|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 17, 2009 6:24:50 GMT
I was just pondering something...since we're not told the little ice age never happened, why did glaciers generally start melting world-wide at the end of it? Did the glaciers not get that memo? Is this some kind of world-wide conspiracy by glaciers to trick us into believing the earth is warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Apr 18, 2009 12:47:28 GMT
I was just pondering something...since we're not told the little ice age never happened, why did glaciers generally start melting world-wide at the end of it? Did the glaciers not get that memo? Is this some kind of world-wide conspiracy by glaciers to trick us into believing the earth is warming? If the extremists on the CO2-induced warming side wouldn't try changing history so hard, I'd wager that most of the CO2-induced warming denialists here would look as ignorant as most of them are. Sunspots are at a decadanal low, GCRs are at a recorded-history high, and my corner of the world is not warming for Spring like last year, and last year was mild as well. Observations match the hypothesis, isn't that "Science"? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 18, 2009 18:02:11 GMT
I was just pondering something...since we're not told the little ice age never happened, why did glaciers generally start melting world-wide at the end of it? Did the glaciers not get that memo? Is this some kind of world-wide conspiracy by glaciers to trick us into believing the earth is warming? If the extremists on the CO2-induced warming side wouldn't try changing history so hard, I'd wager that most of the CO2-induced warming denialists here would look as ignorant as most of them are. Sunspots are at a decadanal low, GCRs are at a recorded-history high, and my corner of the world is not warming for Spring like last year, and last year was mild as well. Observations match the hypothesis, isn't that "Science"? If that situation lasts for 3 years you might even have as strong as an argument as the cooling trend folks do today. Thread jacking may be your only response, but the fact is MWP artifacts were found under retreating glaciers in Switzerland last year. I think the only ones who didn't get the memo were the AGW alarmists. Those guys should be careful and listen to their mother's advice to wear your sweater when going outside or you could be the next artifact found under a retreating glacier in a 1000 years or so like those guys found last year who listened to somebody else instead of heeding their basic education from somebody who loved them. |
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Apr 20, 2009 11:56:34 GMT
If the extremists on the CO2-induced warming side wouldn't try changing history so hard, I'd wager that most of the CO2-induced warming denialists here would look as ignorant as most of them are. Sunspots are at a decadanal low, GCRs are at a recorded-history high, and my corner of the world is not warming for Spring like last year, and last year was mild as well. Observations match the hypothesis, isn't that "Science"? If that situation lasts for 3 years you might even have as strong as an argument as the cooling trend folks do today. The "cooling trend" folks are mostly taking advantage of the established (to all but the most vociferous of AGW proponents) relationship between solar cycles and climate. What's going to prove both the relationship between CO2 and global warming, and grand minima and global cooling, is the depth of the SC24 cooling. Errrrm, unless this was supposed to be the adult male equivalent of a dog pissing on a fire hydrant, I think discussing how the pro-AGW extremists ignore all the indications that the sun plays a role in driving climate and climate changes is very much on-topic. Nah, the AGW denialists have been ignoring the memos as well. We're in a deep solar minimum and the glaciers are doing ... what right now? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 20, 2009 12:21:23 GMT
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Nah, the AGW denialists have been ignoring the memos as well. We're in a deep solar minimum and the glaciers are doing ... what right now?"
So do you expect the climate to react within what 18 months of a change?
I know its hard but we are going to have to wait to see who is correct in this debate. The main problem is that it can be difficult to get some to accept real data if it conflicts with a really neat mathematical model.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 20, 2009 14:08:20 GMT
The "cooling trend" folks are mostly taking advantage of the established (to all but the most vociferous of AGW proponents) relationship between solar cycles and climate. What's going to prove both the relationship between CO2 and global warming, and grand minima and global cooling, is the depth of the SC24 cooling. Actually they're trying to prove that the solar cycle has a lot to do with climate (a lot say it's not the biggest factor...just A factor) AND that CO2 doesn't. The solar minimum might explain the recent cooling. The solar minimum DOES NOT explain the previous ten years without warming. Personally I think it's a mix between the solar cycle and the PDO. [/quote]Nah, the AGW denialists have been ignoring the memos as well. We're in a deep solar minimum and the glaciers are doing ... what right now?[/quote] Actually some of them are growing for the first time in about 200 years, but that's likely just a fluke...or maybe not. It's a lot warmer than when the glaciers formed in the first place. It's difficult to know when and which ones will reach a new equilibrium based on current temperatures. But my original observation still stands. We're told by alarmists that the little ice age never existed in the first place. We're told that the temperatures were stable for over a thousand years. Yet the glaciers formed at a time when we're expected to believe the temperatures were high enough to cause the glaciers to recede. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2009 15:39:40 GMT
Nah, the AGW denialists have been ignoring the memos as well. We're in a deep solar minimum and the glaciers are doing ... what right now? Reports were last summer snows on the advance edge of many glaciers were reported as not melting for the first time in several decades. So I guess indeed they didn't get the memo. In the modeling I have done you can get any result you want. Bottom line is if you fudge enough variables in one direction it goes that way. When we did our "what if" analysis work we used to run the extreme versions. . . .the one where you smoothed out any natural variations and picked the maximum reasonable variable across the board. But those weren't the ones we offered the clients as our best estimate. Funny thing about that but private enterprises actually have to deliver credible products to survive. I think I will go attend a tea party! |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 17, 2010 1:29:14 GMT
|
|
