Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Clouds Come from Deep Space Too

Yes, the magnetic field is decreasing; to the point they think we're heading into a reversal. At least that's what I've heard on TV.
~Sam

it changes every so many thousands of years, and its time for a change. unfortunately, that can mean major problems for the human race, not the least of which is from climate changes, that might be caused by the flux.

Whether climate changes every 10 years or 10,000 years is irrelevant.

It is now the hottest it has been in 3,000,000 years and the proximate cause is staring at you in your mirror.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

only if the sun is behind you and has sunglasses on.

the evidence says that the temperature was a degree warmer before the little ice age, yet this fact is some how forgotten when they make claims like this.

dehammer wrote:
"the evidence says that the temperature was a degree warmer before the little ice age, yet this fact is some how forgotten when they make claims like this."

Back at it again making up facts eh? Well once again I'd like to see you point to REAL research that supports your statement.

And once again you won't ... because you can't.

What a waste of perfectly good electrons.

PS: The reason you can't is that air temperatures are irrelevant and that is all they could measure during the little ice age. What matters is the heat sinks ... the oceans. And the ocean data does not support your statement.

so where is the evidence that the ocean was colder before the little ice age than it is now?

dehammer asks:
"so where is the evidence that the ocean was colder before the little ice age than it is now?"

You posted this in response to my request that you:
"Back at it again making up facts eh? Well once again I'd like to see you point to REAL research that supports your statement."

No game playing dehammer. You put up a link substantiating what you wrote. Then, and only then, will I prove you are incorrect.

I grow increasingly weary of your ability to state things as fact without a shred of supporting evidence and then expect others to do what you won't do yourself. Last time I checked Wicca does not teach what you are practicing.

roflol, you make a unsubstaciated claim that the water was cooler back then just because they did not measure it, then you want me to prove that it was the same relative temperature as it always is. Im saying that the relation of the temperature of the water to the air was the same as it is now, and you want me to prove that it was.

why not admit that there is no scientific evidence to back up your completely bogus statement.

I dont have to prove things were natural. you have to prove that they were unnatural.

dehammer:
"why not admit that there is no scientific evidence to back up your completely bogus statement."

Look in the mirror and repeat the above. You made the first claim and I challenged it. So you first.

As I said ... I don't see where Wicca teaches what you practice.

i pointed out that they had evidence that the air was warmer than it is now, and you said something about how the ocean was cooler, despite it being warmer. why would the ocean be cooler when the rest of the world was warmer. that does not make sence. then you demanded that i prove that the ocean was no cooler than normal when the rest of the world was warmer. If the world was warmer, and evidence shows it was, what evidence is there that the ocean was cooler relatively speaking, than it is now. there is no logic that the ocean would grow relatively cooler while the earth gradually warms. please explain your logic.

you really should have gone into politics. your ability to baffle with bull droppings would have gotten you president at least.

dehammer wrote:
"i pointed out that they had evidence that the air was warmer than it is now"

You pointed?

You can wave your hands in the air wildly and throw tinsel and it won't make it so.

Where's a link to the study and the researchers that performed it?

i tried to show this to you once but you refused to discuss it since it was done on a website that was owned by a man who worked for the oil companies many years ago. You said what would a geologist know about tree rings, despite the fact that the article was written by dendrochronologist (someone who studies tree rings) and showed that the same data that showed the mideval warming also showed it occured in japan at the same time. those who claim that it was did not happen claim that it was only a localize event.

IF your going to ignore links due to them not being the correct political site, why should i post them.

why not look up Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and see if you can find any site that you are willing to read to see what they say.

even michal mann admits it happen, but he claims it only happen in europe so it could not be global. If it happen in japan, and India and europe then its most likely global.

dehammer wrote:
"i tried to show this to you once but you refused to discuss it"

No you didn't. You didn't try to show anything. There was no reference to a study either by URL or ISBN or any other reference.

Disagree? Ok then who was the author?
Where was it published?
When was it published?

Please demonstrate a modicum of integrity by either providing the information required for me to find what you "showed" or to admit no such information exists.

im trying to find where i wrote it before, but i cant find it with google. appearantly its too far back or something.

here is some of the evidence that japan was warmer

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

heres another site if you believe tree rings are good to show temperature changes.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279h.html

many of the global warming alarmist evidence is based on tree rings. so if its good enough to show global warming, then its good enough to show the medival warming period.

this is the site that had the article on it that i refereced once before. im sure that once again youll refuse to acknowledge their data since some of them once worked for an oil company, so they must be getting paid for it :rolleyes: .

http://www.co2science.org

one of their articles is here

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N42/C3.jsp

Quote:

it is followed by equally intense cooling, such that by 1998 (the supposedly warmest year of the past two millennia, according to the world's climate alarmists), temperatures are implied to be less than they were during the Medieval Warm Period.

since 1998 is suppose to have been hotter than 2005, then that means it too is not as intense a summer as the medieval warming period.

heres another one talking about the medieval warming period being hotter than today

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

heres some of what he wrote.

Quote:

In the Sargasso Sea (an area popularly known as the `Bermuda Triangle'), radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sea bed sediments by L. Keigwin [12] demonstrates that sea surface temperatures were around 2?F cooler than today around 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age), and around 2?F warmer than today 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). In addition, the data also demonstrates that the period before 500 BC (the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum) saw temperatures up to 4?F warmer - and without any greenhouse gas component to cause it. (See Fig.6 below)

Finally dehammer ... finally.

Lets consider first your first reference. Did you read it? Did you notice it was first published in 1995? That means it is at least 12 years old. Did you notice it was published by the Hoover Institution? Do you know what the Hoover Institution is?

Probably not so I'll help you with this one:
http://www.hoover.org
Go to their web site.
Now click on "About Hoover"
Now read their own description of themselves

"The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy?both domestic and foreign?as well as international affairs."

Do you see the word science there?
How about the word climatology?
How about the word meteorology?
How about the word research?

I didn't either.

Want me to kick the dust out of hyour other references or can you take a hint?

Not one of them comes from a researcher or research lab. I asked you to point to any evidence that supported your posturing. You pointed to other people posturing. Do you understand what we do at universities? We you understand the concept of academic freedom? Do you understand the concept of peer review? It would seem not.

once again, you refuse to consider a links content, simply because the link is run by a political organization that is does not follow the path your religion deems proper.

how is it that these type of articles are ok for you to use, but yet, not acceptable as counter arguements.

considering that we are discussing something that happen a thousand years ago, i dont see whats wrong with a paper written 11 years ago. are you going to tell us that the medieval warming period changed in 11 year? Are you going to tell us that the evidence changed? if so prove it.



do you understand the concept of censorship. it would appear to many that those in charge of the peer review are doing so.

dehammer wrote:
"once again, you refuse to consider a links content"

I considered the content: Seriously. Because had you actually provided a link to any researcher who did actual work and had expertise in the field I would have felt compelled to address the points with great care.

What you did was posture by pointing to posturing making it easy for me to discredit what you posted.

Do you understand the difference between being a Texan and wearing a hat and boots? Same difference.

Where's the beef?

actually, this is not the first time i pointed out some of those sites. once again you have failed to discuss the topic i linked to. instead you insist that they cant be discussed because of where the sites are.

this is why i stop posting links.

I don't discuss topics ... I discuss science.

There are only two possibilities here dehammer.

1. You are incapable of finding links to actual research that supports your statements.

2. Actual research supporting your statements does not exist.

Which is it?

roflol.

we have asked you for the research data, and you give news articles. yet according to you, these news articles are proof enough.

we give you the identical stuff, plus stuff from university libraries, and you claim that is not good enough.

from now on, any time you give a news articles, im going to quote you back at you.