how you pick a time range to exclude the Medieval Warm Period. That's called Cherry Picking your data.

Medieval Warm Period (Regional: Antarctica) -- Summary

Was there a Medieval Warm Period somewhere in the world in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested? This question is of utmost importance to the ongoing global warming debate, for if the Medieval Warm Period is found to have been a global climatic phenomenon, and if the locations where it occurred were as warm in medieval times as they are currently, there is no need to consider the temperature increase of the past century as anything other than the natural progression of the persistent millennial-scale oscillation of climate that regularly brings the earth several-hundred-year periods of modestly higher and lower temperatures that are totally independent of variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Consequently, we here review the findings of several studies that have found evidence for the Medieval Warm Period in a region that is as far away from lands bordering on the North Atlantic Ocean as one could possibly get, i.e., Antarctica.



As best we can determine from the graphical representation of their data, the peak CH3Cl concentration measured by Williams et al. during the MCA is approximately 533 ppt, which is within 3% of its current mean value of 550 ppt and well within the range of 520 to 580 ppt that characterizes methyl chloride's current variability. Hence, we may validly conclude that the mean peak temperature of the MCA (which we refer to as the Medieval Warm Period) over the latitude range 30°N to 30°S -- and possibly over the entire globe -- may not have been materially different from the mean peak temperature so far attained during the Current Warm Period. And this conclusion, along with the findings of the other studies we have reviewed, suggests there is nothing that is unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current level of earth's warmth, which further suggests that the historical increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration may not have had anything to do with concomitant 20th-century global warming.


(Emphases in original, though as italic. Bold is used here due to quoting constraints.)

Juris Imprudent said...

200 plus years of industry

Where? In parts of Europe, yes. So now according to this absurd belief - any industrialization anywhere is a climatic disaster world-wide. Worldwide industrialization hasn't been going for 200 plus years.

That is some impressive Ludditism there Bubba.

and she communicates her pain.

Quasi-Indian spirituality is about as goofball as the Old-Man-in-the-Sky.

The Bubba T said...

NMN that site is a joke. Go and look who funds it. Thats not science, thats bubble bull shit. Bubble Boys you are so fucking stupid its just crazy. I’m so glad I don’t know anyone like you, your thoughts are a disgrace to the human race. Mark told me about you guys but holy shit I can’t believe that people like you exist. What a waste.

Juris Imprudent said...

your thoughts are a disgrace to the human race

So, you've given up on rational discussion. I was clued in with the pseudo-Indian spirituality bullshit.

C'mon - tell me all about how the world was industrialized 200+ years ago. I'd love to hear about that, or of course you could admit that you were just talking shit about shit that you know shit about.

Which is it?

Anonymous said...

oh wait, this:
Great Green Con

"Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.
The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.
The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.
As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction."

and

"The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy."

Oops. 'Bubble boys' is appropriate, just not for those you intended. It was junk science dressed up as a serious theory. And now Marcott is being shown to have serious errors in that presentation along with almost every other Warming study as people start to dig into the data and methodology. I won't even mention the latest climategate email release which is being picked at. You and M have serious trouble understanding claimed facts versus actual facts.

Now, if you want to talk about pollution, that is definitely something we all want to reduce and continues to be a problem.



Juris Imprudent said...

Boy these fellas sure can't handle even simple questions. I guess to be a blogger here you have to be childish and dishonest.

Mark Ward said...

Or we have reached the point of epistemic closure again.

Juris Imprudent said...

Or we have reached the point of epistemic closure again.

You claim that industrialization is a big part of human-caused climate change. Is that not correct?

Does it not follow that any warming prior to widespread industrialization must not have been attributable to human activity?

Or are you just unable to process facts in a way to reach a conclusion (instead, starting with a conclusion and attempting to assemble some facts that sorta look like they support it)?

Anonymous said...

Or we have reached the point of epistemic closure again.

Really? The only ones rejecting new and pertinent information is you! Project much?

Mark Ward said...

I can't speak for Bubba but I completely reject your characterization of climate change studies. This is a common problem with you folks. You issue imperial declarations and expect people to accept them. There as a time when many would accept what you say and try to discuss from that point. No longer. Your childish little games are no longer effective.

Since that is the only way you know how to discuss the issue, there really is no point in doing so. Further, it's only a matter of time now before these discussions about how flat the earth is will be moot. You can pretend all you want, fellers, but the world is moving on without you.

Anonymous said...

I can't speak for Bubba but I completely reject your characterization of climate change studies.

Go ahead and reject them. You look like a fool as usual. A fool clinging to orthodoxy about AGW that as scientists and statisticians look at the models are finding major errors OVER AND OVER again. In addition, new evidence is coming to light that quite a few knew this was fraud. Apparently, you have made up your mind and won't listen to new information. Epistemic closure indeed!

Mark Ward said...

New evidence, huh. Great. Let's see it compete with this

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

Or here

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

When you offer as detailed of an analysis as they do, then you might get my attention. A blog comment calling me a fool is akin to a little boy's fart in comparison to Muller's work.

Juris Imprudent said...

I completely reject your characterization of climate change studies.

That's the ol' scientific method!

You issue imperial declarations and expect people to accept them.

Projection... torments my heart.

Since that is the only way you know how to discuss the issue, there really is no point in doing so

Projection... keeps us apart.

A blog comment calling me a fool is akin to a little boy's fart in comparison to Muller's work.

Ad hom and appeal to authority.

C'mon chickenshit and explain warming in the pre-industrial era. You fucking can't and you are too fucking dishonest to admit it.

Anonymous said...

A blog comment calling me a fool is akin to a little boy's fart in comparison to Muller's work.

So Muller's work is a pile shit eh...nice. How did you ever get out of grade school?

Mark Ward said...

C'mon chickenshit and explain warming in the pre-industrial era. You fucking can't and you are too fucking dishonest to admit it.

I don't have to, juris. A climate scientist (something you and 6Kings are not) already did.

And, as I have said previously, climate change isn't, nor should it have ever been, a blog debate. The only people that should be discussing it are actually scientist, not right wing ideologues who have adolescent temper tantrums and can't admit when they are wrong.

Juris Imprudent said...

A climate scientist (something you and 6Kings are not) already did.

No Muller did not. He affirmed the temperature estimates, not the cause. AGW isn't just about temperature - it is about cause.