Northwest Passage

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know I'm still waiting for my question to be answered from several pages ago .

Show 3 agw predictions of the last 40 ( and I am even expanding from 30) years that have actually happened that can't be explained by natural forcings.

Throw us a bone. Show us a natural forcing and how it has had more effect than the increase in CO2. This IS harder now, since recent findings suggest that there has not been a comparable natural forcing with the same global effect for at least the last 2000 years. But I know you're up to it.


Reef, I'm going to share your uplifting video with folks in the US and Canadian Arctic. I'm sure they'll be reassured.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You know I'm still waiting for my question to be answered from several pages ago .

Show 3 agw predictions of the last 40 ( and I am even expanding from 30) years that have actually happened that can't be explained by natural forcings.

Its not a hard one .

I agree, it will not be hard. But who is going to be the arbiter of this little contest?

Will you let me? I doubt it.

Will I let you? No way, Jose.

ETA:
And while were at it, let's up the ante.

The loser has to quit posting on this thread.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Throw us a bone. Show us a natural forcing and how it has had more effect than the increase in CO2. This IS harder now, since recent findings suggest that there has not been a comparable natural forcing with the same global effect for at least the last 2000 years. But I know you're up to it.


Reef, I'm going to share your uplifting video with folks in the US and Canadian Arctic. I'm sure they'll be reassured.

first off that's not how this works . I asked for specifics from you please try to keep up and not go round the bush again .

And secondly don't tell me you actually believe all the bull in that piece of Crap .
They didn't provide any proof of anything . The historical records in just about every museum are contrary to that fluff piece.

Provide 3 agw predictions that have actually happened that are not explainable via natural forcings .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

2. Round and round in circles we go. Because it cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment.

You can't prove that the moon attracts water with your bathtub and a shotput ball, yet I suspect you don't think tides are a fiction.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I agree, it will not be hard. But who is going to be the arbiter of this little contest?

Will you let me? I doubt it.

Will I let you? No way, Jose.

in other words you have nothing . If you did you would have posted it in all caps .


Post your agw predictions that have actually come to pass .

I have already provided several of them that have failed and the evidence to support my statements of their failure.

Science will be the decider.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

first off that's not how this works . I asked for specifics from you please try to keep up and not go round the bush again .

And secondly don't tell me you actually believe all the bull in that piece of Crap .
They didn't provide any proof of anything . The historical records in just about every museum are contrary to that fluff piece.



Provide 3 agw predictions that have actually happened that are not explainable via natural forcings .

Being a bit closer to the University of Guelph, and knowing some of the folks at CBC... I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt here, persuasive as you are.

Besides, if you have this much trouble with outlets like that, there's nothing we could cite that you wouldn't dismiss out of hand.

C'mon - a little hint. Give us ONE natural forcing that has been more influential globally than AGW in the last century or two.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Being a bit closer to the University of Guelph, and knowing some of the folks at CBC... I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt here, persuasive as you are.

Besides, if you have this much trouble with outlets like that, there's nothing we could cite that you wouldn't dismiss out of hand.

C'mon - a little hint. Give us ONE natural forcing that has been more influential globally that AGW in the last century or two.

you want one natural ok that's easy mount pinatubo .
Or how about the most active grand solar maximum in over 2k years have happened in the last century.
You said up to 200 years
Specifically I will go 202 years
Mount tambora 1816 year without a summer .

Took all of 15 seconds to type it all up
Next show yours

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you want one natural ok that's easy mount pinatubo .
Or how about the most active grand solar maximum in over 2k years have happened in the last century.
You said up to 200 years
Specifically I will go 202 years
Mount tambora 1816 year without a summer .

Took all of 15 seconds to type it all up
Next show yours

Appreciated.

Of course, the effect of the volcanoes was a brief cooling of up to two years, so they wouldn't be an explanation for warming, I would think.

The grand solar maximum did contribute to warming, no doubt. And it's been over for how long, yet the warming trend is still in evidence?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Appreciated.

Of course, the effect of the volcanoes was a brief cooling of up to two years, so they wouldn't be an explanation for warming, I would think.

The grand solar maximum did contribute to warming, no doubt. And it's been over for how long, yet the warming trend is still in evidence?

actually we are just coming off of it and the ocean being a giant dynamo will take decades to actually cool . Thermodynamics 101.
We have been coming off of the grand solar maximum for the past 15 years considering how small this ( cycle 24 was at its maximum ) . However the ocean will take likely a couple decades to cool down ( they only recently found thermal evidence of the lia in the deep ocean . )
things are cooling now and will continue to do so for some while and the effects will be accelerating as we go deeper into the eddy minimum .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I agree, it will not be hard. But who is going to be the arbiter of this little contest?

Will you let me? I doubt it.

Will I let you? No way, Jose.

ETA:
And while were at it, let's up the ante.

The loser has to quit posting on this thread.

I see you have edited your post and we will miss your postings .

Remember they have to be significant ( all 3 ) and not explainable via natural forcings .

And no increase in co2 by its self is not acceptable . ( to many variables as to cause . )

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in other words you have nothing . If you did you would have posted it in all caps .


Post your agw predictions that have actually come to pass .

I have already provided several of them that have failed and the evidence to support my statements of their failure.

Science will be the decider.

Science provides evidence, people decide. Hence the need for an arbiter agreeable to all parties.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually we are just coming off of it and the ocean being a giant dynamo will take decades to actually cool . Thermodynamics 101.
We have been coming off of the grand solar maximum for the past 15 years considering how small this ( cycle 24 was at its maximum ) . However the ocean will take likely a couple decades to cool down ( they only recently found thermal evidence of the lia in the deep ocean . )
things are cooling now and will continue to do so for some while and the effects will be accelerating as we go deeper into the eddy minimum .

Oh bummer. The ocean is still warming.

Originally Posted by newhaul

And no increase in co2 by its self is not acceptable . ( to many variables as to cause . )

I could accept the "too many variables" if someone could actually point to recent natural sources of CO2 that adequately explain the buildup, with significance that swamps the human component.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh bummer. The ocean is still warming.




I could accept the "too many variables" if someone could actually point to recent natural sources of CO2 that adequately explain the buildup, with significance that swamps the human component.

how about the myriad of natural caused wildfires ? How about the solar warmed ocean co2 out gassing?
Then there are the myriad of volcanic eruptions . ( don't drag out that tires tattered hit piece from forever ago)
it has been established that the recent eruption of mount Raikoke in the Kuril Islands
Erupted for approximately 9 hours wit a plume into the stratosphere .
Emitted as much co2 in that 4 day eruptive phase as the country of Sweden does in a year.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Science provides evidence, people decide. Hence the need for an arbiter agreeable to all parties.

ok who then and not LE or jack I feel that both are heavily biased .as I'm sure they feel I am .

Provide your evidence

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how about the myriad of natural caused wildfires ? How about the solar warmed ocean co2 out gassing?
Then there are the myriad of volcanic eruptions . ( don't drag out that tires tattered hit piece from forever ago)
it has been established that the recent eruption of mount Raikoke in the Kuril Islands
Erupted for approximately 9 hours wit a plume into the stratosphere .
Emitted as much co2 in that 4 day eruptive phase as the country of Sweden does in a year.

This is GREAT. Just quantify the CO2 released in each event, and we will have something to compare with the human-activity component. You're so close to making this case.