Still hanging on to the global warming stupidity.

[DrCarl]

The good doctor, in his valiant efforts to tell us that we are all a bunch of dumbasses, never had time to learn how to use a comma. Or, for that matter, to make any fucking sense whatsoever. But then I'm just one of the little people.

And your evidence that global warming s read is what? The proven lies spewed by East Anglia University or those spewed by NASA? You are pathetic. And I don't know what the word reactionary means. Better write George Will and tell him he doesn't either.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/20/washington-posts-george-will-attacks-pope-franc/205664

DrCarl

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

i want to say this about "scientific consensus". until 1887 all prominent physicists endorsed the Aether theory, and even after the Michelsonâ€"Morley experiment continued to cling to it until about 1905 when a rogue scientist proposed something else (which has been proven  since). look all that up yourself, as opposed to me feeding you links.

a consensus doesn't mean its the truth, rather its an explanation for observed data postulated to work until proven otherwise.

additionally this is an internet forum, where anyone can make sh*t up, so theres that .

Sure, but aether was a hypothesis because they didn't have a better way to explain the universe around them.  Even after the Michelson-Morley experiment it was the best way they had to explain the constancy of the speed of light.  Not having lived back then I can't really speak to their conviction, but it wouldn't qualify as a theory because they didn't have sufficient evidence to support it.

My understanding is that a lot of scientists didn't really like it, and at least some were trying to come up with a testable explanation for the constancy of the speed of light.  That's where Einstein came in.  Einstein was not a popular guy in physics circles at the time and hadn't previously been able to get papers published, but because his explanation was consistent with all the evidence, unlike aether which had its problems, even his harshest critics became proponents of his new special theory of relativity.

Global warming is established on evidence, and this is what scientists are basing their consensus on.  It's not the same the aether which was just a hypothesis because no better explanation was available.

[Little Hater]

Trouble is, if these pointy-headed nitwits have their way, expressing opinions contrary to the 'consensus' will be criminalized.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/19/letter-to-president-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico/

[SredniVashtar]

And your evidence that global warming s read is what? The proven lies spewed by East Anglia University or those spewed by NASA? You are pathetic. And I don't know what the word reactionary means. Better write George Will and tell him he doesn't either.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/20/washington-posts-george-will-attacks-pope-franc/205664

DrCarl

That little screed was very revealing, but you're too dumb to know it. George Will knows what he means. You don't.

Every time you open your mouth on here you put your flat foot in it and show us you are a fool.

[DrCarl]

That little screed was very revealing, but you're too dumb to know it. George Will knows what he means. You don't.

Every time you open your mouth on here you put your flat foot in it and show us you are a fool.

You are a moron, and you likely know this about yourself. What science have you actually done in your life, besides none? Read a book, or have someone read one to you and then explain what it said, but in the meantime, stop wasting my time.

[onan]

You are a moron, and you likely know this about yourself. What science have you actually done in your life, besides none? Read a book, or have someone read one to you and then explain what it said, but in the meantime, stop wasting my time.

umm, it is your choice to "waste" your time here.

It is also amusing that you want to win an internet argument about global warming on a forum primarily about Art Bell's radio shows.

You may know science, but logic left your building some time ago.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Hey genius? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/75-of-alaska-stations-have-cooled-since-1977/

Instead of cherry picking your data, why don't you show us the whole picture, Carl?  There are always going to be regional temperature variations from the global trend especially when you don't understand the local climatic patterns.  A real scientist puts the data in context, but you're not a real scientist are you?  You're at best a doctor in the Arts and Humanities.  You cherry pick your data, get your information from political sites, and ignore everything else.  Look at the global trends of 30 years or more, the amount of heat accumulated by the oceans, and the global heat balance (solar in - heat out), and appreciate that the atmosphere is a strongly variable system in its distribution of temperature and interaction with the ocean.

Here is an actual Alaska research site rather than a political article.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

Yes, they show your local variations, but here is the explanation:

The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2014, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

So the temperatures in those regions of the arctic were bouyed up in 1977 by a reversal of the local Decadal Oscilation multi-year cycle which continues to affect local temperatures.

And here is the long term, overall Arctic temperature trend, showing the effect of the Decadal Oscillation reversal:



And once again, I would have been more than happy to see you come here and present your views in a civil manner, but instead you have to call everyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot, and that's where I take issue.

[ACE of CLUBS]

You are a moron, and you likely know this about yourself. What science have you actually done in your life, besides none? Read a book, or have someone read one to you and then explain what it said, but in the meantime, stop wasting my time.

Michael Horn?
Just as 'one dimensional' .....
Just as ignorant ....

[ItsOver]

Eh, get back with me when all of you have reached a consensus on this and politics.  Thank goodness we all agree that GNS.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Your graph:



Your graph in context:

[wr250]

You're right a consensus isn't fact. But that is as far as it goes. Because 19th century science got somethings wrong does not mean all science is wrong. Will we know more in another 100 years? Yes, of course. Will some of what we consider to be correct be proven to be insufficient? Yes, of course. None of that means what we know now should be completely discounted. Nor dies it mean that a preponderance of evidence should be disregarded.

i didnt say all science is wrong. i only said the prevailing opinion could be proven wrong at any time. consensus'es come and go.

[SredniVashtar]

You are a moron

Yes, but I make up for it with my endearing personality. I don't know how you manage!

[onan]

i didnt say all science is wrong. i only said the prevailing opinion could be proven wrong at any time. consensus'es come and go.

I get that. And again, I agree to a point with you. What bothers me is that the statement suggests since a consensus may be wrong, why should we respect science?

[Tarbaby]

umm, it is your choice to "waste" your time here.

It is also amusing that you want to win an internet argument about global warming on a forum primarily about Art Bell's radio shows.

You may know science, but logic left your building some time ago.

maybe he's another example of "performance art". A spoof?

[albrecht]

Your graph:



Your graph in context:

Are those the original data or all that stuff in the record that seems to be constantly being readjusted and revised? 
ps: and IF government, Hollywood, etc believe why do they still hold these lavish events, with red carpets, air conditioning, vast estates, imported food and wine, in some cases imported drugs, fly on private jets, limousines and blacked out suburbans, etc. Such a carbon footprint even for things, like this crazy thing called the Emmys, would not happen. Have a video conference (or just plain old conference call) to discuss the warming. No need to go meet, have extensive lunches and events, or go to some lavish vacation or picturesque city or resort to do so? Or at least fly "coach" and take the public transport you so vaunt and say we must fund.....

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Are those the original data or all that stuff in the record that seems to be constantly being readjusted and revised? 
ps: and IF government, Hollywood, etc believe why do they still hold these lavish events, with red carpets, air conditioning, vast estates, imported food and wine, in some cases imported drugs, fly on private jets, limousines and blacked out suburbans, etc. Such a carbon footprint even for things, like this crazy thing called the Emmys, would not happen. Have a video conference (or just plain old conference call) to discuss the warming. No need to go meet, have extensive lunches and events, or go to some lavish vacation or picturesque city or resort to do so? Or at least fly "coach" and take the public transport you so vaunt and say we must fund.....

I don't know, but the source of the above graphs is the exact same website which provided the original chart used as the basis for DrCarl's article in the first place, an article which takes that chart out of context to suggest a global cooling trend.  In other words, DrCarl's quoted article uses a chart from Alaska Climate Research Center which is the same institution that explicitly states there is an anthropogenic forcing mechanism on that very page.

If they are controlling the temperature data, then it would be even easier to control all the information DrCarl is using as his evidence that global warming is a scam:  information such as the chart that shows cooling at Alaska weather stations when compared to the bump due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation reversal in 1977; information such as the increase in extent of the winter sea ice in the (warming) Southern Ocean; information such as regional temperature increases on select bodies in the solar system.  That information is being provided to you by the same agencies that are accused of doctoring the information about global warming; It should be really easy to control if they wanted to.

[DrCarl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViYMwT0iSWc

[onan]

Yeah, except the depth of the ice isn't making the same comeback.

[FightTheFuture]

Yeah, except the depth of the ice isn't making the same comeback.

All I know is, I`m not turning my AC down until the Chicoms close at least one coal-fired plant.

MUCH less, purchase a Prius.

[onan]

All I know is, I`m not turning my AC down until the Chicoms close at least one coal-fired plant.

MUCH less, purchase a Prius.

Having owned a civic hybrid, you have my blessing.

[DrCarl]

So you agree there is a climate change then? Art wrote a book about it changing dramatically and swiftly so why are you attacking him for basically agreeing with this statement?

I see NO evidence that the climate is changing from where it's been these last 100 years or more. But climate does change. Climate has always changed. If I had to predict what the next change will be I'd say we will see the end if the Holocene interglacial and a rapid, dramatic cooling trend having nothing to do with man.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViYMwT0iSWc

That's the best you can do?  A one year trend from two years ago read from a news copy that confuses sea ice with land ice and thinks the BBC speaks for all climate scientists?  That is you doing the science?

Here is what the National Snow and Data Center said about this year's Arctic sea ice:

On September 11, 2015, sea ice extent dropped to 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles), the fourth lowest minimum in the satellite record. This appears to be the lowest extent of the year. In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will now climb through autumn and winter. However, a shift in wind patterns or a period of late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.

The minimum extent was reached four days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15. The extent ranked behind 2012 (lowest), 2007 (second lowest), and 2011 (third lowest). Moreover, the nine lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last nine years.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

And here's some quotes from the 2007 BBC report that, according to the video clip, said "predicted all the ice would have melted by 2013"

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Emphasis, could

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

Emphasis, not a consensus.

"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.

Emphasis, "My claim" ie/ not a consensus.

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

Emphasis, could

And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."

Emphasis, Not a consensus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Since you seem to be more interested in giving sound bites and articles by political reporters which take information out of context than you do in actually trying to understand the source of the information, I will leave this.  This section is for Art Bell discussions, not political ones.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I see NO evidence that the climate is changing from where it's been these last 100 years or more. But climate does change. Climate has always changed. If I had to predict what the next change will be I'd say we will see the end if the Holocene interglacial and a rapid, dramatic cooling trend having nothing to do with man.

Okay, one final response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMik9xvNus

Notice the regional and short term variations from the global trend.  This is why I talk about context.

[Who]

GOD! People are SO STUPID!

You're proof of that.

[DrCarl]

You're proof of that.

Yeah. The TV news told you the climate is changing because of the activities of mankind, you bought it hook, line, and sinker and I'm stupid. Pathetic.

[Who]

Yeah. The TV news told you the climate is changing because of the activities of mankind, you bought it hook, line, and sinker and I'm stupid. Pathetic.

Is that where I heard it?  The TV news?  Thanks for sharing that with me.  As for you, you hang around an Art Bell forum, mock and ridicule Art Bell, and tell him his new show won't work if people can't stream it on WiFi radios.  Talk about pathetic.  Art's show has been available on WiFi radios since day one (July 20).  You're not even a good troll.  Go back to mom and dad's basement and build model cars or something else that won't tax your little mind.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Ah, this wasn't really about global warming is it?  It was a sad attempt to divide Art's audience.

I should have recognized the great Nooriesque intellect earlier.

[SredniVashtar]

You're at best a doctor in the Arts and Humanities.

Ouchy!!

Sorry, was a bit late to this, but I enjoyed the multi-layered insult. 

Scientists are contemptuous of anyone in academia who isn't a scientist, and I think they see them as basically on a level with the guy who comes to empty the trash cans. And then there is a pecking order within the scientific disciplines. I remember Michio Kaku basically calling one guy a dumbass because he was only an astronomer, and I saw a programme with Steven Weinberg being interviewed by Richard Dawkins, and Dawkins got treated as though he was no smarter than a ring-tailed lemur. I suppose physicists are at the top because it is so fucking hard, but maybe the quantum boys bully the rest of them and steal their lunch money too?

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Ouchy!!

Sorry, was a bit late to this, but I enjoyed the multi-layered insult. 

Scientists are contemptuous of anyone in academia who isn't a scientist, and I think they see them as basically on a level with the guy who comes to empty the trash cans. And then there is a pecking order within the scientific disciplines. I remember Michio Kaku basically calling one guy a dumbass because he was only an astronomer, and I saw a programme with Steven Weinberg being interviewed by Richard Dawkins, and Dawkins got treated as though he was no smarter than a ring-tailed lemur. I suppose physicists are at the top because it is so fucking hard, but maybe the quantum boys bully the rest of them and steal their lunch money too?

Hehe.  That sounds like Kaku from what I understand.  I meant no offense to people who study the arts and humanities.  I only think that Dr. Carl is misrepresenting himself as someone who has 'done the science' on climate change.  IMO, his approach on here hasn't supported that claim.

[SredniVashtar]

Hehe.  That sounds like Kaku from what I understand.  I meant no offense to people who study the arts and humanities.  I only think that Dr. Carl is misrepresenting himself as someone who has 'done the science' on climate change.  IMO, his approach on here hasn't supported that claim.

The hard sciences are genuinely hard, there's no sense in denying it, and I respect that. I enjoyed your little discussions with the good doctor, because you were being considered and thoughtful and he was being an idiot. Quite what someone thinks he's doing coming on to an Art Bell site to talk about global warming is not something I can really understand, but I guess he has his reasons. Like a lot of things, there is really no way you could ever produce any evidence that he would look at and think about, no matter how compelling. He'd always find a way to sweep it aside. I can only applaud your patience, I don't think he normally gets treated that seriously, not that he understood that, the fool!