Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 11-24-2009, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Of course, as you know Hansen and Mann's error was about as negligible as can be, since it only involved the US, which about 2% of the world's land mass and lowered temperatures by about .1 degree. As a result of that, 1934 edged out 1998 by a tiny fraction. Of course, anyone on either side of the issue knows their are anomalous years and all sorts of anomalies with weather, but one is interested in the overall trends, and frankly Hansen and Mann's error had no bearing whatsoever on the overall trends, and your point in that regard I don't think is scientific. It's simply political fodder. Perhaps that's why you referred to it so vaguely, rather than explained it. The explanations IMHO generally favor mmgw.

So how did 34 edge out 98 since the amount of CO2 was far less?

How was the Medieval warm period warmer than the temps we see today?

How was the Holocene maximum ~ 4C warmer than what we see in the 90's without significant human input and without a disaster happening?

Any links would be welcome.

ljuneau · 11-24-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

I just find your comments ignorant, and I'll save my breath for those who demonstrate a degree of knowledge about the subject, like everyone else in this forum on both sides of the issue.

Sorry to hurt your feelings. However do you think any of the following statements contain a whisp of intelligence?

Quote:

Conservatives most recently lost the Creationist battle

Quote:

conservatives sadly resort to is stealing emails and cherry picking data

Quote:

The fact remains that temperature measurements, CO2 particle measurements, and anecdotal evidence clearly support the idea that humans contribute to global warming.

Quote:

conservatives are not merely on the wrong side of scientific data here, but as with Creationism, they are the wrong side of common sense and morality

Quote:

I always wondered why conservatives are so afraid of science.

Quote:

Nothing has been exposed as a hoax.

Do these sound like posts of someone intelligent? Does the word biased come to mind?

Obviously what you know about MMGW is based upon data you carefully cherry-pick that comfortably fits into your liberal agenda. Everything else is simply poo-pooed away. As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out".

***apple strudel*** · 11-24-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

So how did 34 edge out 98 since the amount of CO2 was far less?

Uh, no climate scientist is saying it's only hot when there is lots of CO2 in the air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

How was the Medieval warm period warmer than the temps we see today?

It wasn't.

Quote:

The balance of evidence does not point
to a High Medieval period that was as
warm as or warmer than the late 20th century.

It was 0.03 C cooler than the early to mid 20th century, and not warmer than the last 30 years.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bra...adley2003d.pdf

You really should do your own research. But I guess for you that tends to end badly.

***apple strudel*** · 11-24-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljuneau

BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA BIAS LIBERAL AGENDA

You're really a great poster.

***PressCoverage*** · 11-24-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

You're really a great poster.

Yeah, he's A+

I'm curious, what is the "liberal agenda" in the context of MMGW? What is "liberal" about recognizing the affects of gluttonous burning of fossil fuels? What do 28 percenters honestly believe "liberals" want to do about it? How is it going to affect their man-against-nature lifestyles?

***patsfan13*** · 11-24-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Yeah, he's A+

I'm curious, what is the "liberal agenda" in the context of MMGW? What is "liberal" about recognizing the affects of gluttonous burning of fossil fuels? What do 28 percenters honestly believe "liberals" want to do about it? How is it going to affect their man-against-nature lifestyles?

Th agenda is very simple. Cap and trade taxes, trillions for politicans worldwide. 650b in the US alone.

***patsfan13*** · 11-24-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple strudel

Uh, no climate scientist is saying it's only hot when there is lots of CO2 in the air.

It wasn't.

It was 0.03 C cooler than the early to mid 20th century, and not warmer than the last 30 years.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bra...adley2003d.pdf

You really should do your own research. But I guess for you that tends to end badly.

Funny the author attributes the temps to high levels of vulcanism, yet when the largest recent eruption occurred (Pinatubo) the global temps fell, due to the large amounts of put into the atmosphere. Why would volcanos produce a different result in the past?

When Tambour erupted again with vast amounts of being injected into the atmosphere we had the year without a summer.

***apple strudel*** · 11-24-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Funny the author attributes the temps to high levels of vulcanism, yet when the largest recent eruption occurred (Pinatubo) the global temps fell, due to the large amounts of put into the atmosphere. Why would volcanos produce a different result in the past?

When Tambour erupted again with vast amounts of being injected into the atmosphere we had the year without a summer.

Why don't you check his source? That's how these things work, you know.

Quote:

The period from 1100 to 1260 A.D. was
also characterized by high levels of explosive
volcanism (11, 12). In the 20th century,
such volcanic events commonly led to
very warm winters in northern Europe and
northwestern Russia (13). Thus, volcanism may also have influenced the frequency of mild winters in this region during High Medieval time.

Quote:

13. A. Robock, J. Mao, Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 2405 (1992).

Further, this is only a small part of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from ~800 to ~1300. He doesn't attribute the cause solely to volcanic activity.

***apple strudel*** · 11-24-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Funny the author attributes the temps to high levels of vulcanism, yet when the largest recent eruption occurred (Pinatubo) the global temps fell, due to the large amounts of put into the atmosphere. Why would volcanos produce a different result in the past?

When Tambour erupted again with vast amounts of being injected into the atmosphere we had the year without a summer.

Also (and I really have to stop being your brain and start getting some sleep):

Quote:

While volcanoes cool the climate on time scales of 1 - 2 years, they act to warm the climate over longer time scales, since they are an important source of natural CO2 to the atmosphere.

Wunder Blog : Weather Underground

***PressCoverage*** · 11-25-2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Th agenda is very simple. Cap and trade taxes, trillions for politicans worldwide. 650b in the US alone.

Long since debunked, fraudulent one.... But thanks for taking the bait and using the predictable partisan paranoia. ...

"The administration raises revenue for nationalized health care through a series of new taxes, including a light switch tax that would cost every American household $3,128 a year." --
House Republican Conference on Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 in a press release and Web post.

Oops. Wrong again, con men...

From the mouths of your fellow elephants:

Such tactics, which are designed to score political points and gain headlines, are a disservice to American citizens, who urgently need Congress to debate the climate issue constructively. Voters are counting on their elected representatives to work together across party lines to develop balanced legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower Americas dangerous dependence on oil, and help us move more quickly to a more diversified, robust energy economy. [...]

Few except special interests and politicians who do their bidding would argue that limiting emissions that put human health and the environment at risk puts a burdensome “tax” on American families and businesses.

GOP full of hot air about Obama's "light switch tax"

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."

Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.

"Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this," Reilly said. "I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time."

Do you ever get tired of having your partisan fraud exposed, "moderator?"