The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Ok, lets assume the poles are getting less sunlight. That would mean the equatorial regions receive more, right? The ocean and wind currents that blow upwards along the Eastern Asia Coast and Western Atlantic Coast carry this very warm, sometimes hot air and water all the way to the poles, even in the deepest of winters. Even if it only changes the average temperature a degree, thats enough energy, in terms of that great mass of water, to melt a substantial amount of ice.

No, a lower obliquity is favorable for having an ice age.

You previously said that the sun shining on the poles would shrink the ice caps. Does it really make any sense that less sun on the poles would have the same effect?

So, if I showed that the energy the Earth is getting from the sun is not extraordinary and the axis of the Earth is currently becoming more perpendicular to the ecliptic, would that be enough to get you to conclude that the sun probably isn't responsible for the increasing global temperatures we've seen in the past several decades?

bkelly

[LordKelvin]

Yes, but you'd also have to show that the Earth hasn't deviated towards the Sun in it's orbit, and that trends in global warming on other planets due to the Sun is somehow not connected to the increase in sunspot activity and therefore applicable to our planet as well.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Yes, but you'd also have to show that the Earth hasn't deviated towards the Sun in it's orbit, and that trends in global warming on other planets due to the Sun is somehow not connected to the increase in sunspot activity and therefore applicable to our planet as well.

Man, we could go on and on and on, and that's why I think all these global warming nutcases are full of it. There are simply too many variable to be able to point at anything and say, "See! That is the cause of global warming!"

Anyone that says that is simply full of crap.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Yes, but you'd also have to show that the Earth hasn't deviated towards the Sun in it's orbit, and that trends in global warming on other planets due to the Sun is somehow not connected to the increase in sunspot activity and therefore applicable to our planet as well.

Wait a minute, this was your objection when I offered to show that the sun was putting out no more energy than in years past, so I instead offered to show the energy the Earth receives has not changed. That would make solar output, sunspots and the Earth's eccentricity moot. Why would I still have to show they are not factors?

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Man, we could go on and on and on, and that's why I think all these global warming nutcases are full of it.

Not at all Cingular. It's pretty easy to show that the sun is not responsible for global warming within a reasonable doubt and it's easier still to just show that the assertion has problems.

You only go on and on and on when you don't care about the answer and just want to stump/frustrate the other side - kinda like a five year old who asks "Why?" to every answer you give.

bkelly

[LordKelvin]

Key word, offered. Show me that this is not the case, and then we can discuss further.

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

No, a lower obliquity is favorable for having an ice age.

If a lower obliquity makes an ice age more likely, then isn't there an upside to global warming?

[LordKelvin]

Every cloud has a silver lining.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Key word, offered. Show me that this is not the case, and then we can discuss further.

I don't understand. I offered to show CO2, solar irradiance and obliquity values. What are you asking me to show "is not the case"?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

If a lower obliquity makes an ice age more likely, then isn't there an upside to global warming?

Sure there is, but the next ice age may not come for another 50,000 years. What do you suggest we do in the meantime?

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by bkelly

I don't understand. I offered to show CO2, solar irradiance and obliquity values. What are you asking me to show "is not the case"?

bkelly

From someone who just compared our forum moderator to a five-year-old, that question seems willfully dense. LordKelvin asked you to stop "offering" the numbers and actually post them.

[LordKelvin]

Yes, thank you. That is what I meant.

As for Ice Age or no Ice Age... An Ice Age would be just as bad as a massive warming of the planet. Actually, even if the Sun has nothing to do with it, the ice cores we have from previous years show that the Earth warms and cools periodically, in smaller intervals during and after Ice Ages. We could, and most likely are, in one of those warming periods. Again, since humans have exerted no change on the atmosphere in terms of greenhouse gases, this is a better explanation than my SUV.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

LordKelvin asked you to stop "offering" the numbers and actually post them.

Then I am glad I asked. My primary interpretation was different.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Yes, thank you. That is what I meant.

Gotcha. And no, not yet, this conversation is currently confusing enough without my numbers.

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Actually, even if the Sun has nothing to do with it, the ice cores we have from previous years show that the Earth warms and cools periodically, in smaller intervals during and after Ice Ages. We could, and most likely are, in one of those warming periods.

Would you be willing to concede that there is a good chance the recent temperature increases are not part of the ~100,000 year glacial cycles if I show:

1) Ice cores show temperatures slowly decreasing over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years.
2) The rate of temperature change we have seen in the last century is an order of magnitude above everything the ice cores show us since the end of the last glacial period (10,000 to 15,000 years ago).


And you didn't answer my questions about what would be required to show that sol probably isn't causing global warming. Since the parameters on which you expressed concern are already factored into the energy measurement, would normal solar irradiance at the Earth and a shrinking axis tilt be enough?

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

bkelly

I read a comment like that and laugh to myself.

It's an interesting trick, but rather lame in any kind of academic context. I know at least one professor who describe what you're offering as a "sleight-of-mind" trick.

If you have data to contribute to the conversation, contribute it. But don't sit there and say that the numbers would make the conversation "too confusing" if you'll only offer them if someone promises to not question global warming once you show them. There are thousands of variables that alter the climate. Whether or not you have a particular dataset for solar output or the tilt of the earth doesn't change the rest of those variables.

You just compared someone in the forums to a five year old who asks "why why why." But seeing you write like this proves to me you aren't interested in discussion...you will only contribute data if people promise to convert beforehand...it's a trick to try and stop debate, not foster it. That's not appropriate in any academic arena, and while I realize the sandbox isn't exactly the academe, it's a pretty pathetic tactic in a thread about science.

I was interested in seeing the data you claim to have but now I realize I wouldn't trust it if we were face to face. Zealots are far more often interested in converting others to their religion than actually sticking to facts. What's the point of discussing science with someone who won't show their facts until you promise to stop all debate? What's the point of having a conversation with someone who would withhold facts until they knew the conversation would go the way they wanted?

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Not at all Cingular. It's pretty easy to show that the sun is not responsible for global warming within a reasonable doubt and it's easier still to just show that the assertion has problems.

You only go on and on and on when you don't care about the answer and just want to stump/frustrate the other side - kinda like a five year old who asks "Why?" to every answer you give.

bkelly

I love it! You went back to talking about the sun! You crack me up...

[LordKelvin]

You have to understand, bkelly, that I am not going to belabor the point about the Sun. Maybe it isn't the Sun. But as of yet, I have yet to see any actual EVIDENCE that the Sun isn't causing it. So until you do present something concrete, I cannot say "I will concede the Sun isn't causing it."