[DrCaleb]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Oh, I see now. Time Magazine Climate Research Labs. I believe they are affiliated with Stanford if I recall correctly.

I like how we are just going to ignore 40 years of scientific research to rely on something from the 1970s.

[ShepherdsDog]

Even the proponents of global warming(not global climate change)themselves have admitted that if their scenario were to come true, that the Northern Hemisphere would experience major cooling due to the conveyor currents being disrupted. Cooler water and land temps combined with decreased salinity, due to previous melts, should ensure that the arctic sea ice grows, and a balance is restored. The salinity of the northern waters is key

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Oh, I see now. Time Magazine Climate Research Labs. I believe they are affiliated with Stanford if I recall correctly.

I like how we are just going to ignore 40 years of scientific research to rely on something from the 1970s.

What are you talking about? Who's ignoring anything. I gave you 2 scientific studies, a third scientific opinion and showed you even the IPCC saying there was "likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks... in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas."

The Time magazine mention was only to show how media is the only reason we have this Polar Vortex nonsense on our lips, and 40 years ago they were using it to scare people with global cooling. This year they dig it up after 40 years to say "no wait, did we say cooling? We meant warming."

This Polar Vortex, melting ice hypothesis is only another quickly created fix-it measure to plug up another crack in the larger catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. They want to see if they can suck us in to believing warm causes cold. It's a fantasy. Somebody should use it to make a sequel to 28 Days Later.

[ShepherdsDog]

Don`t you mean the Day before Yesterday was an Inconvenient Truth in 2012, and we`ll find out 28 years later?
I`m willing to accept some places on the globe will experience warming, but I believe it will be balanced by other important areas experiencing just as dramatic a cooling trend. A closed self regulating system that will eventually find balance. .in the mean time we`re going to have to learn how to cope with change in some areas before the new balance is restored. I`d rather see us concentrate more on reforestation, water pollution and other toxins being introduced into the air and water. Waste being dumped into the oceans is a more pressing concern than CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Halting deforestation combined with an ambitious replanting - reforestation will slow down the CO2 levels, if not eliminate it altogether.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Oh, I see now. Time Magazine Climate Research Labs. I believe they are affiliated with Stanford if I recall correctly.

I like how we are just going to ignore 40 years of scientific research to rely on something from the 1970s.

What are you talking about? Who's ignoring anything. I gave you 2 scientific studies, a third scientific opinion and showed you even the IPCC saying there was "likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks... in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas."

By posting what someone said in the past as an argument against what we know now isn't scientific, it's called 'Appeal to Emotion'. Your links were good, but then you go and soil your argument by bleating on the deniers common rant from 1974. We've moved on since then!

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The Time magazine mention was only to show how media is the only reason we have this Polar Vortex nonsense on our lips, and 40 years ago they were using it to scare people with global cooling. This year they dig it up after 40 years to say "no wait, did we say cooling? We meant warming."

Which is exactly what I said! "Don't take scientific advice from the media!!" I don't listen to what Donald Trump has to say about climate change, because he knows jack squat about it! No one cares what Time said in 1974! What did Time say in 1974 about the Titanic?

. . .Nothing! We hadn't found it yet!

Moving on . . .

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

This Polar Vortex, melting ice hypothesis is only another quickly created fix-it measure to plug up another crack in the larger catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. They want to see if they can suck us in to believing warm causes cold. It's a fantasy. Somebody should use it to make a sequel to 28 Days Later.

Again, not hypothesis. Large volumes of data to back it up. And again, one event does not make a pattern. As well, your willfull ignorance on 'warm causes cold' does you no service. You are smarter than that. Take a Thermodynamics course, then we'll talk about chaotic systems and heat transfers.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Again, not hypothesis. Large volumes of data to back it up.

Bullshit. Produce this data showing melting ice freezing the Mid-West. What you're calling "Large volumes of data" is just another freakin climate model, and the " CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/a ... ore-100709

Click that link even if you don't believe it. You'll see what kind of real world data actual scientists are actually looking at to give what the Washington post calls "the consensus opinion" we need not fear melting ice will be giving us colder winters.

[fifeboy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I`d rather see us concentrate more on reforestation, water pollution and other toxins being introduced into the air and water. Waste being dumped into the oceans is a more pressing concern than CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Halting deforestation combined with an ambitious replanting - reforestation will slow down the CO2 levels, if not eliminate it altogether.

I don't have an opinion on "global warming," one way or the other and would just like the science to keep on going and the "Al Gore's and N.Fiddledogs" of the world to just STFU. However, I do have an opinion on what you said here and it is . Fixing problems caused by human occupation can only be done well at a local level. For Canada that involves efforts to work on Prairie soils, forest ecosystems fresh water ecosystems and dealing with pollution in general. As a country, leading and not bitching should do wonders.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I don't have an opinion on "global warming," one way or the other and would just like the science to keep on going and the "Al Gore's and N.Fiddledogs" of the world to just STFU.

Oh, but the DrCaleb's who tell you 28 Days Later is real you do want to listen to? You can STFU yourself if you're saying only your opinion matters. Either that or if you don't want to discuss global warming stay out of threads with "climate change" in the title. A half-wit could figure that much out.

[ShepherdsDog]

lern too yuz the kwoat funkshun ore reed wut u post and edut it sew it mayx fuking cents

[N_Fiddledog]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

lern too yuz the kwoat funkshun ore reed wut u post and edut it sew it mayx fuking cents

Oh damn, sorry about that. I was a little perturbed and clicked too quick. Fixed it.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Again, not hypothesis. Large volumes of data to back it up.

Bullshit. Produce this data showing melting ice freezing the Mid-West. What you're calling "Large volumes of data" is just another freakin climate model, and the " CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/a ... ore-100709

Click that link even if you don't believe it. You'll see what kind of real world data actual scientists are actually looking at to give what the Washington post calls "the consensus opinion" we need not fear melting ice will be giving us colder winters.

I do believe that the poles are colder than the equator! I've seen pictures of the hexagon on Saturn, I'm not that new! But then saying the cold air at the poles can't cause cold weather just defies what most in North America can find right outside their doors right now!

As for proving anything - I made no claims to prove! I simply posted an article at Scientific American, an organization that's been publishing Scientific Papers for almost 100 years.

To counter your quote:

$1:

Climate modelling and forecasting accuracy has been questioned lately due to the apparent “pause,” or “speed bump,” in the rise of global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. In fact, climate forecasts conducted in the 1990s have been quite accurate in simulating what happened since the year 2000. A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree.

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/ ... eling.html

Every time we try to model climate, we improve the reliability. Guess it's inconvenient to see though, that we can input the data from the 20th Century, run the simulation forward and get what we measure in the environment now.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh, but the DrCaleb's who tell you 28 Days Later is real you do want to listen to?

I don't normally say things like this, but again I did not say anything like that, so yes, you can Shut The Fuck Up now.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I don't have an opinion on "global warming," one way or the other and would just like the science to keep on going and the "Al Gore's and N.Fiddledogs" of the world to just STFU.

Oh, but the DrCaleb's who tell you 28 Days Later is real you do want to listen to? You can STFU yourself if you're saying only your opinion matters. Either that or if you don't want to discuss global warming stay out of threads with "climate change" in the title. A half-wit could figure that much out.

Caleb has been on this forum longer than I have and has posted on a number of topics, from food to firearms. I don't always agree with him but he does what he does with humour and respect. When you first started posting my first impression was that you were a grade 9 student who got a bad mark on a science project. My opinion has changed because of the shear volume of stuff produced. I have begun to think of you as a "Think Tank of University students" trying to win their wings with some right wing institute. Sometimes you are polite and sometimes (more so now) impolite but you are relentless in the cause(s). And (could be just me) yes, I wish you would just STFU, even for a little while, go out with the other fish from the tank and have a few beers at the campus pub and talk about Coeds and football.

[DrCaleb]

Excerpt from "The Living Age" by E. Littell, Volume 19, Page 430. December 1853.

0:

polarvortex.jpg [ 84.1 KiB | Viewed 334 times ]

Your argument is invalid.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Caleb has been on this forum longer than I have and has posted on a number of topics, from food to firearms. I don't always agree with him but he does what he does with humour and respect. When you first started posting my first impression was that you were a grade 9 student who got a bad mark on a science project. My opinion has changed because of the shear volume of stuff produced. I have begun to think of you as a "Think Tank of University students" trying to win their wings with some right wing institute. Sometimes you are polite and sometimes (more so now) impolite but you are relentless in the cause(s). And (could be just me) yes, I wish you would just STFU, even for a little while, go out with the other fish from the tank and have a few beers at the campus pub and talk about Coeds and football.

You have a year on me here. You're 2006. I'm 2007. So what. That makes you special, or something?

So if we're sharing private thoughts with each other about each other, let me tell you about you. You can STFU yourself if telling me to, and launching your childish personal attacks is all you have to offer to the debate.

You can't make a point on the substance of the argument so you fall back on personal attack. You're a type. It's a type that might intimate some. Doesn't work with me. You should get bright enough to notice.

When you attacked me for saying it wasn't cool having pedophiles like what's his name involved with the creation of sex ed policy for the TDSB I knew what you were all about. No, I don't think your a pedophile, but you are the kind of guy who won't tolerate critique of your sacred cows no matter how ridiculous or abhorent they are. Here you want to back the warming causes cooling horse by attacking somebody for producing a science and general common sense argument showing why it's silly. Get stuffed. You don't matter.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Excerpt from "The Living Age" by E. Littell, Volume 19, Page 430. December 1853.

0:

polarvortex.jpg

Your argument is invalid.

My God do you even know what my argument is?

I doubt it, because if you had read the opinion I posted from physicist Will Happer, you would have seen him talking Polar Vortex from the day of George Washington. What do you think you've proven by posting something a 100 years later?