Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All I said Joe was that there's nothing in those threads that does what you're alleging, certainly nothing that screams "smoking gun".

I don't recall offering you any explicit opinion on GW, certainly nothing about the science itself.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

Scientists know to be skeptical when they don't have all the answers or sufficient evidence. What they don't do is naysay like idiots until proof is unequivocal. Skepticism works both ways... something the illiterati haven't got yet in their quest for ignorance.

Climate science is, at this point in time, HIGHLY suggestive within all parameters of high degrees of significance, that its not only real, but perhaps worsening beyond present expectations.

Well we've only got less than 5 years until we reach the point of no return. Those of us who want the earth destroyed (or a little warmer) will just hold you off until then. Then we won't have to worry about it because we'll be too far gone.

Care to show me those posts??

I thought so.

[HAL 9000 96]

GW is like a religion. Right now I am not converted/convinced to believe that it is the real deal and/or an immediate danger. But unlike religion, I am sure that within the next 5 to 20 years the proof/truth will come out on GW, and when there aren't any scientists left denying that it is real, then I will believe it. Until then I am very skeptic!

I respect your right to be a skeptic. But I disagree with your assessment. The accumulating science from Greenland, the Antarctic, and the polar ice cap is clearly showing that SOMETHING is going on. The polar regions are interesting because they are at the extremes of our planet. If they are undergoing change it's a likely harbinger of changes throughout the globe. Something is different in these regions - very, very different - than it has been over thousands of years. The glacial melt and lack of annual replacement is testament to that. Something, or somethings, must account for these rapid changes. What? The evidence is consistent with a GW based hypothesis. No one (to my knowledge) has put forward a credible counter hypothesis.

Well I said that GW parishioners were sheep and no one has given a credible counter hypothesis either.

Because these 'sheep' as you call 'us' use scientific evidence. While 'your' side uses what? Really Joe, its not to shut you up or anything... but you should stay out of a discourse you don't know how to conduct properly.

That credible counter hypothesis that doesn't exist would mean that you actually don't give credibility to the non-GW hypotheses.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

Scientists know to be skeptical when they don't have all the answers or sufficient evidence. What they don't do is naysay like idiots until proof is unequivocal. Skepticism works both ways... something the illiterati haven't got yet in their quest for ignorance.

Climate science is, at this point in time, HIGHLY suggestive within all parameters of high degrees of significance, that its not only real, but perhaps worsening beyond present expectations.

Well we've only got less than 5 years until we reach the point of no return. Those of us who want the earth destroyed (or a little warmer) will just hold you off until then. Then we won't have to worry about it because we'll be too far gone.

Care to show me those posts??

I thought so.

I just did. NO point in wasting more time if you don't want to look at it. You know what you said and agreed with.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

Sure a couple -

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

But you'll dance around the bush on this one. I already know that.

And here's my first post in that thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323699

here's #2:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323810

here's #3:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323921

here's #4:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324328

here's #5:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324666

So... conclusion is, that in your example, I say nothing of the sort. Reading can't be that hard can it??

[Joseph & Ana 0]

GW is like a religion. Right now I am not converted/convinced to believe that it is the real deal and/or an immediate danger. But unlike religion, I am sure that within the next 5 to 20 years the proof/truth will come out on GW, and when there aren't any scientists left denying that it is real, then I will believe it. Until then I am very skeptic!

I respect your right to be a skeptic. But I disagree with your assessment. The accumulating science from Greenland, the Antarctic, and the polar ice cap is clearly showing that SOMETHING is going on. The polar regions are interesting because they are at the extremes of our planet. If they are undergoing change it's a likely harbinger of changes throughout the globe. Something is different in these regions - very, very different - than it has been over thousands of years. The glacial melt and lack of annual replacement is testament to that. Something, or somethings, must account for these rapid changes. What? The evidence is consistent with a GW based hypothesis. No one (to my knowledge) has put forward a credible counter hypothesis.

Well I said that GW parishioners were sheep and no one has given a credible counter hypothesis either.

Because these 'sheep' as you call 'us' use scientific evidence. While 'your' side uses what? Really Joe, its not to shut you up or anything... but you should stay out of a discourse you don't know how to conduct properly.

That credible counter hypothesis that doesn't exist would mean that you actually don't give credibility to the non-GW hypotheses.

No no no no my friend. I don't have to give credibility to anything. I am not asking for taxes to be raised, legislation to be passed, and trillions of dollars to be spent. You are the ones who are asking for that. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you; and I'm sorry, but people "saying its true" doesn't make it true. Actual proof needs to be given. You never explain how the emissions from cars and other areas literally caused the temperature to rise. Its especially difficult for you since that .7 degree warming is now gone.

[HAL 9000 96]

Nothing in Hal's posts in those threads relates to your earlier claim.

Good grief do i have to do your homework for you?

Yes Nick. Read up again on what a 1 degree C increase (average) in such a SHORT time span can do to different climate zones. Then get back to your AL Gore and Fl light bulb jokes.

In layman's terms - Global Warming is proven by weather in different areas changing... But here comes the "explanation" and following insults.

This is just one post.. So i'll give you this one... and when you copout - we'll move on to the next one.

I just pulled all my posts from that thread. So yes, lets focus on that one you cite.

What's it say??

It says that when the MEAN temperature increases in a short period of time, things happen. MEAN temperature doesn't just happen in extremes, by definition. Check the definition of the word MEAN. I know that Nick probably understood to understand MEAN when it comes to global temperatures as is the case with climate studies.

When you use weather EXTREMES, that is not an observation of MEAN.

Amazing how the weather in one geographical location 'defines' a person's concept of a global phenomenon.

Which only applies when criticizing GW heretics...

Thats my point.. But you purposely don't get it. (but you know its true)

The previous post(s) prove that the GW Priests will use weather as a propaganda machine when it suits their argument.

My point is you purposefully say these things for the sake of saying them regardless of the absence of any direct evidence. There's nothing in either of those threads that does what you're alleging - its just more ####### for tat argumentativeness.

You are so full of it. I feel sorry for you.

Its right in front of you, but yet you still toe the line. I will give you GW priests one thing, you stick together with eachother no matter how wrong one of you is. You'll explain away anything.

Well those of us that understand scientific concepts, for starters. I can't say much for those that can't get simple things...

No no no no my friend. I don't have to give credibility to anything. I am not asking for taxes to be raised, legislation to be passed, and trillions of dollars to be spent. You are the ones who are asking for that. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you; and I'm sorry, but people "saying its true" doesn't make it true. Actual proof needs to be given. You never explain how the emissions from cars and other areas literally caused the temperature to rise. Its especially difficult for you since that .7 degree warming is now gone.

So we are in agreement that

1) you're not paying attention to the science

and

2) you're not understanding the scientific evidence that already exists

??

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

Sure a couple -

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

But you'll dance around the bush on this one. I already know that.

And here's my first post in that thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323699

here's #2:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323810

here's #3:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323921

here's #4:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324328

here's #5:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324666

So... conclusion is, that in your example, I say nothing of the sort. Reading can't be that hard can it??

you did - I posted it earlier in this thread. Posting it over and over and over isn't going to change your mind.

You either agree with Guano's posts that weather is proof of GW or not. I didn't see you disagreeing too much

So we are in agreement that

1) you're not paying attention to the science

and

2) you're not understanding the scientific evidence that already exists

??

No we're not. Because you haven't posted anything credible.

[HAL 9000 96]

AND

even a 0.7 degree Celsius (that's a couple of degrees Fahrenheit) has already started causing quite a few changes- even in places where climate is not necessarily on the burner for deep thought.

Case in point:

Helena MT is surrounded by evergreen forest. You know... the kind that isn't supposed to change color. Well. Its changing. Why?

Because of an infestation from a beetle that lives in warmer areas.

Big deal you say?

Well not exactly...

This is one problem of citing weather extremes to make climate claims.

The beetle was able to reach that area due to warmer, mean temperatures in that area whereas it could not before.

Result?

The evergreen forest is dying.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

Sure a couple -

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

But you'll dance around the bush on this one. I already know that.

And here's my first post in that thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323699

here's #2:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323810

here's #3:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323921

here's #4:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324328

here's #5:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324666

So... conclusion is, that in your example, I say nothing of the sort. Reading can't be that hard can it??

you did - I posted it earlier in this thread. Posting it over and over and over isn't going to change your mind.

You either agree with Guano's posts that weather is proof of GW or not. I didn't see you disagreeing too much

So we are in agreement that

1) you're not paying attention to the science

and

2) you're not understanding the scientific evidence that already exists

??

No we're not. Because you haven't posted anything credible.

Because Steven points to science whereas you point to things even you don't understand. Yeah... its easy to see where a scientists would agree just a little more. I don't think you're realizing you are actually showing most everyone here reading that the only ones making actual sense are those using actual science to explain a scientific issue whole those naysaying are being consistently incongruous. Which is why you constantly get lectured about reading A when A is present and B when B is present.

If you can't lend credibility to things that are obvious... that's your problem and again... the invitation to learn is always there.

The rest of us with enough sense to try an understanding of things by critical thinking and rational thought can rationalize it because of what it is.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

AND

even a 0.7 degree Celsius (that's a couple of degrees Fahrenheit) has already started causing quite a few changes- even in places where climate is not necessarily on the burner for deep thought.

Case in point:

Helena MT is surrounded by evergreen forest. You know... the kind that isn't supposed to change color. Well. Its changing. Why?

Because of an infestation from a beetle that lives in warmer areas.

Big deal you say?

Well not exactly...

This is one problem of citing weather extremes to make climate claims.

The beetle was able to reach that area due to warmer, mean temperatures in that area whereas it could not before.

Result?

The evergreen forest is dying.

I've studied the beetles - Saw it first hand in Utah - Its attributed to drought (WEATHER) as far as i can tell as opposed to warming. Sap filled trees are less susceptible to the beetles. The good news is that their numbers are declining naturally but the damage has already been done. Also, only 60 - 150 year old trees seem to be affected and the younger trees are fine. 80% of the older trees will die. Paving the way for a vast rebirth of the forest. So, I don't see the correlation.

Its the same amazingly complex argument that mostly naysayers seem to continue to flop on- climate is on a much different time scale than weather.

Yet you'll post/agree with other posts that use "warmest summer on record" "warmest august on record" and say that its evidence for GW which proves that its all political BS.

You really ought to start substantiating this sort of thing, rather than merely saying it for the sake of it.

Sure a couple -

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...&hl=warmest

But you'll dance around the bush on this one. I already know that.

And here's my first post in that thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323699

here's #2:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323810

here's #3:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3323921

here's #4:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324328

here's #5:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3324666

So... conclusion is, that in your example, I say nothing of the sort. Reading can't be that hard can it??

you did - I posted it earlier in this thread. Posting it over and over and over isn't going to change your mind.

You either agree with Guano's posts that weather is proof of GW or not. I didn't see you disagreeing too much

So we are in agreement that

1) you're not paying attention to the science

and

2) you're not understanding the scientific evidence that already exists

??

No we're not. Because you haven't posted anything credible.

The rest of us with enough sense to try an understanding of things by critical thinking and rational thought can rationalize it because of what it is.

Yuk yuk yuk... the critical thinking default comes out...

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course it comes out... when you can't/won't exercise it...

You're not going to address the beetles? Your primary evidence of GW?

Did I say it was PRIMARY?

But indeed, thanks for pointing the beetles out.

What do you think causes droughts when normally, they are random, infrequent occurrences? This means that it would affect trees as you describe in your example if the instance were exactly that.

My example (hint) is one that says something else... the beetles in MT are not dying out, and they are expanding beyond their initial invasion zones as their food source dies out. Ecology 101. What this goes to show is that you yet again confuse one kind of phenomenon with another, but I sincerely applaud your effort.

Their numbers are decreasing. Thats a fact. They may spread a little but they are not annhilating trees as they initially did. Nature is bringing them back into check. Slower than the initial explosion, but nonetheless. As I said, they only affect 60 - 150 year old trees, and have no effect (other than paving the way) on the younger trees. The droughts are also not as bad as they were initially. But again, you're using weather to substantiate GW, which is what you said I cannot use to unsubstantiate it. You cannot say they are worse than they've ever been. Droughts have happened throughout all of history. It affects different areas in different ways.